cabby Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 My MBP has gotten very sluggish lately (now running 10.9.5) so think so more ram is needed. I've used the Crucial system scanner thing before but doesn't seem to be working + I'm unclear on a) what is the max it can take, and b) what's the best value for money/performance combination I can go for. I'm guessing this is a better 1st step than a SD HD upgrade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) That model will take up to 16gb. The 4gb will be 2 x 2gb modules (this is where they get you). However, because there are only 2 sockets, you have to ditch the existing 4gb. So you could install 2 x 4gb or 2 x 8gb. RAM does make a huge difference and it is surprising how much modern day software uses. However, the impact of an SSD is remarkable. I can't stress how much I mean that. Worlds apart from SATA based storage and speed. Edited February 1, 2015 by NewNiceMrMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabby Posted February 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) I thought it was 16 GB but was getting confused by 'mid 2012' and 'late 2011' model descriptions. I did a HD upgrade on my old MacBook to a hybrid jobby and that made a huge difference so I can image a full SSD one would be great. Had a look on dabs as they have a decent selection but struggling to work out how to pick (other than price!). Memory is all the same, right? Edited February 1, 2015 by cabby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 The Crucial RAM is marked specifically for Mac in that listing and that's what I'd choose. However, I'd order directly from Crucial. I recently sold an SSD (256gb OCZ Vertex) that was in my old Macbook Pro and would have fitted yours. I mentioned it on here a few months back - and sold it to a friend for £50! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 I've got the same MBP pretty much and I've got 16Gb in mine. OS X is excellent at using the memory to improve overall performance as it can and does hold a lot of programs in memory to allow for very rapid application switching. Mine can often show 1Gb free memory but that is just the fact that there is lots of sofware open and and if extra applications are loaded it just frees some that it doesn't 'really' need to hold in memory. Seems to manage it far better that Windows and always trys to make use of all that its been given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabby Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 2 x 8GB ordered from Crucial for £104 and on its way as a type! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Wow 104 quid. Memory has shot up in price. 16Gb of that stuff used to be 30-40 quid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Wow 104 quid. Memory has shot up in price. 16Gb of that stuff used to be 30-40 quid. I paid about the same as cabby when upgrading a Mac a few years ago. I seem to recall it was £55 for 8Gb (with Crucial). Edited February 2, 2015 by NewNiceMrMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 Question: I've an old MBP running 8Gb and a SATA disk. MBP is late 2011 and from the Mac stable. Upgrade to 16Gb and an SSD or go for a new model next year at some point? Just conscious that OSX etc moves with CPU and model age rather than relative power (so it seems to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted August 10, 2015 Report Share Posted August 10, 2015 RAM + SSD = Cheap win, and you'll be impressed with the output. Which Mac is it? New Shiney=NEW SHINEY=NEW SHINEY! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) I'd leave the RAM at 8gb and put an SSD in it. The performance difference is huge. Then, if you do think you need a little more, upgrade the RAM. Stepping the upgrade process is much more sensible because you will be amazed what a difference the SSD makes and will probably find the RAM wasn't a problem. If your Macbook runs out of RAM it'll do paging. That is, it'll use your SATA drive for some data that would have been held in RAM had there been enough storage. Because of that, installing an SSD means you get a double benefit. Firstly, everything loads much faster. Secondly, paging is faster when you do run out of RAM. Macworld did testing on a range of RAM configurations using Adobe CS6. The performance difference between 4gb to 8gb was huge. However, the difference between 8gb to 16gb was anywhere between 1% and 6% on files up to 250mb in size. When they started working on 500mb files, the performance difference was much more marked (46% faster on the 16gb). The thing is - will you be working on big projects that consume RAM, have a lot of software open or be using massive files? They even did more basic tests that show how the average home user would see a difference. iTunes loaded 4% faster on a machine with 16gb compared to 8gb. In time, that was negligible. However, they didn't even see a benefit of any kind on other software - because the 8gb could cope. More RAM usually means more speed, but it really does depend on what you're using your Macbook for. On the other hand, an SSD will give a noticeable improvement no matter what you're doing. Edited August 11, 2015 by NewNiceMrMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 It all depends on how many applications are running as much as anything as well. Just to use CS6 as a guide is a little blunt. My laptop has 16Gb in it and its constantly using 14Gb of that but much of that is OSX caching things from multiple applications and the OS into memory its much better than windows in doing that. But if it needs to free up any of that usage it can do in