Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Pro 2012 32 GB Memory?
- Thread starter 53kyle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And what happens when you install a "Security Update" and you see the big boldy progress bar after restart of your machine? It's a firmware update. Or if your mac needs to restart two times? Or if it makes beep right after installation of a an update and you see the black screen before the mac is re- re-restarting.
I don't believe it's hard coded. It's software.
These modules should work on my opinion. The specs are right and they do fit in technical hardware related terms.
https://www.crucial.de/deu/de/ct2kit204864bf160b
Regards,
Yorh Ekin
Well firmware is hard-coded software, and in the case of Macs they are not openly editable and would need dedicated effort from someone to crack and publish a hardware related change. Assuming the RAM module size limit is indeed only there due to Apple’s intention, then yes in theory those modules can work, but only after you have lift that hard limit.
I have looked into this on the Mac mini 2012, wanting to get 32GB in it for a long time. I think this blog post sums up the situation well:
https://macminicolo.net/blog/files/can-the-mac-mini-be-upgraded-to-32GB-of-RAM.html
“As best we can tell, it is simply software holding it back at this point. In other words, if Apple can find it in their heart to update the MRC (Memory Reference Code) in the firmware of the Mac mini then we could all feed our RAM addiction.”
I've posted the following explanation in the past and until somebody with the proper technical knowledge can correct me, I'll hold to it. Intel CPU's before Skylake supported, if using DDR3, x8 (memory width) RAM. The 16GB DDR3 SODIMM modules that are being sold today are x16. Another way to disprove what I believe is to find other computers which use the same CPU's as the 2012 Macs which used SODIMM which can use the 16GB DDR3 modules. Or, find a pre-Skylake non-Xeon computer which can support 16GB DDR3 SODIMM.
Unfortunately, Amazon co-mingles various different RAM modules in the reviews of CT2KIT204864BF160B (the Crucial 2x16GB kit). But if you search the reviews for "CT2KIT204864BF160B", there are no results. In looking at the few reviews on newegg and B&H Photo, people who say it works have Skylake or later computers, people who tried and it didn't work have pre-Skylake computers.
There were only two original sources that I have found which say that these 16GB modules should work in pre-Skylake computers. One is the macminicolo.net article and the other is some tech support person for some RAM vendor that is cited in several web articles. I don't know why people have placed so much confidence in these two sources.
Unfortunately, Amazon co-mingles various different RAM modules in the reviews of CT2KIT204864BF160B (the Crucial 2x16GB kit). But if you search the reviews for "CT2KIT204864BF160B", there are no results. In looking at the few reviews on newegg and B&H Photo, people who say it works have Skylake or later computers, people who tried and it didn't work have pre-Skylake computers.
There were only two original sources that I have found which say that these 16GB modules should work in pre-Skylake computers. One is the macminicolo.net article and the other is some tech support person for some RAM vendor that is cited in several web articles. I don't know why people have placed so much confidence in these two sources.
I don't know anything about Apple's "intention". I have only observed their own company politics and company philosophy over the past years.
Their "intention" was and still is:
- We have to invent new screws
- We don't want users to open cases, we have to build them as if a computer is meant to be a safe
- We don't want users to replace memory modules
- We don't want users to upgrade their old machines with more RAM and faster SSD drives
- We don't want the user to replace his battery pack if the battery is "kaputt" after 3 years usage
- We don't want users to use their USB accessories
- We don't want photographers to insert SD memory cards
- We don't want users to use CD and DVD anymore
- We don't want the user to use ethernet anymore
- We don't need fans in our computers when it gets hot
Well, the story is endless since Steve Jobs disappeared telling before (honestly) that his own company is like a "sinking ship" and his job was to point the ship into the right direction.
I am not a RAM addict. Apple Safari is the RAM addict in combination with Sparkle Pro+Photoshop+Apple Safari and CleanMyMac tells me. Those hungry RAM addicts want more.
