Expanding to 3GB RAM in 2.16 C2D: which slot gets the 2GB stick?

Or does it matter? over on Macrumors someone said "put the 2GB into slot 1." I could not find any info on which of the two slots was which; after I installed the two new sticks, my memory profile shows the 2GB memory in Bank 0/DIMM0 and the 1GB in BANK 1/DIMM1. Both are recognized and I can tell a difference, just wondering if there is a preferred slot either stick should be in....
TIA

It does not matter.
And Thank You, for extending the courtesy, of awarding in  Discussions, as this is not a requirement, nor mandatory, but is much appreciated!

Similar Messages

I am upgrading from Tiger to SL in a MCBPro with 2 gb ram and an intel chip and I get the following notice: Installation failed.... THE INSTALLER COULD NOT COPY THE NCESSARY SUPPORT FILES. Any help is apprciated

I am upgrading from Tiger to SL in a MCBPro with 2 gb ram and an intel chip and I get the following notice: Installation failed.... THE INSTALLER COULD NOT COPY THE NCESSARY SUPPORT FILES. Any help is appreciated...

Yes. I've found that works best. Especially if the drive is external, since external connections are typically slower, and Spotlight loves to eat up space going back and forth. Time Machine will eat up as much space as it can, and typically needs drives at least twice the size of the original hard drive that is being backed up, if being backed up in full. So unfortunately there is a lot of empty space that is needed for smooth operation.

After upgrading from Mac 10.6 to 10.9, firefox creates new windows by an "expanding" animation instead of just appearing. How do I get the old behavior back?

On Mac 10.6.8, when I create a new window by hitting command-N or going to the file menu, or if another page creates a new window, the new window just appears instantaneously. However, after upgrading to Mac 10.9.2, new windows appear by an "expanding" animation, which takes slightly longer than the old "appearing" behavior. (Other apps on my Mac do not exhibit the "expanding" behavior, only firefox.)
Was this behavior intentional? How can I get the old behavior back?
I am using Firefox 28.0.

Hi __trout__,
Go to the mac system preferences and click on Doc. There is a Minimize window using.... select the animation there.
Hope this helps.

Ideal 3GB RAM configuration for MacBook?

Pursuing more and more the idea of maxing out my Mid 2007 MacBook to 3GB, I have come to wonder, which configuration of RAM would be most ideal? (and also if it even matters on the configuration)
That is, is there an advantage to plugging the 2GB stick into bank0 and having a 1GB stick in bank1, or vise versa?
Or, does it simply not matter?

KBHenn wrote:
If you use a 2GB+1GB sticks, you'll use all of the 3GB, but you won't benefit from the dual channeling, which as I've heard, isn't really THAT beneficial.
Coming from a technical background, I've read Intel's datasheet for the Santa Rosa chipset. It's really convoluted if you don't understand all the language so bear with me.
Intel actually has two levels of "dual channel" operation, and it's not really a true operation where both channels are run together in parallel. What they do is "interleave" where one channel can have (let's say) a read instruction started while the other is reading out data. It would be matched to the latency of the memory. If anything, it might save a few cycles as a data read is ping-ponged from one channel to the other. Their description when memory sizes are exactly matched is "dual channel interleaving". Their description when memory sizes aren't exactly matched is "dual channel assymetric", where it achieves dual channel interleaving operation for as much as the smaller memory, and single channel operation for the remainder of the larger memory.
I've even installed a 512 MB PC2-4200 and a 512 MB PC2-5300 module in my Santa Rosa MacBook, and it defaulted both to PCs-4200. This is in line with what I've read in Intel datasheets.
I'm not 100% sure if these functions would apply to a mid-2007 MacBook, but I have the suspicion that Intel had this same definition for "dual channel" for some time.
You CAN use 2x2GB sticks, but you won't get all 4GB. The Core 2 Duo chips only recognize up to 3.2-3.3GB. If you do use 2x2GB you will benefit from the dual channel, it's just that you wont be using all that you've put in there. It's really a matter of personal preference. I don't think you'll notice a huge difference in the two, and then again you may. It's all up to you.
Again - I can't see that it would mean that much of a difference given what I've read in Intel's datasheets. I think even 1GB+2GB will achieve an effective dual channel for at least 2GB of the memory.
It does not matter which bank you put the 2GB or 1GB sticks either.
Correct.

2008 macbook won't take more than 3gb ram

So I bought some ddr2 ram for my MacBook and when I installed it the computer black screened with no chime. So I tested each stick with the same result I even reset the SMC memory to see if that fixed it and nothing. However when I installed just one of the 2GB sticks with one of the 1GB sticks it already had, the computer boot fine and when I checked the system profiler it noticed the ram perfectly fine.

