What is the best memory for MBP 2011 2.2Ghz

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Sasha55, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. Sasha55 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #1
    I recently upgrade MBP 2011 17” 2,2GHz to 8Gb(2x4gb) of Crucial DDR3 1333 PC10600 CT51264BC1339, and was not satisfied with memory speed with xbench, allocate is only 1,6 Malloc/sec compare to 3,4 Malloc/sec with original Apple memory from Samsung. Do you have any idea? What is the best memory for MBP 2011 2.2Ghz? It would be grate if someone can add xbench results as screenshot.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Wanderer509 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #2
    people have had good results with G.skill 1333mhz or crucial 1333mhz. kingston hyperX 1600mhz is also usable for us and might be better, but must be the none GX version (eg: no XMP)
     
  3. polbit macrumors 6502

    polbit

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    Here are results of Crucial 1333MHz, on my 2.3:

    Results 593.70
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.3
    System Version 10.6.7 (10J3250)
    Physical RAM 8192 MB
    Model MacBookPro8,2
    Drive Type C300-CTFDDAC128MAG
    Memory Test 593.70
    System 625.44
    Allocate 987.44 3.63 Malloc/sec
    Fill 425.85 20705.87 MB/sec
    Copy 696.53 14386.49 MB/sec
    Stream 565.04
    Copy 546.66 11291.14 MB/sec
    Scale 545.57 11271.22 MB/sec
    Add 588.96 12546.06 MB/sec
    Triad 581.72 12444.47 MB/sec
     
  4. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
  5. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #5
    X2. It's useless as you are trying to measure the speeds of technologies that did not exist when XBench was last updated.
     
  6. Sasha55 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #6
    what tool can be used to measure a real speed ?

    @Wanderer509
    wat you mean no XMP (GX version) ?
    is this the right one ?

    KHX1600C9S3K2/8G
     
  7. SpitUK macrumors 6502

    SpitUK

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Location:
    East Yorkshire, UK
  8. Sasha55 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #8
    and this GX version, what's wrong with it ? what is the diference ?
     
  9. Sasha55 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #9
    I gona order KHX1600C9S3K2/8G and hope it come till the end of this week, then i can do some more testing with 3 RAM (Samsung, crucial and kingston 1600)
    for now there are some additional screenshots with crucial ram. What also would be very interesting is to test ram on real application.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Sasha55 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #10
  11. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #11
    Unfortunately, I am yet to see any benchmark test that reflects real time use. Obviously, they can serve as a baseline, but it really doesn't mean much. My older MacBook Pro 13 with the 2009-era Core 2 Duo CPU ran slow speeds on bench tests, but would execute similar processes far faster than newer i5 PCs that would benchmark far higher scores (and the programs were compared were the same although I realize OSX v. 7 isn't a perfect comparison).

    I got 8GB of RAM on my 2009 MBP, which was overkill at the time. I did not run huge stat programs on the laptop then, and I rarely used over 4 GBs of RAM. I guess 8GB is still a substantial amount of RAM relative to common programs...now I need 16 due to some huge files, but most people don't work these massive stat files and there is a reason for that...it's called hair loss. :p
     
  12. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #12
  13. Sasha55 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    #13
    It exists, and i'm just happy with my mac
    for unbeliever, the screenshot is from 29.04.2011 since that no problems:
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page