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

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by rockos, Jan 8, 2009.

  1. rockos macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    #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
     
  2. JLatte macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    #2
    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).
     
  3. finnschi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    #3
    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?
     
  4. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #4
    you can technically do 6GB in the new macbooks. but, I believe that 4GB DDR3 chips go for between $400 and $500. so...

    link
     
  5. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #5
    make that $600 - $800 for the ones the Macbook can take.
     
  6. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #6
    i linked to the one that the macbook takes. $500.
     
  7. therealdt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Location:
    northeast region
    #7
    do you think you'll ever use more than 4 in a Macbook? I say if you're using that much a Macbook isn't enough for your needs.
     
  8. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #8
    Ram is supported upto 6GB. 8GB fails like the previous tests.
     
  9. rockos thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    #9
    so it will support and utilize 6gb?

    a 4gb and 2gb?


    or will only support 4gb
     
  10. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
  11. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Skeletal-dæmon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    #12
    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.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    I beleive its a firmware thing that can be updated as time goes on correct? say......snow leopard could allow support up to 8GB?
     
  14. Skeletal-dæmon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  15. morrisman1 macrumors 6502

    #15
    i would suspect that the new 17" MBP will be shipping with either 10.5.7 or a different build of 10.5.6, either way it will be altered to cope with 8gb of ram. somebody could have checked the build number at one of the hands-on sessions
     
  16. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #16
    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.
     
  17. leftnotracks macrumors newbie

    leftnotracks

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Bupkus macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    #18
    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.
     
  19. leftnotracks macrumors newbie

    leftnotracks

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    #19
    Sure if you're just running Finder, Safari, and VLC. But I gotta keep iTunes and Transmission going, too.
     
  20. leftnotracks macrumors newbie

    leftnotracks

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    #20
  21. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #21
    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.
     
  22. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #22
    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.
     
  23. iaymnu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    #23
    Utorrent is better imo even if it is beta for mac
     
  24. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #24
    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.
     
  25. NewMacbookPlz macrumors 68040

    NewMacbookPlz

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page