Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rMBP Soldered RAM faster and more efficient than Removable RAM?

R

renosausage

macrumors regular
Original poster
Sep 22, 2012
158
0
I've read a lot of posts about how the lack of removable RAM is a deal breaker from getting the rMBP.

I can remember reading an article that went into detail about Apple's decision to use soldered RAM.

Supposedly the soldered RAM makes a better connection and allows the RAM to be used to its fullest capacity.

I don't know if this is true or not.

I want to know if anyone has heard of this before?
 
I've heard similar claims though I don't think the speed difference is all that noticeable for most real world applications.

I think its more of a cost issue on Apple's part, not to improve the performance of the MBP
 
Connectors introduce signal integrity issues. If you don't need to worry about a wide variety third part RAM or connectors, you can design closer to the edge (you have more control over the RAM chips). So soldering in RAM allows you to push the performance envelope. In Apples case I think it was more about reducing space, however.
 
Yes. But I'll take the option of going up to 16Gigs of owner replaceable memory over 8 gigs of soldered on memory.
 
Count Blah said:
If it means I can use off the shelf components to upgrade my machine as usage evolves? Heck yeah.
Click to expand...

You seem to be in the minority here, hope Apple doesn't take your advice..... as I wouldn't want to sacrifice the significant portability improvement. :) Never used my old upgradable MacPro, just too heavy and clunky to carry.

Glad we have choices.
 
Count Blah said:
If it means I can use off the shelf components to upgrade my machine as usage evolves? Heck yeah.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

Having the option to do something and simply choosing not to is always greater than not having the option because someone else chose for you
 
thehustleman said:
Agreed!

Having the option to do something and simply choosing not to is always greater than not having the option because someone else chose for you
Click to expand...

yup yup, you hear Apple kind of hide behind the "all flash architecture" argument with the retina but I suspect that the real reason is a bit more sinister (for the consumer at least)

I'd gladly trade this speed bump for the ability to choose and install my own RAM.
 
No visible improved perfomance by doing that.

But they can make thinner laptops with soldered-on RAM.
 
swerve147 said:
Here is the article:

http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRetina2012-speed-memory-bandwidth.html

I agree with maflynn that you probably won't see a difference in real-world applications. Probably done, as already stated, for space reduction and cost savings. It definitely doesn't hurt that benchmarking performance improves dramatically, though.
Click to expand...

They did not tells about memory latency (CAS and so on). So if one have DDR3 1600 CL 11 current and an other runs DDR 1600 CL9, there will be a small difference.
I agree no one will ever see a difference without benchmark.
 
renosausage said:
I've read a lot of posts about how the lack of removable RAM is a deal breaker from getting the rMBP.

I can remember reading an article that went into detail about Apple's decision to use soldered RAM.

Supposedly the soldered RAM makes a better connection and allows the RAM to be used to its fullest capacity.

I don't know if this is true or not.

I want to know if anyone has heard of this before?
Click to expand...

It's simply not true. I don't know where you read that nonsense,but i highly suggest you that you skip that place.
 
A7ibaba said:
It's simply not true. I don't know where you read that nonsense,but i highly suggest you that you skip that place.
Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with you on this:

2ivfofr.png


This data is pretty convincing

----------
jafingi said:
No visible improved perfomance by doing that.

But they can make thinner laptops with soldered-on RAM.
Click to expand...

"If nothing else, you must tip your hat to Apple for this, that is an incredible job of matching memory to memory controller, and setting the CPU to properly utilize the memory. You will NEVER see this on a computer that supports DIMMs, it is not possible."

This came from Adam W, ASIC design engineer
 
ColdCase said:
You seem to be in the minority here, hope Apple doesn't take your advice..... as I wouldn't want to sacrifice the significant portability improvement. :) Never used my old upgradable MacPro, just too heavy and clunky to carry.

Glad we have choices.
Click to expand...

I"m glad we have choices now as well. But the writing is on the wall right now. The choice will be taken away soon enough, and we will be forced to go your way or the highway.

Yea choices!!!! Boo being forced to max out your machine day 1!!!!
 
Count Blah said:
I"m glad we have choices now as well. But the writing is on the wall right now. The choice will be taken away soon enough, and we will be forced to go your way or the highway.

Yea choices!!!! Boo being forced to max out your machine day 1!!!!
Click to expand...

Of course they're going to force the upgrade, how else would they get you for more money when you can just change the memory on your own overpriced system?
 
jafingi said:
No visible improved perfomance by doing that.

But they can make thinner laptops with soldered-on RAM.
Click to expand...

They've also proven that by eliminating the fasteners and using glue to bind it together, they save even more money.

Even if only a few bucks per computer, that's one big savings for Apple.

In turn they now have an even greater ability to control obsolescence time lines. It all works out.
 
RAM speed is almost never the bottleneck on any workload. So, it's kind of a moot point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back