Honestly, 360,- € is quite some price for 16GB of more RAM. In case if it should work. The (product) developer is god and the user has to follow.
Regards,
Yorh Ekin
Ding ding ding...we have a winner
The 4 slot laptops and computers like iMacs can do it...2 slots, won't work. Sorry.
If it worked....hundreds of people on this forum would have done it, would be doing it, and it wouldn't even be a question!
Hundreds? ... Millions and billions ... that's a winner for the RAM chip company. Definitely.
There are some tricks to break the limits of laptop memory on certain chipsets.
On an older generation laptop I found installing 4GB of DDR2 RAM (2GB x2) there was a limit where only 3GB was seen.
However 4GB DDR2 sticks existed which could lead to max of 8GB.
8GB (4GB x2) failed to work on this older chipset.
However I found a trick.
By installing the 4GB DDR2 in slot 1, and a 1GB DDR2 in slot 2 I achieved a 5GB max.
Still beat the 3GB original limit.
This was for a chipset that supposedly was limited to 3GB.
On a proper chipset that supported 8GB it worked fine seeing the entire 8GB (4GB x2) DDR2.
Let's assume this trick can work on DDR3 for Ivy Bridge or Haswell in case Broadwell and SkyLake were the first to officially support this RAM.
16GB DDR3 in slot 1
Test either a 512MB or 1GB DDR3 in slot 2.
If it works step it up to 2GB DDR3 and 4GB DDR3.
Then 8GB DDR3. It's possible you can isolate a max greater than 16GB using this method.
Make sure the lower capacity RAM in slot 2 is slower in speed like PC3-8500.
This will force the 16GB DDR3 to drop down in speed and sometimes this tricks the laptop to work with both memory modules in slower memory speeds.
Now I don't have the "CT2KIT204864BF160B" to perform this test but hopefully you still own them to do some extra tests since the money is already invested.
But also some questions regarding your testing.
Was this done on an Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge chipset?
In theory Sandy Bridge supports 32GB at least done on desktops and I've had this done since 2011.
So whether or not it's done in 2 memory slots vs 4 memory slots is the question why it wouldn't work on a laptop.
Have you tried it on a Haswell or Broadwell laptop chipset?
When installing the single 16GB in slot 1 and slot 2 empty did the laptop turn on?
If so, did turning on the laptop allow you to get into the BIOS and show the 16GB as installed?
Repeat this for single 16GB in slot 1 and 512MB in slot 2 with PC3-8500 memory speeds.
If it powers on and what capacity it shows.
You can also try swapping the slots for the memory placement to see if it changes things.
Also remember to fully insert the ram into each slot as sometimes it's possible the memory is not fully inserted and contacting which can lead to a false result of it powering on but no BIOS or Post but a black screen and sometimes the CPU fan is running.
If you can get the laptop to Post and enter the BIOS and show more than 16GB present even a 16.5GB (16GB + 512MB) showing is positive result.
I know this is a MAC forum but a way to see if the OS is the cause of a laptop not seeing the 32GB you can try using a SATA SSD and install a small 98SE DOS based FAT32 boot partition just to see if it can boot properly. You don't need to install the full 98SE OS which will not work on > 512MB anyhow without modding the setup. You're only making it a bootable 98SE DOS which is less than 1MB in size.
The point is can it boot to 98SE DOS with more than 16.0GB installed and if it does it will confirm that the Mac OS is causing the limitation.
Firmware is software. It's software stored on a chip.
As tested ... 8 GB for two logged in user accounts is by far not enough. 16GB for two logged in users is ok. Three logged in users is getting very tight for 8GB Ram, 16GB is much better.
However 32GB for one active user account on a machine with lots of open applications would be more than welcome.
I tried this "CT204864BF160B" memory stick module on a random laptop (not a mac, was ani7 3rd gen laptop) and it simply didn't work. Black screen boot.
