Sorry, I meant in two slots.
MacBook Pro 2012 32 GB Memory?
- Thread starter 53kyle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, I meant in two slots.
MacInTO
macrumors 65816
Yes, I know it doesn't work as do many other people. I was being facetious.
brdeveloper
macrumors 68030
https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Single-PC3L-12800-SODIMM-CT204864BF160B/dp/B0123BRIDK
Nothing like the future.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Yep, I gladly admit to being wrong on this account. I didn't really expect this product to get to the market, especially since its few years too late to be of relevance (not at that price point, at any rate). Anyway, AFAIK these high-density SODIMMs will only work with never Intel CPUs so it really changes nothing for the 2012 MBP owners.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Henry 3 Dogg
macrumors member
Run 2 virtual machines, one running Windows Server with 8GB RAM the other running Solaris with 8GB RAM, each running a debug version of a service (under a debugger) and then debug a Mac Application which is relying on services from those 2 servers.
32GB might be enough.
It's just what I happen to be doing just at the moment, and My Macbook is paging.
Though to be honest, with 2 x 2TB Samsung EVO 850s, it pages quite quickly.
Last edited:
Would be interesting to see some benchmarks with different RAM configurations in this scenario. If you are in a situation where you really need to use 32GB of RAM, you will get an awful lot of cache misses in the first place, which will already kill the performance.
angelofarina
macrumors newbie
I see that 75% of the messages on this thread are of people trolling about two facts:
1) 16Gb DD3 Sodimm chips will never exist.
2) You don't really need 32 Gb RAM, so stick with your 16 Gb
Now, 1) is not true anymore, as these 2x16Gb Sodimm memories are easily available at reasonable prices. I mean "reasonable" considering that the most common upgrade to these Unibody Macbook Pro machines is the installation of large SSDs, such as 2x2Tb Samsung EVO 850, or a single 4TB SSD. An upgrade which is definitely highly recommended, I did it on my one, and now I have a MBP much more powerful than the latest Retina model, which is capped to 1TB of SSD space, and no Raid.
Regarding 2), no one should be allowed to troll and criticize the way each user employs his own machine. For some people, using something different from a Laptop is simply unfeasible. And there are scientists (like me) running Matlab and other "big data" processing programs, which would be really happy of 128 Gb RAM, or even more...
So please, stop wasting your and my time asking why one needs more memory, simply assume that it is a legitimate question to ask if it is possible to upgrade the memory of our Mid-2012 (or even Late 2011) good, old MBPs.
Do these new memory modules work on our systems? Has anyone actually tried? This is the only relevant question, and I would like to see the answer of someone who really tested this configuration.
1) 16Gb DD3 Sodimm chips will never exist.
2) You don't really need 32 Gb RAM, so stick with your 16 Gb
Now, 1) is not true anymore, as these 2x16Gb Sodimm memories are easily available at reasonable prices. I mean "reasonable" considering that the most common upgrade to these Unibody Macbook Pro machines is the installation of large SSDs, such as 2x2Tb Samsung EVO 850, or a single 4TB SSD. An upgrade which is definitely highly recommended, I did it on my one, and now I have a MBP much more powerful than the latest Retina model, which is capped to 1TB of SSD space, and no Raid.
Regarding 2), no one should be allowed to troll and criticize the way each user employs his own machine. For some people, using something different from a Laptop is simply unfeasible. And there are scientists (like me) running Matlab and other "big data" processing programs, which would be really happy of 128 Gb RAM, or even more...
So please, stop wasting your and my time asking why one needs more memory, simply assume that it is a legitimate question to ask if it is possible to upgrade the memory of our Mid-2012 (or even Late 2011) good, old MBPs.
Do these new memory modules work on our systems? Has anyone actually tried? This is the only relevant question, and I would like to see the answer of someone who really tested this configuration.
No, they won't work. Essentially 1) is correct in the sense that no high-density DDR3 modules exists. One has managed to create 15Gb DDR3 SO-DIMMS by stacking DRAM modules, but the CPUs in the Macs that use slotted RAM won't support it.
Did I test it? No, because it is well known that such configurations don't work and its documented explicitly both by Intel and by the RAM manufacturer.
As a data scientist, my stance on this is that if you really need 16GB+ RAM, the MBP is most likely the wrong computer for you. If you work with something that RAM-intensive then you also need faster CPUs etc. — which basically means a desktop. Better yet, use a supercomputer (as you should). It has been pointed multiple times that the MBP is a computer which strives to achieve balanced design rather then catering to niche applications like these.
Ertem
macrumors newbie
Not true, Crucial is making one (Crucial 32GB Kit (16GBx2) DDR3L 1600 MT/s (PC3L-12800) SODIMM Memory CT2KIT204864BF160B) here is the link at Amazon
My question is if it would work? Intel's website says Intel® Core™ i7-3615QM Processor
(6M Cache, up to 3.30 GHz) would support up to 32 GB. This is what I have on my macbook pro.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You're quoting a mid 2013 post to tell me it wasn't true, and then linking to a 2016 page on Amazon, why?
