“We previously reported that while the MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo can physically accomodate two 2 GB RAM modules for a total of 4 GB, Apple’s specs list the model as able to recognize a maximum of 3 GB of RAM. Today we have some some additional information regarding why the units can only recognize 3 GB, and the questionable nature of other manufacturers’ claims that their Core 2 Duo-based uportables can address up to 4 GB of RAM,” MacFixIt reports.
“The MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo presumably uses Intel’s 945PM chipset, which can physically handle 4 GB of DDR2 RAM. However, a number of items that must be stored in physical RAM space, and when RAM reaches 4 GB, there is some overlap. In other words, in a 3 GB RAM configuration, there is no overlap with the memory ranges required for certain system functions,” MacFixIt reports.
Full article here.
On a laptop or an iMac, why would you really need more than 3 gigabytes? If you need more than that, get a MacPro.
Of course, duhhh didn’t everyone now that? You stupid people! hehehe
A 2 gig chip is like 6 hundred and somehtign bucks!!!1 Holy shit!!! like I need 2 of them anyway
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
ApplePi,
Unfortunately RAM is very expensive at Apple.
4 gigs of RAM in my MacPro costs $1200.00 US.
I bought 4 gigs for my PC gaming rig at an electronics superstore and it was only $250.00.
Both were 4 single gig sticks…:-(
It would be nice if Apple put out a spec sheet showing just how much that 4th Gig of Memory was available to the user. Let the user decide if they want to spend the money for whatever amount that was.
Uhh, 2GB sticks of 667MHz PC2-5300 run in the $200-300 range…
JerryT, you’re not comparing like memory I think.
I’ve seen DDR2 PC-5300 for $180 for 1Gb, which would be around $720 for 4Gb. A lot less than Apple are charging for it, sure. But there’s no way you could get 4Gb of Mac Pro compatible memory for $250.
Jerry T–
I bought 4 gigs for my PC gaming rig at an electronics superstore and it was only $250.00.
Both were 4 single gig sticks…:-(
So now you can play games!
Hahahahaha
*Sigh*
And I had just written a story about it all being Apple’s fault.
It is always good to max out your ram on a Mac, cause OS X sucks at memory management. Also, since OS X is such a freakin memory hog the more ram the better.
New Mac Book Pro can be upgraded up to 4 GB of RAM.
2 GB free, 1 GB for Mac OS X and 1 GB for EFI and Trusted Computing to watch what your doing.
EFI = firmware backdoor to our machines from the internet.
What is interesting here is that the MacBookPro chipset (and presumably that includes the iMac, MB and mini) are going to be limited to 3 GB.
Even though the OS is capable of using more, the boards won’t let you.
For some power users who need the mobility / convenience of a laptop this may be an issue
Eric
There are many reasons for needing more than 3GB of RAM. First, Macs running OS X 10.4 are not usable with only 512MB of RAM in my opinion, and it’s only a default configuration on Apple’s bottom of the barrel offerings. They are very slow and unresponsive. So, 1GB really should be the minimum. And we are only talking about Tiger, we aren’t even considered Leopard yet.
I have been testing OS X 10.5 Leopard and the situation is even worse. There is a reason why new MBPs and iMacs are coming with a default 1GB of RAM on the “low” end configuration; the reason is simply that Leopard will not run well without at lease 1GB. And keep in mind that is just the OS. Start using several applications at once and you will need 2GB!
All my Macs are confirgured with 2GB and I am consistantly getting near 100% active memory utilization (using Tiger); and I am not running any special applications either. I’m just a heavy user with lots of stuff open.
Add Parallels or other Pro applications to the mix and you run out of memory fast; and if you want to run multiple Parallels instances 2GB just isn’t enough. I think 3GB is just a temporary fix. I expect Apple and Intel will have a solution next year to address 4GB on all Macs, including the mini, and will offer that as a BTO option. I also expect Apple to offer their mid to high configurations with a default of 2GB just like they are with the new MacBook Pros.
Not everyone uses a computer just to do email and internet browsing, and Leopard will have steeper system requirements. 3GB is expensive, but it always is at first. By the end of next year it won’t be. All Macs will come with 1GB or 2GB configurations and a 3GB or 4GB BTO option. And you will you use it.
My macbook has 2 gigs of ram in it, bought it at Frys…cost me $170 total
pog,
Fry’s in my area had a sale on RAM. It was PC-4200.
