More Ram Performance Boost?

Has anyone noticed a perfomance boost by increasing the ram in their G5 iMac with iSight? I am considering getting the 2gb chip. I realized a pretty good improvement running multiple apps and browsing the internet on my 17" iMac Intel core duo.
What say yee?
Mikel
Mac Pro 3ghz Mac OS X (10.4.8) Killer Video Editing Machine

Are you still using the stock 512MB RAM? If so, you will see a huge improvement especially if you are running multiple apps like you are.

Similar Messages

8.0.2 and new ram, performance boost or waste of time?

Hi all,
I am going to add more ram to my MacBook. I understand that my MacBook officially only accepts of 2GB of ram (2x 1 gig sticks)I have read that many folks have put 4 gigs in a 2x2 gig matched pair configuration in there machine to get a maximum of 3 gigs. As I understand it this is not a supported configuration.
I don't mind paying for 4 gigs to only 3 my question is, would this make Logic unstable? I only use this machine for Logic and the apps that come with Logic Studio 1. I only go on line with it for updates and such so my main concern is keeping this machine stable for Logic.
Also I am imaging that increasing ram from 1 gig to even just the 2 that is officially supported will give me a bit of a performance boost but in what ways will I notice it in relation to Logics performance?
Also any recommendations for RAM in the UK would be very welcome.
Sorry for such a dull question,
Regards,
Jay
Message was edited by: NoteFarm

Hey Notefarm, a lot of my friends ( including myself and I noticed somebody else linked it here as well the other day ) use Crucial because of the macapp you can download which will tell you want you can have RAM wise and how much it's gonna cost you.
http://www.crucial.com/

Will more ram increase my performance?

I'm running Logic Pro 7.1.1 on a Powerbook G4 1.67 with 1 GB of ram installed running a fair amount of sample libraries and effects. When I check the Activity Monitor under system memory I get the following:
Wired: 108 MB
Active: 600 MB
Inactive: 300 MB
Free: 13 MB
Since I still have a decent amount of inactive memory, does that mean that more ram would not affect my performance? Or will more ram help out with system overloads?

i'm always careful in wholeheartedly saying 'yes' when people ask if more RAM will give more performance.. while of course it will in almost every case help things along, sometimes quite dramatically, I think it's important to be realistic about what it actually does.
it's easy to have the misconception that more RAM = more plug ins on some kinf of linear scale -- I had 2GB, so now with 4GB I should get something like double the performance, right? just as long as you're clear why this isn't the case, then that's the main thing.
I think since the days of CPU cards like protools TDM, the confusion is out there that adding RAM is like adding more DSP. so you just have to be careful that you understand what it's doing any why it can free your system up to do a little more. you can indeed see decent increases if your machine was struggling along before, given what you were trying to get it to do. or, it may just be a subtle thing.
IMO the best way to think of it is this. your machine has the capacity to perform up to a certain level. when you start getting it to do a lot of things, you will start creating a hindrance to it performing as fast as it can as soon as there are moments when it doesn't have enough RAM to do it. this amount will be different for everyone, dependant on your own use. so, the best thing you can do is remove the bottlenecks, and you'll best let your machine go as fast as it will go.

Mac recognizes more ram but no performance difference?

I purchase an extra 2 GB of ram for my macbook pro intel core 2 duo laptop for a total of 3 GB. I bought the ram at a pc store outside of apple but is built with the exact specifications of memory bought from apple.
I successfully installed the memory myself and when I booted up the mac and looked under 'about this mac' it showed 3 GB of ram so hip hip hurray i did everything ok.
However, there was no performance difference at all. Opening up music files, to video and even PDF files loaded up no faster than when I had just 1 GB of ram.
I did a mem test and an additional memory test with tech tool pro and everything seemed to be working fine.
Anyone know why I cannot see any performance difference? Actually to be exact, it feels as though the speed has improved about 512 MB but no where near 3GB.
I then took my 1GB ram stick out and just inserted the 2GB ram stick (which is the newly purchased one) and no performance difference occurred.
Even when I talked to customer support of where I bought the ram the guy said that this is quite odd and that the mac should perform much faster.
Any suggestions or solutions?
Thank you.
Dorian

+Opening up music files, to video and even PDF files loaded up no faster than when I had just 1 GB of ram.+
The first time you open them, it's limited by the speed of reading from your hard drive, so the extra RAM isn't making any difference.
+Actually to be exact, it feels as though the speed has improved about 512 MB but no where near 3GB.+
RAM won't magically make your computer run faster. Adding more RAM simply stops the computer from slowing down by going to the hard drive only if it actually uses that much memory.
It just sounds like the typical way in which you use your computer requires a bit more than 512 MB but less than 1 GB, and this is really quite normal.

