MacBook Pro 2GB Vs 3GB?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by saxondale., Jun 22, 2007.

  1. saxondale. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Location:
    England/China
    #1
  2. eyebeaz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    #2
    Well are you maxing out your RAM right now with 2GB? Do you have a lot of page outs? If not you probably won't see any performance gain.
     
  3. yadmonkey macrumors 65816

    yadmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Western Spiral
    #3
    I think the performance gain will be marginal since you are losing the dual-channel memory addressing, unless maybe you're doing something massively memory intensive.
     
  4. NewSc2 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #4
    I ugpraded from 1gb to 3gb on my 2.16C2D and to be honest I don't notice that much of a difference. There is some, but it's slight. I don't think the 2gb to 3gb (getting rid of a 1gb stick, losing dual channel) upgrade is worth it.
     
  5. negatv1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    MI
    #5
    Depends what your are doing. I find 3gb RAM great when running Parallels for example. It allows me to dedicate more ram to the virtual machine, which makes things smoother.

    In general, if you aren't pushing 2gb, then 3gb isn't going to suddenly make every operation faster.

    However, for the price these days... why not?
     
  6. yadmonkey macrumors 65816

    yadmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Western Spiral
    #6
    I think that if you're not pushing the memory, then theoretically there could be a performance loss in certain functions since the uneven amounts of memory lose the dual-channel addressing.
     
  7. mikehokie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Fairfax, Virginia
    #7
    It's a lot of money to spend for a marginal performance boost. So don't do it.
     
  8. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #8
    If you want to, wait a bit more and if they get cheaper buy 2. You will still have dual channel and 3.3GB to boot.
     
  9. mikehokie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Fairfax, Virginia
    #9
    Or buy the new SR MBP and use dual channel w/ 4 GB :)
     
  10. negatv1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    MI
    #10
    2GB $110 @ OWC. Not a lot of money. A year ago you couldn't find a 2GB sodimm for less than several hundred dollars.

    Might be time to buy a second for that 'lost' performance that my mismatched sized RAM is causing me. :rolleyes:
     
  11. eyebeaz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    #11
    The point is.. why all that RAM unless you are going to be using it. Simply having more RAM will not provide a speed boost unless the current amount of RAM for the OP isn't sufficient.
     
  12. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #12
    On a related note... there are two RAM slots, is there a preferred one to put the 2 GB module into?
     
  13. saxondale. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Location:
    England/China
    #13
    Sorry to revive this old thread but i'm thinking about it again. Since i'm obviously losing dual channel, how about 2 x 2gb even though it'll only recognize 3gb? Will dual channel still work?
     
  14. Markov macrumors 6502

    Markov

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #14
    If you have two sticks of 2GB memory that are exactly alike, dual channel mode will work and Leopard will see all four gigs. Now you mention will it only recognize 3GB, you must be talking about Windows XP and it's irritating restriction of RAM? If so, I have heard people running XP just fine with 4 GB of RAM, but it will only literally see 3.98GB (which is normal).

    I'm not sure exactly how much XP is capable of, 3 or 4 GB. Apparently no one knows for sure, and no one seems to try because no one can ever give a straight answer on XP's RAM limit. But to answer your question, yes, Leopard will see all 4 gigs and dual channel will work.
     
  15. raymondu999 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #15
    Allow me to shed some light. Vista and XP, in their 32-bit incarnations, can see 2.98GB. the 64-bit versions(which is like 90% incompatible or something) can see and access 4GB.
    Now, the original Core Duo MBP, can take in 2GB. The pre-SR Core2Duo one (like his 2.33 unit) will use 3GB if 3GB is plugged in, but due to hardware limitations, if you plug in 4GB, it can't use it fully. However, since putting it at 2+2 is dual channel, it still has a bit of a boost compared to 1+2, and it will recognise 3.3GB RAM. The SR ones and above can recognize, hardware-wise, up to 8GB of RAM, but Apple restricts that from the software to be able to use only 4GB.
     
  16. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #16
    I get close to 2-3 GB on my paging even with 4GB Physical memory. :p

    If its cheaper, just get 2x2GB. Otherwise, get one 2GB stick. Your system only supports upto 3GB if I remember correctly.
     
  17. yadmonkey macrumors 65816

    yadmonkey

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Western Spiral
    #17
    Macsales.com posted some revealing benchmarks. Seems that the advantage of dual-channeled 3GB (2x2GB) is negligible over 1GB+2GB, except for in the "RAM Hog" tests. Furthermore, 3GB single-channeled showed quite the improvement over 2GB dual-channeled in most tests.
     
  18. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #18
    Since RAM is cheap these days, you can get 2x2GB and get a dual channel.
     
  19. bntz313 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    #19
    I have the same 2.33ghz MBP and I upgraded to 3gb ram. I noticed a difference, I'll have Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, FontExplorerX with, itunes, Safari, mail, and have a couple other windows open all at the same time and it's fast. I work with 300dpi+ images also. if you are doing alot on your mbp then I say go for it.
     
  20. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #20
    i upgraded my old 2.33 to 3gb and didnt notice much, unless i had a lot of things open, VM Ware Fusion especially. according to some benchmarks i ran i was a bit slower than with 2gb. just marginally.

    in retrospect i still would have upgraded. RAM is cheap these days.
     
  21. Jookbox macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    #21
    i did this upgrade today and i noticed a difference. i typically have any combo of adobe apps running including after effects. it was a worthy upgrade. 40 bucks or so on amazon.
     

Share This Page