Memory speed differs from chip

I just purchased a used Mac Pro. The specs are as follows: Dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon. It came with 24 Gbs of memory but the model of the memory chip comes up in system report as: 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM. I checked the specs of the model number, and I do have the original box that has the same serial number on it so I'm pretty sure this is all legit. The specs for the memory chips listed for this machine are 1333MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM. So I thought maybe they added the worng memory chip. Opened up and sure enough, I pulled out four 2Gb hynix chips withe following written on them: 2Gb 1Rx8 PC3-10600E-9-11-D1. And on the next line: HMT325U7CFR8C-H9 TO AB 1229. I'm not sure if these are or arent; 1333MHz. I looked at the other four 4Gb chips and the were very clearly listed as the 1333MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM. So I removed what I thought were the offending chips and thought my memory would come up as 1333MHZ - it did not. It is still reading 1066MHz. I opened the amchine again and inspected each chip and they all read 1333MHz. What could be wrong here? The original specs on a base model of this machine absolutely call for 1333MHz - but they also said it comes with only 12Gbs of memory. This machine has 16 od the 1333MHz and 8 of I'm not sure. Does it need to be reset once it has used 1066MHz? I assume it down-clocked itself relative to the incorrect chips but now that they have been removed, why doesn't it read as it should? Any ideas? Thanks.

How can I find out if that's the Intel Xeon processor in this computer?
I just looked at EveryMac.com and this is what they post about my computer:
"The Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.4 (Mid-2012/Westmere) is powered by dual 2.4 GHz Six Core 32-nm Xeon E5645 (Westmere) processors with a dedicated 256k of level 2 cache for each core and 12 MB of "fully shared" level 3 cache per processor."
They go on to say: "By default, this model is configured with 12 GB of 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM, a 1 TB (7200 RPM, 32 MB cache) 3Gb/s Serial ATA hard drive, an 18X dual-layer "SuperDrive" and an ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics card with 1 GB of GDDR5 memory."
So as far as I can tell, this is the correct type of memory, could this processor just not run the memory at the higher clock speed?

Similar Messages

I have a macbook pro 13' (late 2011) 2.8Ghz Intel i7 memory 4GB 1333 MHz DDR3 and have upgraded my OS X Lion to Mavericks. Everything has slowed down. How do I go back to the older OS X Lion? Or should I improve speed differently?

I have a macbook pro 13’ (late 2011) 2.8Ghz Intel i7 memory 4GB 1333 MHz DDR3 and have upgraded my OS X Lion to Mavericks 10.9.5. Everything has slowed down and the battery lasts a bit earlier. How do I go back to the older OS X Lion? Or should I improve speed differently? Would improving memory to 8GB help?