Performance boost from Dual 1.8 PowerPC G5 tower to a 2.4 Intel MBP?

It's time for a computer upgrade but I wanted to make sure this is going to make things faster for me. I'm currently working with a Dual 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 tower with 7gb of ram and wanting to invest in a MBP (mid-ranged model, 2.4 - model that was released just before this current release)
I'm just wondering if this is going to make things faster for me. I'm a graphic designer and use CS3 programs like Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign regularly. So I occasionally have to open multiple hi-res images at the same time. I'm hoping to not have significant lag times with this or the dreaded beachball.
My job has shifted since I bought my DP 1.8 mac and I now travel a lot more so I need something more portable. My thinking for work when I'm in town would be to have the lid of the MBP closed and connect it to my 30" Apple Cinema display.
My concern is that I may not notice a speed increase. If I go with this MBP, is the concensus that I will be able to work similarly or better than my DP 1.8 now? I'm open to adding more RAM if that's necessary as well.
Thanks in advance!

Rod Hagen wrote:
Big MaCanadian seemed to be more concerned that performance might actually be no better or worse, Ewen.
With CS2 there were certainly some major problems with Photoshop on Intels, but from what I can see CS3 (while not as good as it should be) will almost certainly give Big MaC at least equal performance, and probably a useful boost, when compared with his 1.8 G5 Dual...
... One test does not a summer make (and, as others have pointed out, maximum memory will be an issue in some circumstances) , but by and large , with CS3, an Intel Mac will easily beat a G5 Mac with similar processor speed, all other things being equal. All things aren't equal here, of course, but I very much doubt that BigMac will be disappointed with the speed of a 2.4 SantaRosa Core2Duo MBP when compared with his old 1.8 G5 Dual.
Cheers
Rod
Message was edited by: Rod Hagen
I have read your post, Rod. I just think you don't have a decent third-party Mac enthusiast site speed test comparison and some of your facts are wrong.
Going to the first major point, you in fact seem to be agreeing with us that the MB Pro may not be offering a vast preformance increase: +but from what I can see CS3 (while not as good as it should be) will almost certainly give Big MaC at least equal performance...+ . I think it will be a bit faster too, maybe even twice as fast in certain tasks as indicated by the comparison you made with the higher end Intel desktop system, but that isn't an out-of-this-world improvement imo.
Second point, +an Intel Mac will easily beat a G5 Mac with similar processor speed+ is a little erroneous as to my understanding due to the different architecture of PPC and Intel chips you shouldn't be directly comparing on the basis of clock speed and then suggesting that system are comparative if these are equal.
CS3 works fine with Intel Mac, but an issue many of us have is the disappointment that it hasn't been optimized at all for the latest Intel Macs.
(point 2 is also I believe idiosyncratically called the Megaherts myth, link to a Wiki article to bring you up to speed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth , and also http://www.asia.apple.com/g4/myth/)
Message was edited by: Ewen
Message was edited by: Ewen

Easiest speedup--more RAM, or faster HD?

I recently got a stock 2GHz C2D Macbook--80 GB 5400 RPM HD and 1 GB memory. If you could only upgrade one, which would see a better speed boost: up the memory (to 1.5 GB using unmatched RAM), or install a 7200 RPM HD (remain at 80 GB)?
95% of the time, the speed is great, but after awhile switching between apps (especially heftier apps, like iPhoto and iTunes and very especially bringing these apps up via FrontRow), causes very noticeable delays. The login screen to get out of screensaver then takes awhile to come up as well.
Not too surprised to see pageouts (via MenuMeters) numbering in the hundreds of thousands, but my old dual-533 MHz PowerMac G4, with only 768 MB of RAM, didn't seem to choke as bad between iPhoto, etc. I don't regularly run PPC apps on my MB, though I do expect a speed/response penalty after starting one up.
So is my amount of RAM "okay" if I just up the speed of the HD?
One other difference: I always shut down my G4 when done so it starts fresh next time; my MB I just sleep/wake, so RAM isn't allowed to clear and virtual memory isn't flushed.
Comments and experience welcome, thanks!
Macbook 2 GHz C2D Mac OS X (10.4.8) 1 GB RAM

