Macbook RAM question?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by powerbuddy, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. powerbuddy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    #1
    I have done some research here in the forums about 3 gb vs 4 gb ram installation in the C2D Macbook. I have a gig and currently facing over thousands of page-outs so time for new RAM for me , to mention I will also be running parallels. So I have narrowed down my options to two choices-:

    1) 3 gb (2X1,1X1) - This looks like a good choice, but I am worried about the dual channel mode? Some people say the dual channel mode will be disabled and the RAM will be running slower than it deserved. Also, the Intel GMA gfx performance will take a hit. I still have to see any benchmark supporting or refuting this claim! Btw, I don't play any games or use any graphics heavy app, as i prefer to fire up my 360 for that! :D

    2) 4 gb(2X2) Matched - This looks good also but I am thinking of the waste of 700 mb it will be as the system will recognize only 3.3 gb. I know some people had luck recognizing it to 4 gb but I am in no mood or have the money to play Russian Roulette! :p

    Now, I am not looking for some exhilarating performance in exchange for loads of ca$h in my hand, just mainly looking at the Cost Benefit Ratio. Which option is better in that term?
     
  2. WhiteChrome macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    #2
    i think that upgrading to 2gb will be plenty, you wont lose the dual channel feature and it will speed up your computer quite a bit depending on what you use the laptop for.
     
  3. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #3
    It depends how you use the machine, but if you use programs like Photoshop that can exploit 3 Gb RAM the benefit of more RAM outweighs the loss of Dual Channel (6% - 8% loss). Then the step to 4 Gb adds back the 6% - 8% advantage of dual channel at the .

    If you're not doing motion graphics and gaming, the fact that the integrated graphics is 6% - 8% slower is mostly immaterial.
     
  4. Twyntub macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    #4
    When I upgraded my wife's HP laptop (OK, OK, it's got the same GMA 950 graphics... :p ) from 512/1024 to 1024/1024 the Vista experience rating changed as follows.

    Before: 2.3 - 512MB / 1024MB
    CPU: 4.7
    RAM: 4.5
    Graphics: 2.3
    3D Gaming: 3.0
    Primary HD: 4.8

    After: 3.1 - 1024MB / 1024MB
    CPU: 4.7
    RAM: 4.5
    Graphics: 3.2
    3D Gaming: 3.1

    Primary HD: 4.8

    So, it may only be a few % but could make a useful jump depending on use. Interestingly - RAM rating remained unchanged.
     

Share This Page