i have run the EntreCheck and here is the report:
EtreCheck version: 1.9.15 (52)
Report generated 28 September 2014 16:16:39 GMT+3
Hardware Information: ?
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Late 2011) (Verified)
MacBook Pro - model: MacBookPro8,1
1 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 CPU: 2 cores
4 GB RAM
Video Information: ?
Intel HD Graphics 3000 - VRAM: 384 MB
Color LCD 1280 x 800
System Software: ?
OS X 10.9.5 (13F34) - Uptime: 0 days 4:59:22
Disk Information: ?
TOSHIBA MK7559GSXF disk0 : (750.16 GB)
S.M.A.R.T. Status: Verified
EFI (disk0s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
Macintosh HD (disk0s2) / [Startup]: 749.3 GB (203.96 GB free)
Recovery HD (disk0s3) <not mounted>: 650 MB
MATSHITADVD-R   UJ-8A8
USB Information: ?
Apple Inc. FaceTime HD Camera (Built-in)
Vodafone (ZTE) Vodafone Mobile Broadband K3565-Z
Apple Inc. BRCM2070 Hub
Apple Inc. Bluetooth USB Host Controller
Apple Inc. Apple Internal Keyboard / Trackpad
Apple Computer, Inc. IR Receiver
Thunderbolt Information: ?
Apple Inc. thunderbolt_bus
Gatekeeper: ?
Mac App Store and identified developers
Kernel Extensions: ?
[not loaded] com.ZTE.driver.ModemDriverMac (1.0.2d1) Support
[loaded] com.ZTE.driver.ZTEUSBCDCACMData (1.3.1) Support
[not loaded] com.ZTE.driver.ZTEUSBMassStorageFilter (1.3.1) Support
[not loaded] com.roxio.BluRaySupport (1.1.6) Support
[not loaded] com.roxio.TDIXController (2.0) Support
Startup Items: ?
HWNetMgr: Path: /Library/StartupItems/HWNetMgr
HWPortDetect: Path: /Library/StartupItems/HWPortDetect
StartOuc: Path: /Library/StartupItems/StartOuc
Launch Daemons: ?
[running] cn.com.zte.PPPMonitor.plist Support
[loaded] com.adobe.fpsaud.plist Support
[loaded] com.microsoft.office.licensing.helper.plist Support
[running] PPPMonitord.plist Support
Launch Agents: ?
[running] cn.com.zte.usbswapper.plist Support
[running] com.hp.devicemonitor.plist Support
[loaded] com.hp.messagecenter.launcher.plist Support
[running] Swapper.plist Support
User Login Items: ?
iTunesHelper
Dropbox
Internet Plug-ins: ?
SharePointBrowserPlugin: Version: 14.0.0 Support
FlashPlayer-10.6: Version: 15.0.0.152 - SDK 10.6 Support
Flash Player: Version: 15.0.0.152 - SDK 10.6 Support
QuickTime Plugin: Version: 7.7.3
Default Browser: Version: 537 - SDK 10.9
Safari Extensions: ?
AdBlock-2
Audio Plug-ins: ?
BluetoothAudioPlugIn: Version: 1.0 - SDK 10.9
AirPlay: Version: 2.0 - SDK 10.9
AppleAVBAudio: Version: 203.2 - SDK 10.9
iSightAudio: Version: 7.7.3 - SDK 10.9
iTunes Plug-ins: ?
Quartz Composer Visualizer: Version: 1.4 - SDK 10.9
3rd Party Preference Panes: ?
Flash Player Support
MacFUSE Support
Tuxera NTFS Support
Time Machine: ?
Time Machine not configured!
Top Processes by CPU: ?
      5% Safari
      3% WindowServer
      2% BitTorrent
      2% hidd
      0% softwareupdated
Top Processes by Memory: ?
229 MB Safari
160 MB softwareupdated
156 MB com.apple.WebKit.WebContent
135 MB com.apple.IconServicesAgent
102 MB VLC
Virtual Memory Information: ?
45 MB Free RAM
1.55 GB Active RAM
1.52 GB Inactive RAM
895 MB Wired RAM
628 MB Page-ins
0 B Page-outs

I have a iMAC(got it in less than 2 months ago), can I change the memory(upgrade it from 4 GB to 8GB) myself? I mean I need to open the screws and exchange the memory chips. Does it cancel the guarantee?

I have a iMAC(got it in less than 2 months ago), can I change the memory(upgrade it from 4 GB to 8GB) myself? I mean I need to open the screws and exchange the memory chips. Does it cancel the guarantee?

No, unless you break something or install the wrong RAM, new RAM is not covered by warranty/AppleCare of course.
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT3011
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-4291

Memory speed problems?

don't know if anyone else has experienced this but let me know if you have and if there is a way to fix it. So I am running XP Pro from Boot Camp 1.4. I test my Windows performance with PC Pitstop. When I was running Vista on 1.3 I tested and the memory speed was 8230 MB/s, very good. Now when I running XP with 1.4, my memory speed has dropped to 3300 MB/s. Does anyone know a different speed test for XP.
Also is there a speed test for OS X?
And there seems to be a lag sometimes in response. I will sit down to use XP and it will take a minute of sitting there before I get "dings" and responses to input.
It seems that there might be a problem with the defrag also because even when the drive has just been defraged, it still gives me a defrag warning. Any help on this would be much appreciated.

After looking into this a little more, it seems that the transfer rate I am getting for my memory is consistant with DDR2-3200 RAM which runs at DDR2-400 speeds. Does this mean that the memory is not as fast as it could be. Do they make DDR2-667 modules?

MSI 7900GT memory speed?