If you are getting lots of pageouts, the correct solution is more RAM, or running fewer RAM-hungry programs at the same time.
Your ratio of pageouts to pageins should be less than 10%. If it is greater than that, you are working the virtual memory system too hard.
You probably should have 2 Gig RAM, but going to unmatched 1.5 will be a start. Eventually match up another 1 Gig DIMM.
When you run Acitivity Monitor, look to see what PPC stuff is running. If you can replace all the legacy PPC stuff with Intel or Universal apps, your memory will go farther, because you won't have the additional overhead of the Rosetta emulation layer running.
Widgets are often RAM hungry, too. Watch out there.
Since you are currently working your Virtual Memory system too hard, I'd recommend rebooting more often, to clear stuff out. (Once Rosetta is started by running a PPC app, it will stay in memory until reboot.)
Over-working the VM system will lead to premature Hard Disk failure, in addition to bad performance and lousy battery life.

Tecra M3 - Odd observation about (lack of) RAM performance

Hi folks.
I recently moved up to 2 x 1GB of DDR2 (533) on this laptop, from 2 x 512MB, and one day a week ago or so I got curious and ran the SiSoftware Sandra memory bandwidth benchmark. The result struck me as lower than it should be - both Int and Float memory bandwidth figures were ~900 MB/s, similar to a single stick of DDR1 on a VIA platform in the Sandra database, and falling considerably short of yet again a single stick of DDR1 on an Intel 855 chipset platform - and yet this is a laptop running dual channel DDR2 (on the 915 chipset). It got even more interesting when I removed one of the DDR2 sticks, thus dropping to single channel, and observed identical performance. Utilities like memtest86+, CPU-Z, and Sandra itself do all report that I am in fact running dual channel when there are two sticks installed, so why is there no performance boost? Also the memory latency test results are extremely poor.
Long story short, I have yet to figure out the nature of this problem and therefore whether is fixable, or it's an inherent hardware flaw in the design of this laptop. All tests done without other stuff running, CPU-Z shows RAM running at 266 (533), 4-4-4-12 timings. BIOS is the latest 1.20 available for the M3 w/ VACF.
Here's what I've already tried (might be forgetting something, will add it if I remember):
Tried two sticks, and one stick, of both my old RAM (which came with the laptop), and the new OCZ. Basically all possible combinations are covered.
memtest86+ shows no errors after hours of testing on all the RAM.
Fresh Windows install, latest Intel INF chipset drivers etc, no change.
Any ideas?

What is the bandwidth reported in Memtest?
You wont really see a performance boost unless the memory is being read in ideal situations.

I have 1 GB RAM on an '07 MacBook Pro. 1) How do I check remaining memory? 2) I have Microsoft office 2004 - do I need to buy more RAM to upgrade to '11? 3) I need a new battery ... Is it worth the $$ to buy a new battery, RAM and Microsoft office 2011?

I have a MacBook Pro from '07 with 1 GB of memory. The battery is shot and my AppleCare has run out. I just upgraded the OS to 10.6.8. But a few questions:
1 - How do I even check how much memory I have left on this computer?
2 - How do I check how many battery cycles are left?
3 - I want to upgrade to Microsoft Office '11 because I don't have Adobe Acrobat to creat pdf's and I need to be able to do this for school... Instead of buying acrobat, I figured I would just upgrade to Office '11 because I can generate pdf's from Word. Roughly how much RAM does Office '11 take up?
4 - Does Apple still make batteries for this computer (from '07)? How much do they cost?
5 - How much does 1 more GB of memory cost?
AND lastly -- is it even worth it to spend the $ on more RAM, a new battery and Office '11?
Or does it make more sense to just get a new computer entirely? (trying to avoid this).
ANY help would be sooo appreciated! Thanks.

