Late 2011 mbp: 16gb ram?

Hexley

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2009
971
52
I have a 2.8 GHz (2640M) Intel Core i7 13-inch MBP. Has anyone tried installing 16GB onto theirs and did it boot properly?

Intel says it can but Apple doesn't indicate this.
 

Ant.honey

macrumors regular
Oct 14, 2008
190
1
New York City
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

You can. I do.
 

Ice Dragon

macrumors 6502a
Jun 16, 2009
984
20
Even the early 2011 MBP could take 16 GB of RAM. There was a site selling two 8 GB Samsung modules for 376 Euro or around 560 dollars.
 

nicfargo

macrumors member
Dec 23, 2008
50
0
Nebraska

Adamantoise

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2011
891
112
It's possible, but I'd rather have an SSD before bothering with additional RAM that I will not use.

Some people have legitimate reasons to have that much RAM, but majority of people just want it for bragging rights.

I mean, if you need 16GB RAM chances are you also need a more powerful machine than a 13" Macbook Pro lol.
 

Tonewheel

macrumors 6502a
Sep 28, 2007
856
193
Can anyone definitively confirm that the computer can actually access and make use of anything over 8GB??
 

Mr. Retrofire

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2010
5,040
469
www.emiliana.cl/en
I have a 2.8 GHz (2640M) Intel Core i7 13-inch MBP. Has anyone tried installing 16GB onto theirs and did it boot properly?

Intel says it can but Apple doesn't indicate this.
Intel updated the spec:
http://ark.intel.com/products/53464/Intel-Core-i7-2640M-Processor-(4M-Cache-2_80-GHz)

But Apple needs more time.

I recommend Samsung RAM. It helps, if you buy it from a dealer, which can guarantee Mac compatibility (many do this). 1600 MHz and 1866 MHz versions, compared to the standard 1333 MHz version are a waste of money (probably not with Ivy Bridge, next year).
 

Mr. Retrofire

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2010
5,040
469
www.emiliana.cl/en
$299 bucks. Used to be a lot more. Getting closer and closer to being a reasonable upgrade for me.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233217&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Memory+(Notebook+Memory)-_-Corsair-_-20233217

This might not work in the 13''. Looks like this runs at 1.5v, which the 17'' will run, but the 13'' looks like it tops out at 1.35v. Who knows though, right? Some guy got it working in a 15'' which has the same limitations at the 13''.
I do not know Apples EFI configuration in the 13", 15" and 17" MBPs, but i think all 2nd generation (Sandy Bridge) Core iX (X=5 or 7) processors have the same memory controller and support therefore 16 GB RAM.
 

DoctorOwl

macrumors newbie
Oct 10, 2009
28
0
16GB looks very useful to me for virtualisation; I'd love to see benchmarks showing any difference on an SSD-enabled machine.
 

dlimes13

macrumors 6502a
May 3, 2011
744
13
Perrysburg, OH
I am running 16GB on my 15 inch, works flawlessly. 16GB will work on Sandy Bridge, no problem. Price is good now too for $147.99/8GB stick or $289.99 for the 16GB kit. I paid $100 more 2 weeks ago!
 

DoctorOwl

macrumors newbie
Oct 10, 2009
28
0

GermanyChris

macrumors 601
Jul 3, 2011
4,185
2
Here
It's possible, but I'd rather have an SSD before bothering with additional RAM that I will not use.

Some people have legitimate reasons to have that much RAM, but majority of people just want it for bragging rights.

I mean, if you need 16GB RAM chances are you also need a more powerful machine than a 13" Macbook Pro lol.
How does this make sense?

because I don't have a graphics card the processor is not powerful?

If I start to play even with a small image in CS5 it will go through all my 8GB..

Through a virtual Machine on there and you've gone over..

edit a bit in iMovie gone over ..

do any of these things at the same time, it's slowville..

people own 13" computes for portability and power not because we don't do any real work..
 

DoctorOwl

macrumors newbie
Oct 10, 2009
28
0
If I start to play even with a small image in CS5 it will go through all my 8GB..
Yep, 8GB+ is really important for any VM.

people own 13" computes for portability and power not because we don't do any real work..
I have the 13" C2D and I don't think any VM will run well on it even with SSD and 8GB+, because it's CPU-bound. I'm not sure if the current i5/i7 is much better in that regard; you'd probably need the quad-core 15".
 

squeakr

macrumors 68000
Apr 22, 2010
1,603
1
Yep, 8GB+ is really important for any VM.

I have the 13" C2D and I don't think any VM will run well on it even with SSD and 8GB+, because it's CPU-bound. I'm not sure if the current i5/i7 is much better in that regard; you'd probably need the quad-core 15".

Not true at all. I run several VMs everyday and none of them are over 2 GB dedicated to them. I run several together to simulate a lab condition (we're talking Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7 or Windows XP together while running Lion or running Windows Server 2003 and Windows 7 or Windows XP together with Lion, once even ran Both Servers 2008 and 2003 with Windows 7 and Lion all running concurrently). This has all been done with only 8GB and the system was complete slowville in the last instance. Looking for 16GB upgrade for myself for sure.

Also I used to run 1 VM (Windows 7 or XP) and SL without issue on a 2.4 C2D with 8GB without issues (in fact ran better than my work desktop did).

Need to check out that link, thanks.
 

GermanyChris

macrumors 601
Jul 3, 2011
4,185
2
Here
Yep, 8GB+ is really important for any VM.



I have the 13" C2D and I don't think any VM will run well on it even with SSD and 8GB+, because it's CPU-bound. I'm not sure if the current i5/i7 is much better in that regard; you'd probably need the quad-core 15".
My VM's run in essence the same C2D and Core i5 becuase I fed them the RAM they need..

it's honestly astonishing the amount of RAM some programs need..
 

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,904
483
My VM's run in essence the same C2D and Core i5 becuase I fed them the RAM they need..

it's honestly astonishing the amount of RAM some programs need..
A VM is not a program but a whole other machine, so it needs the amount of a RAM such a machine would have.
 

DoctorOwl

macrumors newbie
Oct 10, 2009
28
0
Also I used to run 1 VM (Windows 7 or XP) and SL without issue on a 2.4 C2D with 8GB without issues (in fact ran better than my work desktop did).
Every time I hear this I'm surprised. My 2.26 C2D can't do it; with Parallels 6 (now 7) and whether allocating 2-4GB on an 8GB machine, Windows 7 with SQL Server and Visual Studio inside is too slow to be usable.
 

GermanyChris

macrumors 601
Jul 3, 2011
4,185
2
Here
Every time I hear this I'm surprised. My 2.26 C2D can't do it; with Parallels 6 (now 7) and whether allocating 2-4GB on an 8GB machine, Windows 7 with SQL Server and Visual Studio inside is too slow to be usable.
I think the problem is SQL server..I just run the basics, to insure the websites I author display under windows and Linux..