Is the MSI 7900GT using the nVidia reference spec's. I'd like to confirm the memory speed because when I check the memory speeds on MSI's website, it says
• 450MHz core clock speed
• 660MHz 256MB GDDR3 memory
See this link. http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=NX7900GT-T2D256E&class=vga
However, the nVidia 7900GT reference board is suppose to be 1.32GHZ memory speed. Why is the MSI version of the 7900GT slower memory speed? Or am I reading this wrong. Or does the MSI website have a typo mistake on their website. Please reply to this because if this video card has slower memory than the reference design, then I should purchase a different brand name.
The MSI card I am referring to is MSI 7900GT, P/N:MS-V801-045, also known as NX7900GT-T2D256E
Thanks

Quote from: Streifenkarl on 07-April-06, 04:37:10
Now overclock that bastard! 750 (1500)MHz should be kitten play for the memory.
I have had my MSI NX7900GT clocked at 570/1600 for over a week now and it has ran smooth at those settings.. Now i did replace the stock cooling with ARCTIC COOLING AVC-NV5R3 NV Silencer Rev.3 and Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound ..
It idles at 37-38F at those setting and scored a 8920 on 3Dmark05 with an AMD 64 3200+ running at 2009mhz stock..
I love this Card

Read this when your memory speed seems too low

You noticed that your memory is not running at the speed that you expected and you are wondering
why that is. Here is the most likely answer to that.
Many monitoring programs don't show you the double data rate (DDR) of your memory. So, first, multiply your memory frequency by 2 to get the double data rate. For example, when using PC4300 ram, you get a memory frequency of 267MHz, in stead of 533MHz. 266 is only half the speed of 533, so your monitoring program shows single data rate, not double. With PC3200 it goes 200/400MHz, etc.
The second thing you should consider is the following. The combination of certain memory frequencies and CPU-speeds make it impossible for the memory/cpu to run at full data rate specified by the memory manufacturer. I'll take my own system as an example to show what I mean.
- 2 Opterons 2212, running at 2000MHz.
- PC4300 memory installed. Maximum speed is 267 (single data rate) or 533 (double data rate) MHz.
Now, the following happens: To get the right memory clock speed, the cpu speed is divided by a number. In this case, it would be:
2000/266=7.5 .
This outcome is not possible for the CPU. It needs a round (solid) number. In this case the choice is between 7 and 8. However, when using 7, chances are that the system will not run stable, because the outcome is higher than the memory can handle (guarenteed):
2000/7=286MHz (572MHz DDR).
So, the higher numer (8) is chosen, giving this result:
2000/8=250MHz (500MHz DDR).
In my case, CPU-Z reports a data rate of about 250MHz. Note the first remark I made: you need to
multiply by 2, to get the doube data rate (DDR) speed: 500MHz.
If you oc the cpu speed slightly, memory speed will increase a bit as well. Example: when overclocking the cpu to about 2125MHz, the memory will start running at the speed it can handle:
2125/8=266MHz (533MHz DDR).

Does the number of memory chips affect this behavior? I have two 1GB PC3200 chips for my MSI KT8 Neo FISR. When I run each one separately, it registers as 200MHz (DDR400) in memtest86. When run together, they register as 100MHz (DDR200). This alarms me to no end, but it sounds like this is expected, yes? If so, why do they "appear" to run at full speed singly, but half-speed running together? And will the actual speed of the two running together match the speed of one by itself (otherwise, I'll see a performance hit when upgrading from 1GB to 2BG)?
Sorry for the newbie-sounding question, but memory's been over my head since my 72-pin's went out of style
Thank you
= Eric

Memory speed of fx 5200 cards

I can't find out detailed spec of MSI's fx 5200 cards:
- does any of these have 64-bit memory interface (as some 5200 cards do)?
- what is speed of cpu and memory
For instance, what's difference between FX5200-TD64 and FX5200-T64? First one has dvi out, cooler fan and larger board, but that's not what interests me - I would like to know differences in cpu and memory speeds.
Some benchmark numbers would be nice too, at least 3D Mark 2001.