1 - How do I even check how much memory I have left on this computer?
If you're asking how to check to see if you need more RAM, open Activity Monitor and go to the System Memory tab, then compare page outs and page ins. If page outs is 10% or more of page ins, you probably need more RAM.
2 - How do I check how many battery cycles are left?
There's no limit on the number of battery cycles, it's just that the more cycles you've used the more "worn out" your battery gets. You've got a 4-year-old machine, and if it's still got the original battery, it's probably about time for a replacement battery. You can check battery health using System Profiler... look at the Power section under Hardware.
3 - I want to upgrade to Microsoft Office '11 because I don't have Adobe Acrobat to creat pdf's and I need to be able to do this for school... Instead of buying acrobat, I figured I would just upgrade to Office '11
You don't need Office 2011 to create PDFs. Any application capable of printing can create PDFs on a Mac. Just choose File -> Print, but instead of clicking the Print button in the print dialog, click the PDF button and choose Save As PDF in the menu that appears.
4 - Does Apple still make batteries for this computer (from '07)? How much do they cost?
5 - How much does 1 more GB of memory cost?
I'll "ditto" sig's answers to these.
AND lastly -- is it even worth it to spend the $ on more RAM, a new battery and Office '11?
Or does it make more sense to just get a new computer entirely? (trying to avoid this).
If Office 2004 is still working fine for you, stick with that and don't incur the costs of Office 2011. As to the RAM, only add more if the test I mentioned above indicates that you need it. If you buy more RAM when you don't really need it, you won't see much (if any) performance improvement. That just leaves the battery... and if the machine is still doing what you need it to do and you don't really need a new machine for anything, you could definitely buy a new battery and get a few more years out of it.

Is there a big performance boost from 2008 MacBook Pro to i7 iMac/Mac Pro?

I'm trying to determine if a new desktop is worth the investment. I have a 2008 MacBook Pro, 2.4 GHz and 4GB of RAM. I'm getting a little frustrated with it when using it with Aperture and Final Cut Express. It's just too sluggish for me.
But before I drop about $2500 on a new Mac Pro or iMac, I want to be sure I'm going to see a huge performance boost over my laptop. I'd hate to spend all the money only to find my photos and videos process only 10 or 15% faster than before. I'd like to see a new machine perform twice as fast but maybe that's unrealistic. I'm just not sure.
Can someone please tell me what I should expect? Thanks.

Hi,
Barefeats has done all sorts of tests http://www.barefeats.com/
Maybe these two http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp20.html http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp18.html can give an impression on what to expect (i7 iMac - MBP 3.06 C2D)
Hope it helps
Stefan

If my peak "physical memory" usage is around 50%, is adding more RAM a waste of money?

I have a W700-DS with the T9600 dual-core and an SSD, and when running 4GB of RAM I'd notice that memory usage tended to rarely exceed 50%. Just for the heck of it, I just upgraded to 8GB of RAM, and now I'm curious as to whether I wasted my money, as the 4GB usage never hit 100%. One thing I did notice is that my "Windows Experience Index" went from 5.9 to 6.4, but I'm guessing maybe that's just marketing BS from Microsoft.
Thanks for your opinions.

If you haven't checked it out already, take a look at what the Resource Monitor tells you. I'm "using" only abpit 3GB out of 12 right now, but 9GB is marked "standby" -- memory filled by SuperFetch with items I'm most likely to need. The memory is still availalbe for something else if Windows/SuperFetch guessed wrong, but if it guessed right, it's already there and ready to go. Thus the boost to your Experience Index isn't total BS. You may actually be find your system more responsive. For example, if you always start your morning reading email, then check a website, then finally open your primary work applications, having more RAM allows SuperFetch to predictively load more of this while you're doing something else.
Interstingly, as I was typing this, my In Use dropped to 2.7G, Standby has filled the remainign 9.3G and free is down to 0 (Hardware Reserved is a negligible 113MB).
You don't mention exactly what OS you're using, but I'm going to presume Windows 7 x64... with a 32-bit OS, you definitely would have been wasting your money with its nominal 3GB limit. SuperFetch wasn't quite as good with Vista, but there would still be some benefit there, I think. I have no experience with XP x64.

Aging g4 just keeps going but is more ram worthwhile?