Some models of MacBook required a firmware update; and of those
(unknown percentage of models or their specifics) some could only
see a greater upgrade in RAM or to use a later OS X, once done.
Perhaps the RAM you are trying to use is not correct spec to the Mac.
Or maybe one of the chips has an issue whereby it doesn't connect,
so a clean pencil eraser could be carefully used to wipe fingerprints or
dust off the connectors. And never handle RAM by those contacts.
Several early MacBooks had a ceiling of 3GB, though two 2-GB
chips could be installed if that is what you happen to get; but that
did not necessarily equate to a noticeable improvement in function.
However the Early 2008 MacBook 13-inch model is said to support
up to 6GB RAM: one 2-GB chip & one 4-GB chip; of correct spec.
Both the Early 2008 and Late 2008 (white/black) models can use:
Maximum Memory 6.0 GB (Actual) 4.0 GB (Apple)
Memory Slots 2 - 200-pin PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 SO-DIMM
according to http://mactracker.ca specification database
Also, if the MacBook is of the Aluminum unibody version, that uses
a different specification of RAM, and also has higher ceiling total...
{If the RAM is from some 'poor quality' source, there is a fair chance
it is not good or stable in the Mac. There is a noticeable difference.}
So that may be the problem... hard to say without more information.
Good luck & happy computing!

Ram upgrade only works in one slot at a time

Hey, has anybody experienced this same issue? I have a mid 2009 Macbook Pro 13" and I was trying to upgrade from the factory 2 Gbs of RAM to 8 Gbs. I have 2X4 Gbs of memory and it turns out that only one 4 Gbs stick works at a time. The laptop boots up fine with only one 4 Gig stick inserted, and it doesn't matter whether the second slot is empty or has one of the old 1 Gig sticks inserted, nor does it matter which slot has the 4 Gig stick, but when I have both 4 Gig sticks installed it won't boot up. It just stays on the grey screen after the startup sound. I've tried resetting the SCM and the PRAM with no effect. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

I don't actually know the brand, I got the RAM off of ebay and it's not labeled. The parts and serial numbers for both sticks are all 0's so perhaps the RAM is a knockoff of some kind.
But, both sticks work, in either of the two slots, as long as only 1 stick at a time (of the 4 Gb) is installed. This leads me to think it has something to do with coordinating both sticks at once? It works fine whether the second slot has a 1 Gb stick in it or if it's empty.
And with both factory sticks everything works fine. It's only with both 4 Gb sticks that there's a problem.

Adding RAM - which slot has original 64?

When I bought my flower power imac 500 mhz I added ram. It was originally supposed to come with two 64 mg slots but I had 128 installed bringing it up to 192. Thought back then this was enough : ) . I want to add RAM but don't know which one is the 64 Mg one. Would it be the bottom or the top one. I tried to read the labels and it doesn't seem to say on it. One does have a blue stickey dot on it. I was thinking this is the larger one. It is on the top when you are looking inside the slot in the back. Anyone know if there is anyway to tell. Don't want to take the wrong one out.

Hello Kathy,
Go into System Profiler. Click on Memory. It will
show the two slots. On my 400MHz the two slots
are J13 and J14. J13 is the TOP slot. Hope this helps.
wtk

How does the MSI P35 NEO-2 FR hand 2GB sticks of ram?

Right now I'm running 4x1GB of ram. I have been considering switching to 2GBx2 with DDR2 1000Mhz GSkill sticks. I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 and eventually I will probably run 8GB. For now I think my motherboard may like 2 sticks of ram instead of four.
Anybody who is using 2GB sticks, please tell me how you like them on your P35.
Here are the sticks I'm looking at.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16820231145&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&SelectedRating=-1&PurchaseMark=&VideoOnlyMark=False&Page=3

So, 3 days of uptime, no errors. This morning I shut down the PC, and in the afternoon when I turned it on, it loaded Windows and after 3 minutes, BSOD. It didn't want to load Windows anymore, event with the [email protected], 2V for the memory, so I'm back with the 3 sticks.
Any more suggestions?

MBPro C2D 2.33GHz/3GB RAM drops frames playing H.264@1920x1080

I've been trying to watch with a MBPro C2D 2.33GHz/3GB RAM a movie (in .mkv container) coded in H.264@1920x1080 (a blueray rip actually), but both Quicktime (I have Perian installed) and VLC would drop frames time to time.
Processor never goes over 100-120%.
Do I have bad codecs installed? Some ideas? I thought my mac would do the job...

