Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57503 > unrolled thread

True memory limits of systems

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 04:40 -0500
    Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 05:25 -0500
      Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-04 19:51 -0500
    Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 14:06 +0000
      Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 18:22 -0500
        Re: True memory limits of systems Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-03-03 21:45 -0800
          Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 01:02 -0500
    Re: True memory limits of systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-04 09:10 +1300
    Re: True memory limits of systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-03-04 15:06 -0800
      Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 19:26 -0500
        Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-05 03:29 +0000
          Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-09 20:19 +1100
            Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-09 05:43 -0400
              Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-22 15:45 +1100
            Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-09 13:59 -0400
            Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-09 23:25 +0000
    Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-04 19:43 -0500
      Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 20:05 -0500
        Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:34 -0500
          Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:44 -0500
            Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:54 -0500
              Re: True memory limits of systems Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-03-10 13:39 -0700
                Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-10 17:22 -0400
            Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-07 22:54 +0000
              Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-07 18:51 -0500
                Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-09 20:21 +1100
    Re: True memory limits of systems Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-10 20:51 +0000
      Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-10 17:33 -0400
        Re: True memory limits of systems Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-10 21:48 +0000
          Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-22 00:09 -0400
            Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-28 06:18 +1100
        Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-22 15:49 +1100
      Re: True memory limits of systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-10 17:41 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#57717

On 2014.03.07, 16:44 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-03-07 16:34, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Crucial do a good job stating which machines need which spec memory. OWC
>> too.
>
> In the case of the 2009 MacPro, Crucial says 16GB, OWC says 48GB.

I'm stunned!  It's in Crucial's best interest to state the higher 
number, after all.

Go with the larger figure.  Esp. if confirmed by MacTracker.

-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57861

On 2014-03-07 21:54:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2014.03.07, 16:44 , JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 14-03-07 16:34, Alan Browne wrote:
>> 
>>> Crucial do a good job stating which machines need which spec memory. OWC
>>> too.
>> 
>> In the case of the 2009 MacPro, Crucial says 16GB, OWC says 48GB.
> 
> I'm stunned!  It's in Crucial's best interest to state the higher 
> number, after all.
> 
> Go with the larger figure.  Esp. if confirmed by MacTracker.

I took OWC's word for it when I put 6GB into my previous MBP (which 
Apple said would only handle 4GB).

It worked fine.

OWC can't guarantee this kind of thing, but they do try it out and only 
suggest it if they've found that it works.  They've never steered me 
wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57867

On 2014.03.10, 16:39 , Bread wrote:
> On 2014-03-07 21:54:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> On 2014.03.07, 16:44 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 14-03-07 16:34, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Crucial do a good job stating which machines need which spec memory.
>>>> OWC
>>>> too.
>>>
>>> In the case of the 2009 MacPro, Crucial says 16GB, OWC says 48GB.
>>
>> I'm stunned!  It's in Crucial's best interest to state the higher
>> number, after all.
>>
>> Go with the larger figure.  Esp. if confirmed by MacTracker.
>
> I took OWC's word for it when I put 6GB into my previous MBP (which
> Apple said would only handle 4GB).
>
> It worked fine.
>
> OWC can't guarantee this kind of thing, but they do try it out and only
> suggest it if they've found that it works.  They've never steered me wrong.

Likewise (bumped my iMac from 4 to 6 - just wished I had known about 
that when I added 2 to the original 2).

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57719

In message <531a3dc7$0$16991$c3e8da3$40d4fd75@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-03-07 16:34, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Crucial do a good job stating which machines need which spec memory. OWC 
>> too.

> In the case of the 2010 MacPro, Crucial says 16GB, OWC says 48GB.

The memory spec is not the same as the maximum RAM allowed. Crucial
tends to stick with what Apple says. OWC lists the real maximum, as does
MacTracker.

-- 
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57723

On 14-03-07 17:54, Lewis wrote:

> The memory spec is not the same as the maximum RAM allowed. Crucial
> tends to stick with what Apple says. OWC lists the real maximum, as does
> MacTracker.