I have a g4 that was purchased in 2000. I have never had a problem with it and probably haven't turned it off 50 times since I bought it. My question is that I can't afford a new computer but is it worth putting more RAM in it now in view of it's age? I run heavy apps on it (i.e., adobe and open-source). Currently I have 756 total RAM. My understanding is that with OS X I can go as high as 2GB so is it worth it? I know I have been extremely lucky with how this computer has performed.
The only other option I might consider is a Mac Mini with 4GB of RAM but everything I've read says that this is not a "production" machine. I am a graphic/web designer so performance is important (yeah, I know, so why am I using a dinosaur?).

Hi, helloiamamac -
There's no factual way to answer that question, only opinion.
When using OS 9, since you already have more than 512MB of RAM, adding more will not help much, as long as you are not running out of RAM under your current usage patterns. If you had less than 512MB, you could see (subjectively) an improvement in OS 9 by adding more. OS 9 can address a max of 1.5GB of RAM.
If you are using OSX, then adding more can help, specifically by reducing or eliminating the need for the OS to use swap space on the disk (a form of virtual memory). No data is read faster than data in RAM. Although fast processors (which you do not have) can manage swapping data from disks much better, it's still not as fast as reading from RAM. OSX can address a max (on your machine) of 2.0GB of RAM.
That machine, a G4 (Gigabit Ethernet) model, has four RAM slots (it was the last machine prior to the G4 MDDs which has more than three slots); each slot is rated for a max RAM module size of 512MB. Four of those give the machine's max total of 2.0GB.
You stated your machine has "756 total RAM" - might that be 768MB instead? 768MB is usually the result of one 512MB module and one 128MB module, although it could also be three 256MB modules (or some other combo of modules). In order to get 2.0GB of RAM in it, the minimum number of 512MB modules you would need is three; the max is four. You would need to balance the cost of those vs. the cost of a newer machine, one with more RAM than you have now.
By "newer" machine I am suggesting that instead of a brand new machine, you look at ones older than new, but newer than yours. Some of the G4 MDDs are going for good (i.e., low) prices, perhaps even lower than the cost of adding RAM to your machine. G5s are another possibility, provided you do not need to boot to OS 9.

Adding more RAM to Tiger

My ibook has 512MB's of RAM. I am happy with this. However since next year I plan to return to school to get a Masters in Ministry, I may need more RAM. From 2001-2005 while I working on my undergrad I used a Performa 6360 which had 136MB's of RAM + RAM Doubler. I was able to run some 20 apps at one time (or more) without a major slowdown. I cannot do this with Tiger, and since I plan to get the OSX version of Dave to access other PC's on the network (since whatever is built int OSX pales in comparison to Dave). On my Performa 6360 Dave was a necessity, since the campus dumped using Macs in 2002. I remember my 1st year (2001-2002) I could access a number of Macs on the Appletalk network at the time. But after the Fall 2002 semester the mac got dumped. Some students still used Macs, but fewer and fewer used them in the 2003-2005 years.
So my question is. Will maxing out my ibook to a gig of RAM although me to run some 20-30m apps at one time (like I could on the Performa) or was OSX Tiger just not designed for this?
OSX Tiger is much better than OS 9.1, but not in all areas as OS 9.x and before do have their advantages over Tiger.
Thanks,
John

My ibook has 512MB's of RAM. I am happy with this.
However since next year I plan to return to school to
get a Masters in Ministry, I may need more RAM. From
2001-2005 while I working on my undergrad I used a
Performa 6360 which had 136MB's of RAM + RAM Doubler.
I was able to run some 20 apps at one time (or more)
without a major slowdown. I cannot do this with
Tiger, and since I plan to get the OSX version of
Dave to access other PC's on the network (since
whatever is built int OSX pales in comparison to
Dave). On my Performa 6360 Dave was a necessity,
since the campus dumped using Macs in 2002. I
remember my 1st year (2001-2002) I could access a
number of Macs on the Appletalk network at the time.
But after the Fall 2002 semester the mac got dumped.
Some students still used Macs, but fewer and fewer
used them in the 2003-2005 years.
So my question is. Will maxing out my ibook to a gig
of RAM although me to run some 20-30m apps at one
time (like I could on the Performa) or was OSX Tiger
just not designed for this?
OSX Tiger is much better than OS 9.1, but not in all
areas as OS 9.x and before do have their advantages
over Tiger.
Actually, OS 9 does not have any advantage over OS X. You had 136 MB of ram plus RamDoubler, why do you think 512 MB of ram will be less adequate?
RamDoubler merely did what OS X does as part of how it works. It did not give you more ram it just allocated more to the app up front while dropping background apps as low as possible. This is what OS X does.
If you were running 20 - 30 apps with 136 MB of ram then they weren't ram hogs at all and it's very likely you can run them without adding more ram now.
OS X handles virtual memory much better too. In the old days I could run 2-3 apps at a time, now I can run 10-12, and most of mine are major ram hogs like Photoshop.
Kevin

Will adding more RAM to my Power Mac G5 make a difference?