a heartbeat. If all you are doing is running Safari with a couple of open TABs and not much more 8Gb will be plenty, lost of open applications and loads of tabs go for 16Gb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 It all depends on how many applications are running as much as anything as well. Just to use CS6 as a guide is a little blunt. My laptop has 16Gb in it and its constantly using 14Gb of that but much of that is OSX caching things from multiple applications and the OS into memory its much better than windows in doing that. But if it needs to free up any of that usage it can do in a heartbeat. If all you are doing is running Safari with a couple of open TABs and not much more 8Gb will be plenty, lost of open applications and loads of tabs go for 16Gb. I didn't say they did just use CS6. My post says they then tested all manner of other day-to-day software running. I don't know what you're running to be using 14gb of 16gb all of the time but it must be a hell of lot. I have 16gb on the Macbook I'm typing this on. Open and in use is: Chrome (3 tabs) Firefox (5 tabs) Word (with 4 documents open, one of which a report of 48 pages) Excel (with a reasonably average spreadsheet on it, around 400 rows and 50 columns) Outlook Preview Finder iCal FileZilla Komodo Edit 8 (with 26 webpages in PHP open on it) iMessage TweetDeck (running 104 live columns) ...and I'm using 6.78gb of the 16gb. Hence, even with all of the above, including the 3 main Office 365 apps, I could easily manage on an 8gb machine today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 It depends which machine I'm working on but both with have multiple applications / browsers / parallels and one is a server running things for the house. Both will use lots of the memory and they very very rarely ever get shut down to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Admit it, you're hosting a pron site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Checks your IP against the site access list.... Yeah I can see the type you like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 OSX is good at managing memory, but you have to be careful on how you read the stats as memory usage isn't what it would seem. You're more interested in the 'memory demands' rather than free memory, that's why Active Monitor has switched to memory pressure rather than free etc. I rarely bother closing stuff down on OS X, I rarely see any point. Right now I have three Virtual machines running for example, and loads of apps: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) ...and this is the memory pressure: ...not even being tickled really, yet the states could read otherwise. I.e. Memory Used. Edited August 11, 2015 by Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 That's why I was surprised at how much CarMad uses, because I knew you got by with 16gb and you're powering most of the email in Western Europe. By way of comparison, you're right on pressure..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Yup, the increase in wired memory on mine is due to the virtualisation - OS X can't manage memory spaces it doesn't 'own' so it just chunks the lot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 That laptop also has about 30Tb of disk space attached. That's a lot of pron*. *It isn't pron. (oh yes it is) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 .... I knew you got by with 16gb and you're powering most of the email in Western Europe. Things have massively changed now - I use Azure and Office365 for pretty much everything. Only time I end up needing a decent amount of hardware grunt is when doing things like Exchange database repairs. Hard to do in Azure as it takes quite a while to upload 20Tb of Email data :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 11, 2015 Report Share Posted August 11, 2015 Mine like Mac is because I often don't close programs. So Lightroom, a photo edit package, a Parallels desktop and more are all running. I've got less on the laptop at the moment as I've started from scratch with El Capitan, when I updated from Yosemite that was also in Beta it wasn't very happy at all. Comms when as slow as a mouse and it was very unstable. Tried a good few things to sort it, permissions etc. etc. but still no joy, wireless wasn't going over 8Mbps and USBs would connect properly all sorts. Anyway post fresh install to El Capitan a quick data speed test and I got 160Mbps wirelessly with my new router to speedtest.net this time so all is back to normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 I might have a spreadsheet open and loads of Safari tabs, but that is about it. I was also interested in the Mac upgrades going on CPU and the machine being left behind. It is a MBP 13" late 2011. 2.2Ghz CPU possibly, can't quite recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted August 12, 2015 Report Share Posted August 12, 2015 Processor speed improvements since then haven't been massive see the link below. If you moved to current kit you won't see much more than 10-15% increase by the looks of it. The new processors due next year Skylake are expected to have a bit of a boost, the processors recently have focused more on efficiency and power usage and thus battery life more than anything. Newer storage tech has also seen a big increase in performance and retina is available on the MBP 13" now. If you have the money and fancy a treat then wait for a new Skylake equipped MBP (early 2016 / late 2015 expected) if not just get the SSD and enjoy the improvement that will bring and wait for a bigger jump. https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now