I'm looking for budget card and I know what I can expect from that. You're right, memory speeds are not crucial here.
However, some fx 5200 have 64-bit memory interface (I know for some Gainward cards) which makes HUGE difference, even for low budget cards. Difference is something like 3500 vs 7000 points in 3D Mark 2001.
I would be satisfied with normal 5200 performance (I'm upgrading from MX400), but not with cripled one (64-bit), and I don't know whether FX5200-TD64 and FX5200-T64 have 64 or 128 bit memory bus.
Regards,
Dejan

Memory Speed loss with CPU upgrade 2.6 - 3.0

I have a n 875P Neo board with 2 banks 512m DDR400
I have just upgraded my cpu from 2.6G (800 FSB) to 3.0G (800FSB)
My BIOS is ver 1.8 (8/9/ 2003)
I have found that my memory speed timings have dropped by 30% since the upgrade. Will I get better results if I update my bios to ver 2.0 (the latest bios)??
Sysoft Sandra Memory Benchmark shows to memory timings to be about 25% lower than expected
Can anyone help??
Thanks
M Miller

The 875P Neo and 865PE Neo2 boards are kissing cousins They have a lot in common.
It would help if you create a signature and put all your hardware information in it. Things like what type of video card and what type of ram all have an impact on what performance modes you can operate under. See the Rules at the top for what to include and how to do it.
You should also read P4 Neo Unofficial Guide and Moan Guide.

Memory speed only showing 200mhz on post

so heres a strange one. I just moved the guts of my system into a new case this past weekend. When I booted up for the first time I noticed in post my memory speed is only showing 200mhz. I have 3 sticks of memory in my system and should run at 333mhz, which it was befor ethe move. Even mroe curious, I took out one stick and set the remaining two in slots 1/3 and the system only reads it as 333... not 400. I am a bit perplexed and have no clue how to fix this. My specs are below. I know that it is HIGHLY recommended to run chips that are similar but I've never had a problem until I moved the guts to the new case.
In bios I have memclock set to AUTO. I have changed the memclock to LIMIT DDR400 but that doens't change anything. I've tryed changing the CL/TRCD/TRAS/TRP with both LIMIT DDR400 and AUTO.... no changes. I have upped the voltage all the way to 2.85 with again both memclock settings. I have played around with my FSB, I've gotten it all the way to 215 without a problem, but memroy always stays at 200mhz. The only thing I haven't tryed is resetting the bios witht he jumper and starting over (though I had reset bios defualts, rebooted and then made all teh changes again).
I ran Memtest for 24 hours on all three sticks and they all came out clean. I also ran Sandra 2005 and the numbers are embarrassing for the kind of system I have. I'm stumped, any suggestions?
OH, one last thing, I booted the system with just one stick of memroy in each slot, thats 9 boots... each witht he setting of memclock at AUTO and again at LIMIT400... it either ran at 200mhz or 333mhz on post....
So there is my ordeal, system is stable but I'd like to get the memmory back up to where it was before the swap.

Ok... I shoulld clarify.
with 3 sticks of DDR3200 sandra ran a little over 1200
with 2 sticks of DDR3200 (slots 1 and 3) sandra ran a tad over 2108
there are a couple of pictures eblow to show the post at 15.gig memroy and 1gig. I am refferin to what is being displayed on POST in regards to the DRAM clock.
Link to 1.5gig at DRAM clock speed 200mhz
http://groups.msn.com/shadowalliance/tempfolder.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=27
Link to 1gig at DRAM clock speed 333mhz
http://groups.msn.com/shadowalliance/tempfolder.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=28

FCP6 BIG PROBLEM - Media Manager Speed change from FCP5.1.4

Hi!
We have problem using a media manager project from FCP5.1.4 in FCP6. Almost ALL clips with speed change are messed up (all new speed around 1% to 7%). This is really a problem for us, since we always do media manager of everything we do to be able to go back and make changes.
We have 2 MacPro 2 x 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 10.4.9, Quicktime 7.1.6, FCP6, Decklink HD extreme or AJA Kona LH (with the latest driver).
We tryed with different format: HDTV 1080i50, DVCProHD 720p59.94, SD Uncompressed 10bit, .... always the same problem.
Is there a new way to use the MM in FCP6?
Thank you!

Hi! And thanx for the tip.
But we use Media Manager everyday with speed change WITHOUT any problem (with FCP 5.1.4).
We already try something similar, we copied the good clips (with speed change) from the ORIGINAL timeline to the media manager one, deleted the bad clip (with the wrong speed change) and pasted the good one in there place. Then we reconnected those clips with the MEDIA MANAGED one. We get a warning that the IN and OUT of the media are not the same, CLICKED continue and everything is always (well 95% of the time) OK.
SO yes, we have the solution, but it's really really long and painful, especially with multilayered sequences.
Right now, when I open any Media Manager in FCP 5.1.4 (created with FCP 5.1.4) everything works fine. Doing the same thing with FCP6 = speed change problem.
Thanks again,still looking for another solution.

