fastest mem for mid 2011 27" Imac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by SuperMiguel, Nov 5, 2011.

  1. SuperMiguel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    #1
    What's the fastest mem speed an imac will suppor? Apples support site says pc3-1333 10600
     
  2. Ice Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Ice Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #2
    Faster memory such as Kingston HyperX 1866MHz is said to help the Mac Mini because the base and server model have the integrated graphics and faster memory supposedly improves the quality.

    I would just get 16 GB of 1333MHz or 32 if you can afford it since the Sandy Bridge processor will support that amount.
     
  3. SuperMiguel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    #3
    The imac supports 32gb???
     
  4. robbie12345 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Location:
    United States
    #4
    yes it does apple won't tell you that because if you want a 32gb machine they would rather sell you mac pro but yes it does the real question is though if it supports 64gb does anyone no if it supports 16gb ram modules???
     
  5. The-Pro, Nov 6, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011

    The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #5
    Intel states max supported memory is 32GB. So I guess it doesn't support 64GB. The MacBook Pro i7 (2670QM (2.4GHZ)) apparently supports up to 32GB aswell, so 16GB modules might work in the MBP!
    cant find any information on google that 16GB laptop RAM modules even exist though.
     
  6. robbie12345 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    the thing is is why did apple make the mbp's this year faster then the iMacs, i no that non are faster then my 27 i7 1tb hd 256gb sad but still if they had a sad and the maxed out 2.5ghz they are maybe 10 percent behind and then they can support the same ram and i heard they support up to 1800mhz ram swell why would apple do that to a laptop and not a desktop
     
  7. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #7
    iMacs are significantly cheaper than the MacBook Pros. and even a base iMac is more than enough power for like a 70% (rough guess) of the users out there.
    Limitations are due to the hardware, not what apple wants. They all ready limit configurations to 8GB max on the MBP, 750GB max (1TB are available) so that people go for an iMac if more is needed.
    Lots of people buy a MacBook Pro as a desktop replacement and they pay the premium for it. They need the power on the go so apple offers that option so that people don't buy other manufacturers product when they need more power in a portable.
     
  8. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #9
    Apple didn't do anything. Intel built chips that are crushing the older stuff. Tech is all about buyers remorse. For example my 6-core was the fastest chip for like 1.25 years. No longer, but it had a good run. The i7-2600 has been out almost a year and it is/was the fastest consumer chip it will be beat real quick here with the i7-2700 and Ivy Bridge. It''s just a cycle and the laptops JUST went quad core and SB which gets them base model Mac Pro speeds and a 6Gb HD connect and a 40-50% gain on previous models. It's a great time to get a Mac if you previously had a Core 2 Duo or similar. You can't have bragging rights forever.
     
  9. robbie12345 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Location:
    United States
    #10
    yeh but evn before the new iMacs came out in early 2011 when the mbp's came out my question would just be in comparison before i guess when they were comparable, 2.0ghz i7 thats much more powerful then an 3.1ghz i5 on the iMac i guess when you think of it the iMac wins with a faster graphics card and 27inch beautiful display but clearly one is a laptop and a laptop should never beat a desktop anytime with cpu
     
  10. iMarvin macrumors 6502

    iMarvin

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Location:
    On the internet!
    #11
    The 2.0 Ghz i7 of the MacBook is not faster than the 3.1 Ghz i5 of the iMac, the only difference is that i7 supports hyper-threading.
     
  11. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #12
    yes and hyper threading is what makes it quicker. the 2.0 Ghz i7 beats the i5 in benchmarks because of hyperthreading
     
  12. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #13
    Yes. It is faster. But only by 5-10% on multithreaded apps. The i5 is most likely faster on single threads because of it's higher clock speed at turbo (2.9GHz vs. 3.4GHz+).
    The iMac i5 is not faster at anything on the Macbook Pro's with 2.3GHz+ Processors as they clock higher than 3.4GHz on single threads up to 3.6GHz (Quad 2.5 i7).
    (2.3GHz=3.4GHz, 2.4GHz=3.5GHz, 2.5GHz=3.6GHz)
     
  13. iMarvin macrumors 6502

    iMarvin

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Location:
    On the internet!
  14. SuperMiguel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
  15. SuperMiguel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
  16. The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #17
    yep looks pretty good

    ----------

    well depends if you need a total of 20GB or not. I personally would take more ram over RAM that is like a couple percent faster, a difference you wont notice.
     
  17. johnhw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    #18
    I think 16GB RAM modules only exist for ECC RAM (a.k.a. Mac Pro RAM). Since an iMac has 4 slots you could fit 4x8GB sticks to get 32GB (Very expensive though, $150 for each stick).
     
  18. SuperMiguel, Nov 7, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2011

    SuperMiguel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    #19
    wondering if its worth it to get 32gb on it
     
  19. SuperMiguel thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    #20
    i think ima get 2x8gb and keep my current 2x4gb on it... and upgrade later if needed
     

Share This Page