Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc > #231 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Lance <nope@nada.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-04 14:07 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-09-05 12:52 +1200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc
comparing RAM configurations Tim Lance <nope@nada.com> - 2011-09-04 14:07 -0500
Re: comparing RAM configurations Tim Lance <nope@nada.com> - 2011-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: comparing RAM configurations "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <sgt@arms.edu> - 2011-09-04 19:38 -0400
Re: comparing RAM configurations dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2011-09-05 12:52 +1200
| From | Tim Lance <nope@nada.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 14:07 -0500 |
| Subject | comparing RAM configurations |
| Message-ID | <9ci0j9FtifU1@mid.individual.net> |
Just got a 15" MBP, 2.2 GHx i7 "sandybridge" with 4 GB DDR3 1666. I happen to have 8 (2x4) GB DDR3 1066 and wonder which set is "better." I am sufficiently clueless to learn from what I have googled. Any help? -- Tim
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Lance <nope@nada.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 15:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9ci49sFsubU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #231 |
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:07:22 -0500, Tim Lance wrote (in article <9ci0j9FtifU1@mid.individual.net>): > Just got a 15" MBP, 2.2 GHx i7 "sandybridge" with 4 GB DDR3 1666. > > I happen to have 8 (2x4) GB DDR3 1066 and wonder which set is "better." > > I am sufficiently clueless to learn from what I have googled. Any help? > > 1333 - not 1666 -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <sgt@arms.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-04 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j4126c$g3m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #232 |
On 9/4/11 4:10 PM, Tim Lance wrote: > On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:07:22 -0500, Tim Lance wrote > (in article<9ci0j9FtifU1@mid.individual.net>): > >> Just got a 15" MBP, 2.2 GHx i7 "sandybridge" with 4 GB DDR3 1666. >> >> I happen to have 8 (2x4) GB DDR3 1066 and wonder which set is "better." >> >> I am sufficiently clueless to learn from what I have googled. Any help? >> >> > > 1333 - not 1666 > Even though the 1333 sticks are faster, I'd think 8 GB of 1066 will be much better than 4 GB of 1333. -- Respectfully submitted, Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sergeant-at-Arms
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-05 12:52 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <1k74c7y.9ylwr417iizadN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #232 |
Tim Lance <nope@nada.com> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:07:22 -0500, Tim Lance wrote > (in article <9ci0j9FtifU1@mid.individual.net>): > > > Just got a 15" MBP, 2.2 GHx i7 "sandybridge" with 4 GB DDR3 1666. > > > > I happen to have 8 (2x4) GB DDR3 1066 and wonder which set is "better." > > > > I am sufficiently clueless to learn from what I have googled. Any help? > > 1333 - not 1666 The mid 2011 MacBook Pro family requires DDR3-1333 memory. DDR3-1066 will almost certainly not work in that model because the memory isn't fast enough. You can usually use faster memory within the same family (e.g. DDR3-1333 would usually work in a computer expecting DDR3-1066, and a friend just did this with his 2010 MacBook Pro). There is usually no speed benefit from this, but there may be a slight reduction in power consumption. Later memory generations are often cheaper than older ones, so this is sometimes a useful way to save money, as well as potentially being able to reuse the memory in a newer computer. Unfortunately memory technology is advancing fast enough that you will probably find your next computer uses a different family (DDR4?), unless you buy a new computer every year or two. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc
csiph-web