Ah, OK. I was under the impression that Crucial would test the true
limits of systems. If they stick to limits from Apple, it explains the
discrepancy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57766

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:51:46 -0500, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 14-03-07 17:54, Lewis wrote:
>
>> The memory spec is not the same as the maximum RAM allowed. Crucial
>> tends to stick with what Apple says. OWC lists the real maximum, as does
>> MacTracker.
>
>Ah, OK. I was under the impression that Crucial would test the true
>limits of systems. If they stick to limits from Apple, it explains the
>discrepancy.

Have you tried Everymac?

-- 
Loading new sig message
Please wait..........

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57862

I wish Apple would simply state the maximum amount of RAM supported by
the hardware, rather than using whatever chip size & combo is available
at the time they write the specifications.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57868

On 2014.03.10, 16:51 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> I wish Apple would simply state the maximum amount of RAM supported by
> the hardware, rather than using whatever chip size & combo is available
> at the time they write the specifications.

I suppose it's what they test at the time.

Still, updating the spec over time or issuing a bulletin would be nice 
of them...

In the meantime there's OWC and MacTracker and others who test without 
trepidation.

-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57871

On 2014-03-10, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.03.10, 16:51 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>> I wish Apple would simply state the maximum amount of RAM supported by
>> the hardware, rather than using whatever chip size & combo is available
>> at the time they write the specifications.
>
> I suppose it's what they test at the time.

I think so, which is why I'd rather just see what the motherboard
supports.

> Still, updating the spec over time or issuing a bulletin would be nice 
> of them...
>
> In the meantime there's OWC and MacTracker and others who test without 
> trepidation.

Yep.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58057

Another question:

For my MacPro, looking at what is available for 1066, EEC unbuffered,

the 4 GB dimms tend to be CL=7, while the 8 GB dimms tend to be CL-9
(which implies slower processing).

Is this due to lower quality, or just the fact of life that there are
more "switches" to go through inside the memory bar to reach the desired
memory location and thus lower performance ?

For a MacPro, would this be something that would be noticeable, or
something I shouldn't worry about ?

I am currently at 3*4GB, with 1 slot left. I could add 1 more 4GB to get
to 16 GB, all dimms at CL-7, or

add 2* 8GB at CL-9, and leave 2*4GB at CL-7.

Would this be a problem if the class is different ? Would I put the
faster bars in the last 2 rows and slower ones in the first ones ?

all would be ECC Unbuffered 1066 240pin DDR3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58164

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 00:09:50 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>Another question:
>
>For my MacPro, looking at what is available for 1066, EEC unbuffered,
>
>the 4 GB dimms tend to be CL=7, while the 8 GB dimms tend to be CL-9
>(which implies slower processing).
>
>Is this due to lower quality, or just the fact of life that there are
>more "switches" to go through inside the memory bar to reach the desired
>memory location and thus lower performance ?
>
>For a MacPro, would this be something that would be noticeable, or
>something I shouldn't worry about ?
>
>I am currently at 3*4GB, with 1 slot left. I could add 1 more 4GB to get
>to 16 GB, all dimms at CL-7, or
>
>add 2* 8GB at CL-9, and leave 2*4GB at CL-7.
>
>Would this be a problem if the class is different ? Would I put the
>faster bars in the last 2 rows and slower ones in the first ones ?
>
>all would be ECC Unbuffered 1066 240pin DDR3

All the memory cards should be the same.
Adding more memory to the 12 gigs will make no noticeable
difference and may even slow some programs down.

-- 
Creationists only need know that
Evolution is important proven science
and
creation is made up nonsense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58061

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:33:55 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2014.03.10, 16:51 , Jolly Roger wrote:
>> I wish Apple would simply state the maximum amount of RAM supported by
>> the hardware, rather than using whatever chip size & combo is available
>> at the time they write the specifications.
>
>I suppose it's what they test at the time.
>
>Still, updating the spec over time or issuing a bulletin would be nice 
>of them...
>
>In the meantime there's OWC and MacTracker and others who test without 
>trepidation.

I find Everymac to be an excellent source for Apple Products.
I have a duel duel core (otherwise known as a quad core) G5
tower with 4.5 gigs RAM.

-- 
Creationists only need know that
Evolution is important proven science
and
creation is made up nonsense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57870

In article <bo6mv2FmkjmU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> I wish Apple would simply state the maximum amount of RAM supported by
> the hardware, rather than using whatever chip size & combo is available
> at the time they write the specifications.

they can't do that, for legal reasons.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web