Does more iPhone memory speed processing?

Does buying an iPhone with more memory speed processing?

No, not really.
'Memory' or 'RAM' would allow more temporary storage for processing which could improve processing, however I think you are confusing memory with 'storage'.
Apple only offer the same memory capacity for each model but offer different 'storage' sizes.
More storage simply allows you to store more apps, music, photos etc on the device. You can't buy an iPhone or iPad with more memory, only the storage sizes differ.

SAP BO different from other products

Hi All,
Just wanted to know how is business Objects different from other products and why it is a niche technology ?
Thanks,
Anupam

Thats a nice query Anupam I have often wondered about this query, however the only conclusion I could come up with is SAP BO is being largely used for web based analytics which is a great benefit for everyone. It can be integrated with various web servers and with other products and third party product tools easily.
I do not have any expertise on oracle BI, but I believe it works in similar lines with SAP BO.
What matters to end - users and top management is the result irrespective of software being used
The only result they look forward to is get real time analysis of data in any manner or reports. The security of data are other aspects as well, after all confidentiality is very important at current times. They are not worried whether we use Java or .net SDKs
I guess you are working on some projection of BO implementation over other products.
The best projection can be made would be with records retrieved, speed of analysis, formats available, visualization and scheduled data retrieval

MSI P45 NEO-F Overclock different from BIOS 1.1 and 1.7

Hi,
I have the follow configuration:
Case: CoolerMaster Centurion 590
Mobo: MSI P45 NEO-F
PS: Corsair TX650W
MEM: 2GB OCZ Platinum 800Mhz 4-4-4-12
GPU: eVGA 9800 GTX
CPU: Q6600 G0 with stock cooler
OS: Windows Vista 32bit
DualCore Center
eVGA Precision 1.5.1
I was using BIOS 1.1 and OC the CPU to 3.0 GHz using FSB 333, vcore AUTO, DRAM 1.9v, DRAM Mult 1:1.25 (833Mhz), EIST Enable and all other settings default.
Everything is OK, but I was unable to rise the CPU to 3.6Ghz using FSB 450. (The maximum that I get is 3.2Ghz with FSB 400 and DRAM Mult 1:1 (800Mhz) )
Now, i have updated my bios to the latest version 1.7.
The first difference is then i leave the FSB with 333, my DualCore Center shows 331 (2.979Ghz ) and CPU-Z shows FSB 332. This won´t happens when the BIOS was 1.1 and DualCore Center shows FSB 333 and CPU-Z too. (Seems that BIOS 1.1 has a better precision with FSB frequencies than 1.7)
Now, i can configure the CPU to 3.6Ghz (Using FSB 450), the system boot up but restart when loading the startup programs in windows.
My question is why with new bios 1.7 my fsb shows different from BIOS and DualCore Center/CPU-Z.
What information is correct? The BIOS or the DualCore Center/CPU-Z?
Has anyone already configured Q6600 to 3.6Ghz FSB 450 with P45 NEO-F and BIOS 1.1 or 1.7?

Quote from: koike on 21-March-09, 23:14:40
Thanks Vern,
I´m thinking in get a Zalman 9700 cooler.
Now I have started to do what you say and increase the fsb by steps of 5 and run 3dmak06 and Everest stress test for 5 or 10 minutes to see if the system is stable.
Now i´m running fsb 340x9 with vCore 1.33 and DRAM 840Mhz with volt 1.9. Everything is ok.
I have upgraded the BIOS to 1.8, but the problem of difference from bios setup and cpu-z fsb reading are still there. (The Bios is 340 but CPU-Z and DualCore Center is 337) Do you have the same problem?
Little at a time is the way to go. When you get that cooler you can get your vcore up in the 1.4 range. Then you should get higher numbers. You will nearly always see a different cpu speed in windows than what you see in bios. That's not a problem.

