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

Kingston 1600, 8GB, MacBook Pro

MacsOnAnabolics

MacsOnAnabolics

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 31, 2009
215
0
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
I have heard lots of discussion here recently about how the 2011 MacBook Pro will support 8GB RAM @ 1600MHz. Now, I am interested in purchasing an 8GB kit for my new 2011 MBP.

From my readings on this forum I understand that model #1: KHX1600C9S3K2/8G has been confirm to run at 1600MHz on the 2011 MBP.

Unfortunately newegg.com is "out of stock" on this item. They do however, have another 1600MHz kit model #2: KHX1600C9S3P1K2/8G which is "in stock."

I was wondering if anyone knows of any differences they have compared to each other, if any. Can anyone confirm that model #2 will work on the current 2011 MBP at 1600MHz.

Thank you for any and all help! :)
 
Well, first of all, which MacBook Pro model do you have? The 1600MHz RAM will run at full speed only on models with 2.2 and 2.3GHz quad i7 processors.
 
gorskiegangsta said:
Well, first of all, which MacBook Pro model do you have? The 1600MHz RAM will run at full speed only on models with 2.2 and 2.3GHz quad i7 processors.
Click to expand...

I have the second set that sell for 110.99 in my MBP (see sig). It works fine in mine. You don't need the quad core to run at full speed. Kingston has tested and confirm for it to work. See their website at the bottom of tested systems.

http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/pnp/default.asp
 
Apple Expert said:
You don't need the quad core to run at full speed.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. Although the system recognizes the RAM at a higher bandwidth it doesn't mean it actually runs it at a higher bandwidth.
Benchmark it with Geekbench and you'll see. Check out my benchmark screenshot with stock 2011 MBP RAM (4GB @1333MHz) below. The 1600MHz RAM should perform marginally higher at stream: bandwidth performance (if it is indeed running at full speed).
Apple Expert said:
Kingston has tested and confirm for it to work. See their website at the bottom of tested systems.

http://www.kingston.com/hyperx/pnp/default.asp
Click to expand...

This is a spec sheet from Intel. Only two top i7 models that are in 2011 MBPs (2820QM [4x 2.3ghz] and 2720QM [4x 2.2ghz]) are able to run 1600MHz RAM (at 25.6 GB/s) all others run only up to 1333MHz (at 21.3 GB/s)
 

Attachments

  • Geekbench (32-bit) 4GB DDR3 @1333MHz.png
    Geekbench (32-bit) 4GB DDR3 @1333MHz.png
    73.5 KB · Views: 152
Last edited:
I guess I'll just order model #2 with next day air and hope for the best. Ill definitely get back to this thread and let you know if this model does indeed run at 1600MHz as well.
 
gorskiegangsta said:
Yes you do. Although the system recognizes the RAM at a higher bandwidth it doesn't mean it actually runs it at a higher bandwidth.
Benchmark it with Geekbench and you'll see. Check out my benchmark screenshot with stock 2011 MBP RAM (4GB @1333MHz) below. The 1600MHz RAM should perform marginally higher at stream: bandwidth performance (if it is indeed running at full speed).


This is a spec sheet from Intel. Only two top i7 models that are in 2011 MBPs (2820QM [4x 2.3ghz] and 2720QM [4x 2.2ghz]) are able to run 1600MHz RAM (at 25.6 GB/s) all others run only up to 1333MHz (at 21.3 GB/s)
Click to expand...

So your saying that my 13" i5 isn't taking full advantage of the memory speed? What should the speed look like?
 
Here are my results.

Stock Configuration (Samsung 1333) - 5941
G. Skill (8GB 1333) - 6023
Kingston HyperX (8GB 1600) - 6155
 

Attachments

  • samsung.png
    samsung.png
    32.5 KB · Views: 101
  • gskill.png
    gskill.png
    33.4 KB · Views: 97
  • kingston.png
    kingston.png
    32.1 KB · Views: 98
Then why are the memory benchmarks higher with the 1600? If the cpu can't take advantage of the extra speed, it should be very similar and not about 500 points difference.
 
Apple Expert said:
Then why are the memory benchmarks higher with the 1600? If the cpu can't take advantage of the extra speed, it should be very similar and not about 500 points difference.
Click to expand...

5724/5418
vs.
5680/5109 (avg. of 5431/5005, 5865/5011, 5742/5311)

is a difference of 44/309 points, which is not that significant (it even happens among 1333mhz memories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back