Now we have 16GB 204-pin SODIMMs perhaps someone could investigate further, but this post by twmemphis about Memory Reference Code (MRC), gives us an idea of some of the challenges involved.
It appears that Intel did not support 8Gb DRAM chips until Ivy Bridge-E in 2013 and therefore the support would not have been present in the CPU used in the mid 2012 MBP.
From Intel: Mobile 3rd Gen Intel® Core™ Processor Family: Datasheet - Volume 1 (refer page 14)
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
This amazon review on the Crucial CT2KIT204864BF160B 32GB kit might help some people:
From PC World: Want 32GB of RAM in your laptop or NUC? You can finally do it
It appears that you need a Broadwell (5th gen) mobile cpu or later to support these 16GB SODIMMs.
From PC World: Want 32GB of RAM in your laptop or NUC? You can finally do it
It appears that you need a Broadwell (5th gen) mobile cpu or later to support these 16GB SODIMMs.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
soundman_KS
macrumors newbie
I know this post is old, but I discovered it just today, so want to clarify - I just helped a musician friend with a 2011 MBP. Installed 1TB SSD and 16GB of RAM. Apple's Mainstage 3, with the instruments he needs for a worship band requires 48GB of RAM to run. It'll take a loaded Mac Pro to handle what he needs. Apple MBP models have been terribly behind the times, with regard to storage and memory. I'm running an HP ZBook with 32GB of RAM, and dual M.2 SSDs - street price, just over $1,200. It's important to note that just because most of us don't need 64GB of RAM, there are many out there that push a computer far harder than others.
Then either the software is programmed extremely inefficiently or your fried is using a completely wrong tool for the job. With a dual-channel memory controller, it would take a CPU over two seconds to transfer 48GB data from RAM — which is millennia in computer terms. Not to mention that random access to such large working data set will kill your cache and thus destroy the CPU performance. Most likely the software is just blindly loading all its data into RAM, simply because the programmers were too lazy to implement proper resource management.
Most ZBook models are workstations, designed with very specific purpose in mind. I suppose you are talking about 15" G3 or G4? Those are 40% heavier and around 100% larger (volume). So sure, you'd be able to fit much more stuff in them. Which shouldn't be too surprising. HP mobile workstations have been more performant and more expandable since they were first released (around a decade ago if I remember correctly).
yorhekin
macrumors newbie
Crucial 32GB Kit (16GBx2) DDR3L 1600 MT/s (PC3L-12800) SODIMM Memory CT2KIT204864BF160B
https://www.nemixram.com/ms12800-628lk02-sy260.html
Has anyone tried these ones with a MBP mid 2012 on OS X Sierra?
https://www.nemixram.com/ms12800-628lk02-sy260.html
Has anyone tried these ones with a MBP mid 2012 on OS X Sierra?
Last edited:
With all due respect you need to learn about pro audio and music performance on Macs for sampled instrument usage. Nothing to do with inefficiently programmed software. Apple hasn't seen itself as a tool for heavy lifting in certain pro environments in a long time. Their poor support of higher RAM than 16GB, including the Gen 3 Mac Pro, which was their response to the professional need, that started getting cobwebbed almost the day it was released in 2013, and became an abandoned, lackluster looking option soon after, is well established, as is the fact that 16GB is simply not the most anyone could need out of a laptop. I look forward to the Gen 4 Mac Pro for a less limited Mac, but given their track record since IOS began ruling the company there's no guarantee they'll stick with that one either. They made their choice of the direction of the company and it's obviously worked out great for them, but the days of the audio and video people being told by Steve Jobs that what they think they need isn't what they need, and that Apple will tell them what they need, is long gone.
yorhekin
macrumors newbie
The only thing I have noticed so far. I was using a MacbookPro mid 2012 with a standard configuration
4GB RAM
500 GB HDD
The OS X Sierra was poorly slow. Especially when you create there user accounts.
I upgraded the RAM to 8GB on the machine. The performance was better but the RAM was not enough.
I upgraded to 16GB RAM where Apple says, it's not possible.
However, 16GB RAM are suitable and recommended for Macs to run a machine with several user accounts and if you change
the HDD to an SSD or SSHD in combination with RAM upgrades. It's much better and the system is
thankful with 16GB if you use multiple user accounts on one machine.
Samuelsan2001
macrumors 604
8gb and an ssd would have been far more useful than 16gb and a hdd.
[doublepost=1539875832][/doublepost]
The 2013 Mac Pro took 128gb of EEC ram and so does the iMac Pro and they both use high multi core Xeon cpus (up to 18 cores on the iMac Pro). Apple make the tools for the job you just don’t want to use them.