PS CS5 Image Display Differs From Used ICC Profile In Win 7

Hi,
on my Windows 7 Ultimate x64 machine, I just calibrated my Dell SP2309W monitor using an i1DisplayPro and basICColor 5, creating a ICC v2 profile (I am aware of the problems under Windows with ICC v4 profiles).
It created the ICC profile and applied it to be used by Windows. I double checked under COLOR MANAGEMENT that the new ICC profile is being used. Although I can see that the new ICC is being used (desktop appearance changes), there are a few issues I am experiencing:
(1.) Windows Photo Viewer
The thumbnails in Windpows Explorer look fine (they DO use the new ICC profile), when I double click a jpeg and open the image it DOES NOT use the new ICC profile. When I click the PLAY SLIDESHOW button (starting the slideshow) in the opened image in Windows Photo Viewer, the images DO use the new ICC profile.
(2.) Internet Browsers
All current internet browser (Firefox, IE, Safari and Chrome) DO use the new ICC profile and display the image correctly.
(3.) Photoshop CS 5
When I open the same image - that Windows Photo Viewer does not correctly displays (according to the new ICC profile) - in Photoshop CS5, I get the same image display that Windows Photo Viewer gives me (when not thumbnail or not in slideshow mode) - it appears to be the sRGB display.
My color settings in PS CS5 are: North America General Purpose 2 > sRGB IEC 61966-2.1.
When I go to View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB I get the image display using the new ICC profile.
Why does the image look different in PS than my calibrated monitor should output ?
I was under the impression (please correct me if I am wrong), that the sole purpose for calibrating my monitor was to get a uniform display across (ICC aware) applications. Even when one applies different color spaces to a document in PS, I thought the output on my calibrated screen done by the graphic card should always be according to my calibration and the settings in the ICC profile being used.
What Am I doing wrong or what am I misunderstanding ?
Any help or input is appreciated !
Thanks.
- M

Hello,
A note on monitor calibration: calibrating your monitor will not guarentee that every application will display color correctly, it's more of a step along the pipeline, and for the preview part of a color workflow it's the last step. Here's how color translation follows for an ICC workflow when previewing to a monitor:
Image Color Numbers > Document Tag or Workspace Profile > Monitor Profile
For non-color managed applications, if the original document is or isn't tagged with a color profile it will be translated directly to the monitor profile anyway. This is the equivalent in Photoshop of selecting "Monitor" in soft proofing. Selecting monitor in softproofing will bypass the tagged or workspace profile to translate colors directly through the monitor profile.
For most automatic color managed applications (like Firefox), the image will be translated through the tagged profile and then sent through the monitor profile. If the image is untagged or the profile is unrecognized, the colors get sent directly to the monitor profile.
For Photoshop, a tagged document will have its profile respected and then sent to the monitor. An untagged document will be assigned the workspace profile, which acts like a temporary document profile, and then gets sent to the monitor. This is often why users will notice Photoshop behaves differently from other applications. It's usually a case of the workspace coming into play. By default the workspace profile is set to sRGB. You can change this in Edit > Color Settings.
The purpose of the workspace is originally for printing workflows, as a way of keeping consistant color translations when dealing with both tagged and untagged documents. For web output workflows it can be useful for viewing everything through sRGB, which is typical of the average monitor output (not so with newer wide-gamut monitors, another source of confusion...) combined with the fact that originally most web browsers were not color managed. Hence viewing everything through sRGB is pretty close to what most monitors see and what untagged/unmanaged docs will look like.
Monitor calibration is useful only because it brings your monitor output to a "known state". In traditional workflows the monitor was always a middle-man, a preview device which was useful for getting an idea of what the printed output would look like before you print it. Since print colorspaces are often smaller than display spaces, it's feasible and useful to narrow down the monitor/display space and calibrate it to a known state, so that even if it doesn't totally match the print, you'll get used to its differences/limitations and they'll be consistent so long as the calibration is maintained.
For web output, your final output is often another user's computer monitor, which can have any form of behavior (most standard monitors are pretty close to sRGB, or use sRGB as an operating system workspace (default monitor profile). Wide gamuts behave differently, but I'm not sure if there's a particular ICC space that they closely match, or if different wide-gamuts are even that close to each other in their display color spaces.
Hope this helps!

Mixing Memory Speeds

Apologies, wrong thread, please ignore.
Message was edited by: Rhys Bethell

Hi Rhys,
i think what you are talking about is mixing memory size, not speed. You can not mix memory speeds, especially in Macs.
You can mix memory size in most Macs. Very few Macs use memory interleaving that requires exactly the same size memory modules to work best. The iMacs allow mixing size with no impact on performance.
Go ahead, Crucial is very good with Macs and can be trusted.
Also very good is Other World Computing (OWC).
Ralph

Memory speed differs from chip

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for