H.264 is a complex video CODEC, and there can be many factors in the implementation process which would effect what you're seeing here. It would be nice to see some H.264 analysis tools in order to give us more information about the video stream-- I plan on embarking on some live H.264 video projects for doing live educational video delivery, and access to such tools would be a real plus.
It seems as if the costs in H.264 hardware encoders are dropping rapidly now, with a standalone hardware device (e.g. from Mango in Israel) which does encode/decode audio and video over ethernet coming in at about 5-600 USD. There are even standalone set-top box style decoders for under 200 coming out of China now.
Golan.

2G vs 3G RAM and CD vs C2D ???

I'm about to get a brandy new C2D MBP to replace my week 6 CD MBP and I bit the bullet and went with 3Gs of RAM. (I know, I know, why?, well its because I got a great deal through my ADC membership)
I'm wondering if any of you out there have noticed much difference between 2 and 3 Gs of RAM?? I'm also wonder if there are any "issues" due to having 3Gs of RAM instead of 2. I know there are some issues going beyond 3 G due to code segments residing in that memory space etc. But I thought that I'd read there Parallels has some problems with 3G of RAM as opposed to 2G.
I took advantage of the great ADC membership discount and upgraded from my CD MBP, which was absolutely flawless by the way, to get the C2D MBP and the 3G of RAM, the dual layer superdrive and eventually the 64bit edge.
I'm going to give my MBP to my son in college who stil is using his PowerBook.
Regardless I'm curious about the real difference between the CD and C2D MBPs. Aside fro the trivial speed bump I'm wondering how much better 3G is going to be relative to 2Gs of RAM and eventually with Leopard tuned up how much more difference the 64Bit Instruction set will make.
I'm also wondering about the Wireless N draft capability with my Netgear Pre N router. I'm wondering if I'm going to get the speed bumnp and range bump. I've heard some Pre-N routers work with the neew C2D based cards and some don't.
T.I.A.,
Peter

Hi Peter,
The more memory your computer has, the more programs you can run simultaneously, and the better performance you get from your computer.
This from Apple......
Increasing the amount of memory in your MBP is an easy way to improve performance.
How much memory is right for you?
• Choose the standard 1GB of memory if you'll be photo editing, gaming, creating illustrations or building complex presentations.
• The 2GB option is ideal if you plan to use your system regularly for sound design, video editing, DVD authoring, animation and intensive gaming.
• Max out your memory with the 3GB option to enjoy the highest performance for everything you do.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/reviews/mbprocore2duo/index.php

MAC PRO 2.66, XT1900 & 3GB RAM for Aperture?

Hi,
I have read a lot of post about the performance of Aperture and CS2 and budget-wise I am thinking in buying a MAC PRO 2.66, XT1900 & 3GB RAM.
Will this configuration be OK to work with Aperture and CS2?
I shoot primary weedings using 8MP Canon RAW files.
Thanks

I have this exact same setup, powering a 24" Dell and a 23" apple monitor - but with 4 gigs of RAM as the previous post suggests. It's awesome (I'm opening 10 mp Nikon NEFs on mine, FWIW).
I initially started with 2 gigs of RAM, and that was miserable in more ways than one. After 4 gigs of RAM, Aperture ran much better...but still not snappy. Following the advice of others in this forum, I got the ATI card you are considering, and it has made a world of difference.
This speed is addicting, however. Now I'm pondering, incredibly, "What ELSE can I add to the mix to make it even FASTER." I've read that some have success with faster drives. Others recommend even more RAM. I might try more RAM down the road, but then again I push the machine in other ways (lots of Rosetta apps, a Parallels instance of XP, etc). Still, nothing really ever feels slow.

No programs open, but 3GB RAM in use?

I'm running into some problems with the amount of free RAM I have available to me, and it's causing serious performance problems.
I have a new 2011 MBP and I just ran into a situation where I ran out of RAM and the computer became extremely sluggish. I had 1 Safari window open and XCode open, editing a very small project. Between these two programs I was using about 600MB of my total 4GB of RAM. Even though I was only using 600MB of RAM on actual programs, Activity Monitor reported I was out of Memory, and did not say that any programs were using all my memory, only that it was gone.
I decided to quit all open programs, but the problem did not go away. Sitting there with no open programs, my computer was using 3GB of its total 4GB of RAM in either wired or active state, and another 750MB in inactive state. I seem to be entirely unable to reclaim that 750MB even when using the "purge" command in Terminal. Activity monitor claims that kernel_task is using 300MB right now, but doesn't list any other programs using significant amounts of memory, yet I only have 400MB of my 4GB available as "free" memory.
If this were only a reporting error from Activity Monitor, and the RAM really was free and it was just reported incorrectly, then that would be fine. But the computer behaves as if it's constantly out of memory. Also, rebooting isn't a great solution because this happens to me all the time, even after reboots. It only solves the problem for a few minutes.
Any suggestions? Does this happen to anyone else? I didn't notice this behavior on my old 2007 MBP (also with 4GB RAM).

About OS X Memory Management and Usage
Reading system memory usage in Activity Monitor
Memory Management in Mac OS X
Performance Guidelines- Memory Management in Mac OS X
A detailed look at memory usage in OS X
Understanding top output in the Terminal
The amount of available RAM for applications is the sum of Free RAM and Inactive RAM. This will change as applications are opened and closed or change from active to inactive status. The Swap figure represents an estimate of the total amount of swap space required for VM if used, but does not necessarily indicate the actual size of the existing swap file. If you are really in need of more RAM that would be indicated by how frequently the system uses VM. If you open the Terminal and run the top command at the prompt you will find information reported on Pageins () and Pageouts (). Pageouts () is the important figure. If the value in the parentheses is 0 (zero) then OS X is not making instantaneous use of VM which means you have adequate physical RAM for the system with the applications you have loaded. If the figure in parentheses is running positive and your hard drive is constantly being used (thrashing) then you need more physical RAM.
Adding RAM only makes it possible to run more programs concurrently. It doesn't speed up the computer nor make games run faster. What it can do is prevent the system from having to use disk-based VM when it runs out of RAM because you are trying to run too many applications concurrently or using applications that are extremely RAM dependent. It will improve the performance of applications that run mostly in RAM or when loading programs.

24" iMac and 3GB RAM limit issues

I have a legitimate concern with the 24" iMac and wanted to know if anyone else thinks it's an issue. Read Apple's tech note on late model 2006 iMacs including the new 24" model.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTechRAM/Articles/RAM_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003899-DontLinkElem entID5
In order to use RAM in an interleaved fashion it states you must use matched pairs. Meaning same size and type. SO.....if the new iMacs will take a 2GB SO-DIMM then why won't it register 4GB total? You can configure your new iMac with 3GB of RAM but it won't be interleaved. On top of that 2GB SO-DIMMs are super expensive in the +$700 range. More then MacPro's FB-DIMMs.
I don't see anyone talking about this but it seems to be a legitimate concern.

That IS the point, what person paying $2000 for a computer would be willing to pay another $1500 for a 4GB RAM upgrade? I just think right now it's hurting Apple's sales of the 24". The 24" encroaches on the prosumer market and at this point in time an affordable 2GB of RAM may seem adequate now but most likely not in 6 years. Which is how long I had my Digital Audio Power Mac. So I think anyone in the prosumer market NOW, like myself, looking for a machine that will last a few years may look away from the 24" and steer toward the Mac Pros. My needs fall squarely in between the 24" iMac and Mac Pros but unfortunately my budget does not. I could live with the 24" even with the expensive cost of the 2GB SODIMMs. I would in fact wait until the prices fell. What I can't live with is the fact that the iMac will only ever be able to use an uninterleaved 3GB when the possibility of an interleaved 4GB seems to be there. I was only able to keep the Digital Audio because I squeezed every ounce of life I could out of it because of various periodic upgrades.
Reluctantly I'm going with the Mac Pro but I REALLY wanted to get the 24" iMac. Thats all.

Why use only 3gb ram when instaled 4 gb?

why use only 3gb ram when instaled 4 gb??
macbook 2,1 late 2007 mac os 10.6.8
Название модели:    MacBook
      MacBook2,1
      Intel Core 2 Duo    2.16 ГГц
RAM:   4 ГБ 667 МГц
Версия Boot ROM:    MB21.00A5.B07
Версия SMC (система):    1.17f0
    UUID     00000000-0000-1000-8000-001B6335F21C
< Edited by Host >

already read the threads about memory limitations,
the snow leopard limitation has not been withdrawn, and the Mac OS Lion restriction will be removed? or not?

3gb ram on 1st gen 17" mbpro

So it seems that the new speed bump has introduced memory support > 2gb, which is about time.
Does anyone know if this is a firmware upgrade or can the 1st gen 17" mbpro handle it as well?
17" mac book pro Mac OS X (10.4.8)

MBP on Core Duo can support up to 4gb (limited by 32bit CPU, however other components on logic board are ready for 64bit operations). That's theoretically. Physically supported amount of RAM might be (and it is) limited by BIOS (logic board firmware). Core 2 Duo MBP theoretically can support 1.099 terabytes of RAM (if it'd be a real 64bit, not 40bit as it is now it would support 18.5 million terabytes of RAM :)))). Physically it's again limited by firmware.
The only question that bothers me now is why 3GB??? Why not 4? Is it because one memory slot now soldered on the board with 1GB and you can chose 1 or 2GB on the other one?
The thing is, if you chose 3GB configuration, it won't be dual band memory because memory sticks have to be same size...as far as I know. Any ideas?

Expanding to 3GB RAM in 2.16 C2D: which slot gets the 2GB stick?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for