Did Crucial just bait and switch me?

[smdonnel]

I could have sworn I purchased the CT10559857 RAM cause I remember typing "559857" but today in the mail I got CT16G4S24AM.

I The technical specs look the same. And every time I check compatibility on the crucial site with the new iMac its says its compatible, but also switches all the info to the CT10559857.

Am I cool with the CT16G4S24AM? Will it work? And is it the same product with a different name?

 

[MC6800]

Most likely it's a functional equivalent, but interesting that Crucial themselves say it isn't 100% recommended.

 

[Buxley]

For some reason, the number listed on the website and the packaged number, as you noticed, are different. There's a thread on their forums that talks about this.

Best thing is to go to this page:

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct16g4s24am


and check for compatibility with your system.


One question though... did you order just one, or did you order a pair? The RAM is meant to be installed in pairs.

I'd check with Crucial about this, if you're still concerned.

 

[smdonnel]

Yes I did buy a pair. And when I run the thing at the bottom of the page to see if it's compatible it then switches the RAM I am checking to the other part number. Just weird.

For some reason, the number listed on the website and the packaged number, as you noticed, are different. There's a thread on their forums that talks about this.

Best thing is to go to this page:

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct16g4s24am


and check for compatibility with your system.


One question though... did you order just one, or did you order a pair? The RAM is meant to be installed in pairs.

I'd check with Crucial about this, if you're still concerned.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Yes I did buy a pair. And when I run the thing at the bottom of the page to see if it's compatible it then switches the RAM I am checking to the other part number. Just weird.

I suspect the only difference between the "for Mac" and the regular part with the same specs is the "for Mac" label and possibly the price and stock availability (in spite of what they say about testing). See posts to this thread from Arctic Moose.

I've been using 2x16GB of Crucial Ballistix Sport LT RAM for a month now with my 2017 iMac with no issues whatsoever. Note that Crucial lists it as Incompatible with the 2017 iMac on their website.

 

[smdonnel]

That's what I was thinking. Just posted it hoping nobody would chime in saying "NEVER USE THAT RAM!!!!"
Been using Crucial for a long time and never had any problem with any chips I've bought before. So Ill toss these in when the Machine shows up. Thanks everyone.

I suspect the only difference between the "for Mac" and the regular part with the same specs is the "for Mac" label and possibly the price and stock availability (in spite of what they say about testing). See posts to this thread from Arctic Moose.

I've been using 2x16GB of Crucial Ballistix Sport LT RAM for a month now with my 2017 iMac with no issues whatsoever. Note that Crucial lists it as Incompatible with the 2017 iMac on their website.

 

[EugW]

OP, it is the same RAM. Don’t worry about it.

I suspect the only difference between the "for Mac" and the regular part with the same specs is the "for Mac" label and possibly the price and stock availability (in spite of what they say about testing). See posts to this thread from Arctic Moose.

I've been using 2x16GB of Crucial Ballistix Sport LT RAM for a month now with my 2017 iMac with no issues whatsoever. Note that Crucial lists it as Incompatible with the 2017 iMac on their website.

The Ballistix Sport RAM has different specs. While it seems to work fine, I can understand why they would not list it as compatible. No guarantees. Apple machines tend to be very, very picky so occasionally faster RAM like yours can cause compatibility issues, esp in combination with the stock RAM.

 

[SaSaSushi]

The Ballistix Sport RAM has different specs. While it seems to work fine, I can understand why they would not list it as compatible. No guarantees. Apple machines tend to be very, very picky so occasionally faster RAM like yours can cause compatibility issues, esp in combination with the stock RAM.

My point being that Crucial also lists the exact same spec'd RAM that the OP was asking about (and you agree is the same) as incompatible.

I was aware of the possibilities of problems with the Ballistix due to its slightly faster CL and am well aware of the iMac's historic finickiness with RAM.

The general consensus seems to be that at least with the 2017 iMac it seems to be safe to go with any Crucial (or other quality brand) RAM of the proper specs and you definitely don't need to worry about Crucial not putting a "for Mac" label on it.

 

[cynics]

My point being that Crucial also lists the exact same spec'd RAM that the OP was asking about (and you agree is the same) as incompatible.

I was aware of the possibilities of problems with the Ballistix due to its slightly faster CL and am well aware of the iMac's historic finickiness with RAM.

The general consensus seems to be that at least with the 2017 iMac it seems to be safe to go with any Crucial (or other quality brand) RAM of the proper specs and you definitely don't need to worry about Crucial not putting a "for Mac" label on it.

Its likely using the industry standard profile. With no access to overclocking or selectable higher performance profiles I would assume its not offering anything more than their "For Mac" ram. Anyway to log RAM temps? Its 1.35volt but I would assume it would default to 1.2volt out of the box.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Its likely using the industry standard profile. With no access to overclocking or selectable higher performance profiles I would assume its not offering anything more than their "For Mac" ram. Anyway to log RAM temps? Its 1.35volt but I would assume it would default to 1.2volt out of the box.

Yes, it is operating at 1.2V. As far as temperature, I don't know about logging but these are the current temps: