New cMBP, HD 4000 384mb with 10GB RAM

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by The-Pro, Jun 19, 2013.

  1. The-Pro, Jun 19, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013

    The-Pro macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #1
    Hi people

    just received my new cMBP 15" Hi-Res antiglare 2.6GHz as a replacement for my 2010 15" AG 2.66.

    I just put a 8GB Crucial 1600MHz RAM stick in along side one of the 2GB chips.
    However its reporting that the HD 4000 only has 384MB. I thought it jumps to 512MB with more then 4GB RAM??
    All 10GB are recognised correctly

    Is this normal?


    Thanks in advance
     
  2. weemanpow3 macrumors 6502

    weemanpow3

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #2
    Since you have two different size memory chips, your computer is running in single channel thus your CPU cannot benefit from dual channel.
     
  3. The-Pro, Jun 19, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2013

    The-Pro thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #3
    Yeah that I know, but is that the reason why there isnt any more RAM allocated to the HD 4000?? Why would it need dual channel for more Graphics memory?
     
  4. someguy50 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #4
    Maybe because you have a dedicated GPU it doesn't need to allocate more? Anything that would require more would trigger your dGPU?
     
  5. weemanpow3 macrumors 6502

    weemanpow3

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #5
    hmmm... I just checked my 'About This Mac' and mine also says 384 MB. I could have sworn it was 512 MB at one point.

    I just did a quick search and it seems it was an apple update that changed it. We now need 16 GB ram to see 512 MB on the CPU.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1494623
     
  6. The-Pro thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #6
    Cheers :)

    that makes sense now. its a pitty but whatever.
    Atleast I know why.

    thanks
     
  7. Yahooligan macrumors 6502a

    Yahooligan

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    I have 16GB and mine still shows 384MB for the iGPU.

    I'm not sure why you care? You have a discrete GPU, I'd much rather keep more memory for the OS and run off the discrete GPU than lose memory to the iGPU which is a POS and I don't use anyway. :D

    EDIT: My 15" early-2013 rMBP with 16GB shows 512MB.

    Graphics switching is disabled on both.
     
  8. The-Pro thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #8
    hmm weird. Apple certainly changed something with that update I read about in the other thread.

    Its not that I really care. It was just that this MBP is brand new (all ready has a small scratch in it because I was hit on the shoulder by a family member when putting the screws back in after exchanging HDD and RAM so I slipped of the screw :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( ) and I just dont want anything to be wrong with it.
    If I were the only one not reporting 512 then obviously something is up. It was just a curiosity thing :)
    Yeh it is better that more RAM is available for the system. But then 10GB is enough for me :D

    With the Retina MBP that makes sense since it needs more available for the higher resolution screen. The 13" retina allocates 768MB (or around that) from what i've read since it doesn't have a discrete GPU.


    On a side note, I noticed the 500GB harddrive I pulled from the new MBP was from a brand names HGST, never heard of them, you?, and it was just 7mm thick. Didn't think apple would use the 7mm since there is no point.
     
  9. Yahooligan macrumors 6502a

    Yahooligan

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    HGST is Hitachi, been around for quite a while. :) They seem to be better these days, there was a period of time where they had a habit of failing often.
     
  10. someguy50 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    #10
    HGST is hitachi, a very large HDD manufacturer
     
  11. The-Pro thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #11
    OHHHHHHHH
    hahaha
    I have heaps of hitachi drives, but they all say HITACHI on them. haha
    But yeah, that drive is so thin. Thinner then my samsung 470series SSD :O
     
  12. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #12
    HGST was Hitachi. ;)

    There was so little profit margin left in the HDD business that they consolidated. Hitachi sold their storage division to Western Digital. Samsung sold theirs to Seagate.
    HGST just means Hitachi Global Storage Technology. So it is basically a former part of Hitachi and now WD.
     
  13. The-Pro thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #13
    Now it makes sense.
    So all samsung drives are now actually seagate?
     
  14. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #14
    I would assume that the Samsung HDD division sold along with some of the factories. The research team will still be doing stuff and just work coordinated together with Seagate people. They just continue to use the brands as they are well known. Eventually though it will just be as it is in the car industry with some rather arbitrary name on the outside and the same engine underneath.
    I think the current Samsungs are still all Samsung tech wise but the next gen may already be a spawn of the new bigger team.
    Eventually they will kill the Samsung brand too. Maxtor was completely killed.
    HGST might also eventually die or become some budget brand as WD seems fond of their simple blue, green, red segmentations.

    Now with SSD rising quickly the HDD market just isn't really big enough or growing enough for too many players. That is what happens in all industries. A lot of competition at the beginning. Eventually nobody makes a big profit anymore and the slightly bigger or more serious contenders will be the only ones left. For Hitachi and Samsung both their HDD division was a small little rather unimportant part in their empire that doesn't produce too much profit. WD and Seagate are primarily HDD companies. They cannot grow much but they can fight for more market share.
     
  15. The-Pro thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    You know a lot :D
    All very interesting, thank you
    Your quite right, HDD market is shrinking rapidly. It'll be interesting to see what happens with seagate and WD since neither of them really produce SSD's. Seagate just started with the 600 SSD and WD only has one model too I think.
     

Share This Page