I know you can’t get MacPro RAM at that price. It cost me $1200.00 from Apple to get the same amount.
It just sucks that they use fully buffered super expensive server type RAM in their work station. Makes sense in the XServe, but FB RAM is slower with more latency than regular DDR2 for most desktop activities.
But still, I used to spend $5,000 on my design station alone. Now I get a nice design station and a killer game system for about the same amount.
To MacMental: I, for one, *am* running 10.4 with only 512 MB. OK, it’s no speed demon, but I’m running it on a 500 MHz *Pismo*.
Make sure you’re comparing comparable memory. Yes, memory for the Mac Pro is expensive from Apple. But it’s a far from generic RAM module. When I last checked pricing on Crucial, it was pricey there too.
The next Intel Chipset (Santa Rosa is the code name) is supposed to fix the 4GB memory issue. That should be out 1H 2007 according to Intel.
Also, as for FBDIMMS. Apple has no choice but to use those with the new Xeon Processors. The 5100 series processor requires FBDIMMS. Apple would have to release a desktop with a (Conroe) Core 2 Duo Processor to avoid use of FBDIMMS. But the Conroe processor can not be used in a multi processor configuration.
my 2 cents
The solution is to run 128mb of ram in Windows ME. Don’t forget the antiviris programs. Have a good day and good computing!
Has anyone had a bad experience with 18004memory.com? I have been buying from them for many years. Their prices are almost always lowest according to ramseeker.com.
@MacMental.
Don’t be a dumbass. I’m currently using a G4 ibook 1GHZ proc with 768MB of ram. I can open and use several apps including photoshop, acrobat and quark at once and not witness any slow down what so ever. My mother uses a G3 ibook and still doesn’t know how to use it, bless her, so she’s always got about 10 apps running at once and that still runs about as fast as mine. To say OSX is a memory hog is a lie and telling everyone they need at least 3 gigs of RAM is just snobbery.
can we get a coupla 1.5?
I don’t understand this – which shouldn’t be a surprise; this is pretty esoteric board level design stuff, BUT:
Why would a chipset decide to use memory addresses between 3 gig and 4 gig? Where would the chipset expect to find that memory if it’s not installed? Does the chipset have some onboard memory addressed there? If so, has the idiot at Intel who decided that a chip set – used with a 64 bit processor – should usurp the OS’s memory space been hung, drawn, and quartered? Slowly?
Just askin’.
DanDrums – Relax.
Its amazing how computer geeks can feel so casually throw insults when safely behind their computer.
Those that think 512MB – 768MB of memory is enough have never used a Mac with 2-4GB of memory. The difference is night and day. Those of you with less then 1GB of memory, join us and learn what a Mac should feel like. It’s only going to get worse from here as well, those of you used to the 512MB – 1GB… your running the bare minimum now. Times change, programs are using more memory, 1GB is barebones scraping now.
M.T.MacPhee asked:
“Why would a chipset decide to use memory addresses between 3 gig and 4 gig? Where would the chipset expect to find that memory if it’s not installed? Does the chipset have some onboard memory addressed there? If so, has the idiot at Intel who decided that a chip set – used with a 64 bit processor – should usurp the OS’s memory space been hung, drawn, and quartered? Slowly?”
It’s because the processor is 32-bit. The largest memory address it can use is limited to 2^32 which is 4GB. That address space must be shared by the firmware, video memory and regular memory and so not all of it is available for the regular memory. This is very old news – it’s been a limitation since 32-bit address spaces were conceived. If you want more RAM, get a 64-bit laptop – models using AMD’s 64-bit processor line have been out for many months, just not from Apple. Fully supported by Linux.
AlienApple opined:
“Those that think 512MB – 768MB of memory is enough have never used a Mac with 2-4GB of memory. The difference is night and day. Those of you with less then 1GB of memory, join us and learn what a Mac should feel like. It’s only going to get worse from here as well, those of you used to the 512MB – 1GB… your running the bare minimum now. Times change, programs are using more memory, 1GB is barebones scraping now.”
However, before parting with your hard-earned cash, take a few minutes to listen carefully to hear whether you hear hard disk activity when moving between applications or when manipulating large images, etc, in programs. If you do, then you would benefit from more memory as MacOS is having to use your slow hard disk as virtual memory. If not, then increasing your memory will have no effect whatsoever, as your existing memory is already able to fully handle your computing needs. Adding memory only makes computers faster if they are having to frequently swap and page to disk. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant.