Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Downsides:

  • Image file used for sleep is larger (file size same as memory size)
  • Longer sleep/wake times (since image has to be written/read)
  • Longer boot times because of memory test.
  • Costs money

The bottleneck for video will most likely be the dual core processor.

+ uses a little more power, no matter how little it is this is still true.
 
That's what Apple states, but it's simply not true.

[url=http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/3893/lfsc.png]Image[/URL]

Hmmm are you saying my 13" early 2011 will take 1600 but run it at 1333 or will it run it at 1600?

In general I'd expect you to be able to fit higher-speed memory and it run at the lower bus speed, but if running at the lower bus speed you obviously have 1333-speed memory. Interesting that ATM reports the memory speed of the modules if that is the case.

Or this could be a difference in early- to late- 2011 and/or a difference in 13"-15"...
 
According to folks in this thread it might be luck of the draw. Those with quad core i7 CPUs are reporting full speed. It appears to be hit and miss with the 13-inch models.

But according to the discussions on the link, there were logic board variations for the same model (3gbps SATA on the optical link vs. 6gbps on the models released later in the year). Could it be that the later released models support 1600mhz speeds and the earlier ones don't?
 
Could it be that the later released models support 1600mhz speeds and the earlier ones don't?

There are two official model versions for 2011 (early and late), coupled with other 13/15/17" model differences and any potential under-the-cover changes Apple may have made (or their suppliers), I just think it is impossible to extrapolate from "1600 memory works in my machine" to "2011 models support 1600 memory"...
 
There are two official model versions for 2011 (early and late), coupled with other 13/15/17" model differences and any potential under-the-cover changes Apple may have made (or their suppliers), I just think it is impossible to extrapolate from "1600 memory works in my machine" to "2011 models support 1600 memory"...

I have Kingston Hyperx 1600 in my early '11 13". About this Mac shows 1333 but GB decent memory improvements. The stuff costs about the same so get the faster.
 
Question: Is there any way to force my mid 2010 to use 1333Mhz memory as it seems to only like 1067Mhz memory right now?

If all I do is surf the web and iTunes, will I even notice a speed increase? (4GB installed running Mavericks) You see, I'd love to upgrade machine, but it runs fine. I still have the tiny stock 250GB HD installed as well.
 
I have a similar MacBook Pro to the original poster. I just upgraded it from 4 GB to 16 GB. It is great be able to run Xcode, Word, and Windows 8 under parallels with a 6 GB of memory at the same time.

I also replaced the rotational drive with a 480 GB SSD. The end result of this combination is that this thing screams.

I'm looking to do exactly this. I do a lot of video editing, and while my mbp is pretty fast... nothing will compare to when I upgrade to a SSD and switch from 4gb to 8gb.

The only question is... is it worth the extra cash to go 16gb? Like I said I do a lot of video editing and photoshop... do you think 8gb ram and a SSD would be the best route?
 
Question: Is there any way to force my mid 2010 to use 1333Mhz memory as it seems to only like 1067Mhz memory right now?

If all I do is surf the web and iTunes, will I even notice a speed increase? (4GB installed running Mavericks) You see, I'd love to upgrade machine, but it runs fine. I still have the tiny stock 250GB HD installed as well.

You'd notice an increase in performance if you increased the amount of RAM installed, if and only if you ever run out of RAM in the first place. As far as 1333MHz vs 1067MHz? Not a chance, only artificial benchmarks would see a difference.
 
You'd notice an increase in performance if you increased the amount of RAM installed, if and only if you ever run out of RAM in the first place. As far as 1333MHz vs 1067MHz? Not a chance, only artificial benchmarks would see a difference.

So basically if I don't need it, I wouldn't notice.

You see, my MBP is serving me well and there's no need to replace it, so that's why I'm considering memory and or hard drive (SSDs are out of my budget at the moment).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.