I have a Power Mac G5 (Late 2005) with 1 GB of RAM, which is how I ordered it. Sometimes when I am viewing large (large viewing size) video files with Quicktime, the video files get a little choppy from time to time, especially when I have many other applications open. Will adding more RAM fix this or is it not really necessary? Also, does Leopard improve this problem? I am currently using Tiger.

Hey Tim
I'm definitely not an expert - but more Ram makes a huge difference. I'm not sure if more Ram will specifically solve your Quicktime issues or whether upgrading your graphic card is really the answer. Those more knowledgeable should jump in here. Buying Ram from 3rd parties, like OWC (making sure you do have the right compatible Ram), will improve your performance immediately. I noticed the difference when maximizing the RAm on my G4. It cannot hurt. 4GB of Ram for my G5 cost less than $200. I think Ram is the biggest bang for the buck.
Do you really need to get Leopard? The performance of Tiger on the G5 for me is solid. Seems like Tiger is optimized at this point for the G5 processor chips. Why muck around with all the potential problems you read about on these forums. Check out the Adobe forum and hear some of their nightmare stories. Who has this amount of time to waste on fixing what shouldn't need fixing in the first place. Just a thought - hope I'm not out of line for chiming in on this.
Since your model can take 8GB of Ram, indulge yourself and maybe buy another 4GB of matched Ram and if it doesn't solve your Quicktime issues, I'll bet it will make you happy with everything else.
Mike

IMac 2012 (December) more RAM or faster processor?

I will buy a 21.5 iMac. Basic user: web, MS Office documents, some photo editing, burn DVDs. Maybe light video. I tend to keep my computers a long time (current Mac is the half dome from about 8 years ago).
Question: for the most bang for the buck, and long term use, is it worth adding more RAM (8 to 16) or upgrading the processor (2.7 to 2.9)?
Or just keep the basic model?
Unlike previous questions like this, the 21.5 Macs don't let you add RAM later. I get conflicting opinions from Mac store.

IMHO if you intend to keep the machine a long time in order to get the best performance and most futureability I'd recommend getting the i7 21.5" with 16GB and get the 1TB Fusion drive. The 2012 21.5" iMacs are not designed to be user upgradeable for anything however OWC (www.macsales.com) sells a RAM upgrade kit. It takes skill to do the upgrade and will probably invalidate the warranty but it's possible.
IMHO I'd buy the upgrades from Apple at the point of order. You can purchase the above (i7, 16GB, Fusion drive) configuration from Apple's online store, I doubt the brick and mortar store would carry it.

Upgrade: more Ram or SSD ?

I am using a Mac mini 2009 with 2 GB Ram Mac OS 10.5.8
It looks like there are two options to upgrade my Mac.
1. upgrade the Ram from 2 GB to 4 GB
2. replace the internal hard drive with SSD
I just want to improve the overall performance.
Which one would you recommend?
Thank you.

Of course, the ultimate prize would be to upgrade both, but for overall performance, go SSD.
The difference is so noticeable and rewarding.
I had an early 2008 MB Pro 15" which I'd used a Cardbus SSD in the Expresscard slot for over a year. Now I have a current model MB Pro 15" which I do love, but in many respects it's no faster than my old one with the SSD.
If you are planning to do a lot of video editing and transcoding, image editing, etc. then the SSD has less noticeable improvement and is better served by better CPU and more RAM. But if you're consuming content, using social networking, importing and managing lots of files, databases, etc. then SSD it is. Reboots, launching multiple applications, Cmd+Tab(bing) between apps are all accelerated greatly by SSD.
An interesting idea, I've seen positive reacting to the new hybrid drives form Seagate which combine SSD with traditional HD storage. This way you still get 500GB but also, SSD and lower cost. In fact, then you could buy the RAM too!

More Ram Performance Boost?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for