Resolved A little scare - (Clumsily) Putting Ram in the Late 2011 MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by r0k, Oct 1, 2012.

  1. r0k macrumors 68040

    r0k

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Detroit
    #1
    I picked up a late 2011 MBP and it came with 4 GB of RAM. The MicroCenter guys went and brought me an 8 GB kit which I put in on the second day I had the machine. Then I started reading online about how Apple "recommends" 8 GB but people are having good results with 16. So I stopped by MC and picked up 16 GB of Centon DDR3 1333 RAM. I've been busy so I just got around to installing it tonight. And that's where the scare begins.

    I was "too lazy" to flip the machine around so I could see the socket. What could go wrong, I thought. Yeah, right. I found that the memory was all the way in, tilted down toward the front of my machine but not really making any electrical connections. I wondered why Apple would design it like this? You can insert a stick of memory and if you aren't watching closely, it gets "jammed" inside your machine? So I went and found a small ty-wrap and fished it underneath the memory and pulled it out slowly. It was in there about has solid as a hydromatic transmission gets bolted to a big block engine. Once I had it out, I flipped my MBP around so I could see the socket, PROPERLY SEATED THE RAM and pivoted it into place. Now there was a whole 1/8 inch above the RAM. I added the second stick, turned on the machine and waited for the notification that only one stick was working or that I had damaged something during my prying to get the first stick out.

    Happily all is well and while my geekbench scores have dropped 30 points or so, I find that Chrome with 30 tabs loads in under 10 seconds. And I haven't gotten around to any kind of hybrid SSD or full SSD upgrade yet.

    Scary but worth it. I'm posting this as a warning to others. Why screw up if it can't serve as a warning to others? If you install RAM in a 15 in MBP, make sure the bottom stick is seated before you snap it in or you'll be looking for a way to pry it back out and seat it properly. :eek:
     
  2. macuser1232 macrumors 6502a

    macuser1232

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
  3. r0k thread starter macrumors 68040

    r0k

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Detroit
    #3
    My results vary from 10851 to 10988. Today I've been as high as 10952. Not too shabby when you consider my previous Mac was a 2008 Macbook that cruised in the mid 3200's.

    I've been looking at the iPhone 5 benchmarks coming in around 1600 while my lowly iPhone 4 scores in the mid 300's. Perhaps it's time for one of those as well.

    I think once I get my hands on an SSD, this thing will scream. I just need to wait a few months. I think the priority right now is the iPhone 5 (so I can pass my 4 on to my daughter whose 3GS is giving her fits and she isn't eligible for an upgrade 'till 2013.) I was running a hybrid SSD in the Macbook. I don't think I'll bother with that on here. I think I'll go for the Crucial M4 either 256 if I can slim down my data a bit (from my present 180 GB) or 512 if the price slips down just a little bit more.
     
  4. macuser1232 macrumors 6502a

    macuser1232

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    #4
    Damn. On my early 2011 MBP with i5 2.3ghz and 8gb of ram I get 6500. And that's using 64 bit mode.
     
  5. r0k, Oct 1, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012

    r0k thread starter macrumors 68040

    r0k

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Detroit
    #5
    I didn't pay for geekbench. Try the 32 bit test. I get the impression the 64 bit scores run a little lower. Also going to 4 cores gives quite a bump because the geekbench test is cpu intensive.
     
  6. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    #6
    Adding ram isn't going to make chrome tabs open faster. But good to know you're continuously running useless geek bench tests to justify your upgrade.
     
  7. macuser1232 macrumors 6502a

    macuser1232

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    #7
    Yes, I've also tried the 32-bit and I only get 6000

    ----------

    It's the processor and graphics card that matter right?
     
  8. r0k thread starter macrumors 68040

    r0k

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Detroit
    #8
    Actually the geekbench results would tend to say I made a mistake. I ran them to see if it made a difference but whatever they are doing is more cpu than memory intensive, hence the score improved going from the stock 4GB to 8GB but did not improve going from 8GB to 16GB. I don't mind one bit because I've never seen Chrome with 30+ tabs open and be ready to go in under 10 seconds until I popped 16 GB in my MBP.

    Why did you use the word "useless" to refer to geekbench results? I find them to be a very reliable indication of how a machine will respond when I need it to do something. Sure, I'm not always folding proteins (or whatever it is that geekbench runs to test the cpu) but a machine that is faster folding proteins will be faster doing something I do care about like finding faces in iPhoto or transcoding video.
     

Share This Page