I post this here because I need at least 32 GB of RAM for the kind of work I do like other people here, but can't afford to carry everywhere a heavy 15" laptop.
After some research, I found this forum and also I found that this "CT204864BF160B" is simply not compatible with Sandy Bridge (2nd Gen) and Ivy Bridge (3rd Gen) laptops. The chipsets are simply not programmed to accept this.
The memory density of this RAM module "CT204864BF160B" is simply to high for what the chipset was programmed to handle. This is the same problem when we where at DDR1 and DDR2.
This "CT204864BF160B" is made for a specific purpose/new chipsets (seems to be 5th Gen Intel CPU), and was physically not made for "retro" compatibility in mind with older CPU/Chipsets.
I think that the best thing to do is to throw away those old laptops and get a newer one with DDR4 support. DDR4 laptops can since now handle 32 Gb of RAM even on the 12" because DDR4 specifications, chipsets must handle 16 Gb modules.
In 2013 with DDR3, laptops could not handle 32 Gb because DDR3 is old and the specifications are old, was to handle 8 Gb modules. In 2020, this is possible with DDR4 to handle 16 Gb. So I will get a DDR4 laptop and the problem will be solved
Also, "standard" i7 laptop CPUs are now real 4 cores, not dual cores , so any "standard" i7 12 inches laptop of today (by standard I mean not "Air" ultra-lite junk laptops made for watching Netflix, but more standard 12" pro laptops) is as powerful as the most powerful i7 quad-core of 2012. This was not the case before 2018 with 7th gen of Intel CPUs. With 8th gen and more recent, this is the case.
No reason to stay on old laptops.
I post this here because I need at least 32 GB of RAM for the kind of work I do like other people here, but can't afford to carry everywhere a heavy 15" laptop.
After some research, I found this forum and also I found that this "CT204864BF160B" is simply not compatible with Sandy Bridge (2nd Gen) and Ivy Bridge (3rd Gen) laptops. The chipsets are simply not programmed to accept this.
The memory density of this RAM module "CT204864BF160B" is simply to high for what the chipset was programmed to handle. This is the same problem when we where at DDR1 and DDR2.
This "CT204864BF160B" is made for a specific purpose/new chipsets (seems to be 5th Gen Intel CPU), and was physically not made for "retro" compatibility in mind with older CPU/Chipsets.
I think that the best thing to do is to throw away those old laptops and get a newer one with DDR4 support. DDR4 laptops can since now handle 32 Gb of RAM even on the 12" because DDR4 specifications, chipsets must handle 16 Gb modules.
In 2013 with DDR3, laptops could not handle 32 Gb because DDR3 is old and the specifications are old, was to handle 8 Gb modules. In 2020, this is possible with DDR4 to handle 16 Gb. So I will get a DDR4 laptop and the problem will be solved
Also, "standard" i7 laptop CPUs are now real 4 cores, not dual cores , so any "standard" i7 12 inches laptop of today (by standard I mean not "Air" ultra-lite junk laptops made for watching Netflix, but more standard 12" pro laptops) is as powerful as the most powerful i7 quad-core of 2012. This was not the case before 2018 with 7th gen of Intel CPUs. With 8th gen and more recent, this is the case.
No reason to stay on old laptops.
Last edited:
Thanks for trying this, hopefully this is the end of all the speculation in this thread.
Can we stop beating this dead horse? At this point, I think we've all tried it. You need a 4 slot machine to do 32GB. 8GB per slot.
You tried it with the latest and greatest firmware?? Don't be shy tell us your results. You need 2 x 16GB btw. 16GB per slot.
So, has someone figured this out yet ? It will be nice to use 32GB in a 2012 non-retina Macbook Pro.
For 16GB modules to be recognized I thought it must have the EFI / firmware rewritten? Apple surely didn't and won't do it. Over the years only the Mac Pro classic received enough interest and need from hobbyist to flash custom firmware due to nature of the machine and further the hackintosh scene.