Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

6gb or 8gb ram new 13" macbook alum?

R

rockos

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 27, 2007
91
1
sorry if this has been asked before....

but with the new 17" macbookpro supporting upto 8gb of ram....

what about the new 13" macbook. i am looking at getting a new macbook to replace my 2.0 gb blackbook that is two years old.

i see right now 4gb is all you can get as a bto.....as well as a 320gb hd...but i see you can get a 500 gb hd for 100 bucks from newegg....what about memory...will it support and see 6gb or 8gb. i dont want a 15" it is too big for me when traveling.

thanks guys
 
rockos said:
sorry if this has been asked before....

but with the new 17" macbookpro supporting upto 8gb of ram....

what about the new 13" macbook. i am looking at getting a new macbook to replace my 2.0 gb blackbook that is two years old.

i see right now 4gb is all you can get as a bto.....as well as a 320gb hd...but i see you can get a 500 gb hd for 100 bucks from newegg....what about memory...will it support and see 6gb or 8gb. i dont want a 15" it is too big for me when traveling.

thanks guys
Click to expand...

Hard drive, yes.

RAM, no, at least not now, and probably not ever because there's only 2 slots for RAM (2 x 2GB chips).
 
JLatte said:
Hard drive, yes.

RAM, no, at least not now, and probably not ever because there's only 2 slots for RAM (2 x 2GB chips).
Click to expand...

Ram no, the mainboard only supports up to 2 Gb , and its DDR 3 so there IS bigger than 2Gb a slot possible.......( ive seen 6Gb+ Desktop ...)

I Don't know abozut the MBP does thatone have more than 2 slots?
 
so it will support and utilize 6gb?

a 4gb and 2gb?


or will only support 4gb
 
It can use 6GB (4GB + 2GB). It cannot use 8GB (4GB + 4GB) because after using up 4GB ram, OSX decides to throw stuff into swap for no apparent reason. No one knows why.
 
Above two posters are correct. MacBook and 15" MacBook Pro firmware starts going a tad haywire above 6GB RAM and even on some tests its reported even 6GB RAM has given odd problems. My advice would be to keep it at its "official" maximum of 4.
 
I beleive its a firmware thing that can be updated as time goes on correct? say......snow leopard could allow support up to 8GB?
 
NT1440 said:
I beleive its a firmware thing that can be updated as time goes on correct? say......snow leopard could allow support up to 8GB?
Click to expand...

In theory, unless the problem lies in a physical conflict somewhere along the line... but hardware isn't my strong point I'm afraid sorry.
 
It's possible, but practically too expensive. I doubt many people use more than the stock 2GB anyways, unless you're running lots of VMs. I have 4GB in my WhiteBook and it's plenty.
 
I read in Macworld that 6 is the max, and 8 causes it to go nuts.

Personally I found 2 to be optimum for porn playback.
 
ayeying said:
It can use 6GB (4GB + 2GB). It cannot use 8GB (4GB + 4GB) because after using up 4GB ram, OSX decides to throw stuff into swap for no apparent reason. No one knows why.
Click to expand...

It's not really an "OS X" issue per se though, is it? I mean, the MacPro and Macbook Pro's can handle >4GB. Its something to do with either how OS X is configured in the Macbook installation, or a firmware/Mobo driver type issue.
 
So far the commonly accepted thing is that nVidia chipset can support 8GB RAM and that OS X can recognize 8GB easily without a problem. The most logical reason for OS X throwing itself into a fit when 8GB are starting to be used unofficially is because the way the firmware/drivers for the chipset are configured.

Apple could have easily held off that capacity from the MacBook and 15" MacBook Pro with a firmware tweak and allow the nVidia firmware to allow OS X to access without a hitch 8GB in the new 17" MacBook Pro.


That's the common thought basically because all MacBook use the same hardware except processor wise.
 
NT1440 said:
I beleive its a firmware thing that can be updated as time goes on correct? say......snow leopard could allow support up to 8GB?
Click to expand...

It would be a firmware upgrade, which may or may not be possible. Has nothing to do with Snow Leopard. Leopard supports 8 or 16 GB just fine (as proved by the MacPros); it is the hardware that has the problem.

At the moment, a MacBook with 2 x 4 GB just misbehaves badly. There would be a possibility that even with a firmware upgrade, the MacBook might be able to handle the 2 x 4 GB chips, but would only use 7 GB or 7 1/4 GB; same as some older MacBooks that can handle 2 x 2 GB chips but use only 3 1/4 GB. So this is only relevant when the 4 GB chips come seriously down in price, lets say twice a 2 GB chip.
 
gnasher729 said:
It would be a firmware upgrade, which may or may not be possible. Has nothing to do with Snow Leopard. Leopard supports 8 or 16 GB just fine (as proved by the MacPros); it is the hardware that has the problem.

At the moment, a MacBook with 2 x 4 GB just misbehaves badly. There would be a possibility that even with a firmware upgrade, the MacBook might be able to handle the 2 x 4 GB chips, but would only use 7 GB or 7 1/4 GB; same as some older MacBooks that can handle 2 x 2 GB chips but use only 3 1/4 GB. So this is only relevant when the 4 GB chips come seriously down in price, lets say twice a 2 GB chip.
Click to expand...

The issue you're mentioning with only recognizing 3.25GB wasn't due to the same limitations. That was a limit of the was the 32bit CPU was setup I believe. All the C2D's now are 64-bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back