In my attempt at using only a few sentences to respond to the 16GB RAM issue I was a bit hazy on the point I wanted to make : ) so I apologize for that. The problem with the Mac Pro is, aside from it having ports and a CPU from 2013, is that it's the ONLY option for more than 16GB for performance or any rig that doesn't stay in one place, which is the iMac's specialty. There are some good reasons why a laptop is the right tool for remotes or tours (no road cases required, very little setup/breakdown time) and there are times when you can do fine with a MBP and don't need the expense and expandability of an upgrade to a Mac Pro but you just need more than 16 GB of RAM. I'm an Apple fan always (on it all day, rarely on Windows) but Apple botched the 2013 MP by overpricing it and then not touching it for going on five years, as Intel has upgraded from its old Xeon, what, four or five times? When the price dropped last year they should have done *something* to make it more attractive as a purchase of an older computer, but it's as if they wanted to punish anyone on the MP team and not speak of it. Even at current pricing it's not a great alternative for someone who really *just* wants more RAM in their computer : )
I wouldn't expect them to compete with PC hardware manufacturers because they are (aside from being focused on the wildly successful IOS ecosystem, somewhat to the detriment of other departments) responsible for the OS, which PC makers are not, and they can not only offer more options but have much shorter cycles so they can be an entire generation of CPUs ahead of Apple at any given time. But there are certain niches, and I feel the larger RAM capacity laptops of both medium power and great power, that have been plentiful in the field for a long time, to be one of them, that Apple gives a pass on, mostly due to their obsession with smaller/lighter/thinner. I only own Apple hardware, but even as I do my opinion is that they have a few real gaps in their offerings. Like I said, they are so profitable (not from Macs, so it's not as if it matters that much to them) that they can continue with the same approach to their offerings as they always have, but end users aren't as on board about the tail wagging the dog any more.
Anyway!! : ) All I really wanted to say was that there are loads of people using more than 16GB in their laptops, and it's not because of badly designed software, as was implied, or that they could actually do what they need with 16.
Samuelsan2001
macrumors 604
Well you can now get 32gb DDR4 in the 15 inch pro which Seems perfectly acceptable with a fast ssd to me.
brdeveloper
macrumors 68030
Boring topic... appearantly, not even a single person on the entire internet has tried to boot a 2012 non-retina Macbook with 2x16GB DDR3 RAM sticks. We have just speculation if 32GB RAM is supported on 2012 user-serviceable Macs.
KingCornWallis
macrumors member
I agree, and I am sick of this mentality. In fact, it is my inspiration. I am buying a 2x16 pack tonight and will post all my findings across the web. I will also be posting my results from using 2133MHz RAM, as there is almost equally as much misinformation there too.
KingCornWallis
macrumors member
I agree in theory 100%. Unfortunately, while I do trust Intels website specifications above all others, it still stands to show that not a single person has tried and documented it. I will be trying it and posting to YouTube so these questions will have an answer based on experience.
KingCornWallis, I fully support your idea of testing 32GB memory on a laptop in practice! (Not in theory).
Please, keep us informed. Please send a video link about a practical experiment on your YouTube channel.
ideally it would be great to try 16GB * 2
a) different manufacturers
b) different frequencies
Since there are 2 types of theoretical limitations.
I consider the example of a macbook about 17"-inch processor model 2.5Ghz (on turbo 3.6Ghz) 2860QM (late 2011).
1. Intel manufacturer states maximum DDR3 1066/1333/1600 MHz (but max 32GB RAM)
(source: https://ark.intel.com/products/53476/Intel-Core-i7-2860QM-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3-60-GHz- )
2. Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller says:
"...only goes up to 1600 megahertz in speed, but Apple uses 2133MHz RAM".
(source: https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram/ )
1 + 2
It turns out the ideal configuration would be the memory (for info from Phil Schiller) is LPDDR3E (not LPDDR3 and not LPDDR3L and, of course, not standard DDR3).
(The differences between DDR3, DDR3L, LPDDR3 article: https://blogs.synopsys.com/committedtomemory/2014/01/10/when-is-lpddr3-not-lpddr3-when-its-ddr3l/
and photo: http://blogs.synopsys.com/committedtomemory/files/2014/01/DDR3-DDR3L-LPDDR3-Comparison.jpg )
Summary.
First of all we have to check:
32GB (16GB * 2) on SO-DIMM 67.6mm x 30mm (1.18 inch), 204-pin, PC3 LPDDR3E 2133 MHz type of RAM.
But it seems to me that such a "cool" memory does not exist at the moment of 09.01.2019 (according to my research).
My searches lead to DDR3L 32GB (16GB * 2) (1.35-1.5v.) And 1867 MHz memory types.
Now we have to choose the manufacturer.
Thank You for Your attention!
I look forward to further development of the issue!
Last edited: