Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does anyone actually have an MBP with 6GB of RAM?
- Thread starter mgpg89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good question. Has barefeats, arstechnica or macworld done any benchtesting? Gizmodo makes reference to an article by Ramjet that says the macbook 'screams' with 6 gigs of ram, but I haven't seen any actual benchtesting.
Good God, the 4 gig stick is $640 at ramjet; the screams may be coming from people wanting to buy the frakkin' thing. If Snow Leopard let's us go to eight gigs, that would be cool. If the price comes down in 6 months or a year, that would be cooler. If the increase would make a noticeable difference in real world computing, better yet.
But for now, I'm going to wait.
Good God, the 4 gig stick is $640 at ramjet; the screams may be coming from people wanting to buy the frakkin' thing. If Snow Leopard let's us go to eight gigs, that would be cool. If the price comes down in 6 months or a year, that would be cooler. If the increase would make a noticeable difference in real world computing, better yet.
But for now, I'm going to wait.
hmm, i read somewhere that putting over 4 GB of RAM on any computer isn't doing that much, unless your doing really high end work.
i also looked at some chart a ways back where they tested out some programs on a mac pro, and all of the applications were running the same speed after 3 GB of RAM.
this was a while ago, so if you can prove me wrong, i'd gladly take a look at any links providing so.
i also looked at some chart a ways back where they tested out some programs on a mac pro, and all of the applications were running the same speed after 3 GB of RAM.
this was a while ago, so if you can prove me wrong, i'd gladly take a look at any links providing so.
I do. There are two types of performance increases. The first doesn't apply to a lot of folks -- it's simply that I can load larger data sets simultaneously for analysis (science stuff).
The second benefit is much more surprising -- in daily tasks that most people might do, such as encoding video, compiling code, and running a bunch of programs like Safari, Adium, etc. the number of page outs (writes to VM) are considerably lower when I have 6 GB versus 4 GB, irrespective of the total amount of memory I use. It essentially gives OS X and programs the headroom it needs to be efficient with memory and not have to write to the disk.
The second benefit is much more surprising -- in daily tasks that most people might do, such as encoding video, compiling code, and running a bunch of programs like Safari, Adium, etc. the number of page outs (writes to VM) are considerably lower when I have 6 GB versus 4 GB, irrespective of the total amount of memory I use. It essentially gives OS X and programs the headroom it needs to be efficient with memory and not have to write to the disk.
The boost is only valid in circumstances with multiple extremely large files in Photoshop or running multiple VMs.
If you're just asking about a performance boost, any gain would be decreased by the loss of dual channel.
This is more to the point, although the actual effect of the loss of dual channel has been lost on me thus far. Any idea of a good test to address that specifically?
I hve an early 08 MBP (17" 2,ghz) and 6gb works beautifully. Very usefull to me as I always have Paralles on (using 1gb+ram) plus photoshop, illustrator as well as itunes, safari and misc. 6gb makes everything sanppiers as there are less writes to the HDD. I bought a 4gb dimm at newegg for $150