Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2133mhz Ram Test Results

I changed my order for the balistix 2133. Hope it works. Funny how the cas gets higher at each step. 9 for 1600, 10 for 1866 and 11 for the 2133. I assume that overall the speed will still see better performance regardless of the higher cas..
 
ohsnaphappy said:
There's a lot of mixed information on this forum about 2133mhz ram in the Skylake iMac.

I have a Skylake iMac arriving Oct 22-27, so if no one has real test results by then, I'll volunteer to be the guinea pig for everyone. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Any update on when your orders are expected? I have some 2133 coming in Thursday to try.
 
ohsnaphappy said:
There's a lot of mixed information on this forum about 2133mhz ram in the Skylake iMac.

The questions that need to be answered are:

1) Will the Skylake iMac boot and operate properly with 2133mhz ram.
2) Will 2133mhz ram run at 2133mhz in the Skylake iMac? Or will it only show as 2133 in the system profile - all the while running at 1866?

Here is a stick for consideration, at $65 it's very reasonable priced: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00UV...X110_SY165_QL70&keywords=Kingston+hyperx+2133

I have a Skylake iMac arriving Oct 22-27, so if no one has real test results by then, I'll volunteer to be the guinea pig for everyone. Thanks!
Click to expand...
To the ultimate doubter... I can now finally CONFIRM after (lost tracking and package in delivery causing one day delay) my iMac arrived today Kingston HyperX 2133MHz RAM works. It boots up. It shows 2133MHz on system profile and also on Geekbench. I run Luxmark, Geekbench, Unigine and Cinebench and the computer didn't crash. This prooves wrong the OWC claims that new iMac can only run RAM highest at 1866. No I haven't run ramtest on it cause that would take days and I just want to get the computer operational.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
  • Like
Reactions: OurDarkness, briloronmacrumo, dsc888 and 2 others
majestice said:
To the ultimate doubter... I can now finally CONFIRM after (lost tracking and package in delivery causing one day delay) my iMac arrived today Kingston HyperX 2133MHz RAM works. It boots up. It shows 2133MHz on system profile and also on Geekbench. I run Luxmark, Geekbench, Unigine and Cinebench and the computer didn't crash. This prooves wrong the OWC claims that new iMac can only run RAM highest at 1866. No I haven't run ramtest on it cause that would take days and I just want to get the computer operational.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the difference on a bench test.
 
majestice said:
To the ultimate doubter... I can now finally CONFIRM after (lost tracking and package in delivery causing one day delay) my iMac arrived today Kingston HyperX 2133MHz RAM works. It boots up. It shows 2133MHz on system profile and also on Geekbench. I run Luxmark, Geekbench, Unigine and Cinebench and the computer didn't crash. This prooves wrong the OWC claims that new iMac can only run RAM highest at 1866. No I haven't run ramtest on it cause that would take days and I just want to get the computer operational.
Click to expand...

Great, my iMac comes in about an hour and I have that memory also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xodh
I now have 32GB of the Kingston enroute, which should arrive about the same time as my i7 5k. I don't think $228 is unreasonable, for 32GB of very fast RAM.

Look forward to benchmarks!
 
If I get 2 sticks of the 8gb 2133 MHz, will that work with the default Mac memory 4 gb 1600 MHz sticks to combine into 24 GB RAM? or do I need to have all of them at the same MHz frequency?
 
twilexia said:
If I get 2 sticks of the 8gb 2133 MHz, will that work with the default Mac memory 4 gb 1600 MHz sticks to combine into 24 GB RAM? or do I need to have all of them at the same MHz frequency?
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the new RiMac 27", the RAM is 1866 MHz, not 1600. And if you mix modules of different speed, all will run at the spped of the slower modules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twilexia
twilexia said:
If I get 2 sticks of the 8gb 2133 MHz, will that work with the default Mac memory 4 gb 1600 MHz sticks to combine into 24 GB RAM? or do I need to have all of them at the same MHz frequency?
Click to expand...
Didn't try to run Kingstons with stock RAM... I took the stock RAM out immediately. It is always better to use exactly the same RAM on all slots
 
Here's both 32bit and 64bit Geekbench with maxed out 5K and Kingston HyperX 2133 RAM

iMac5K32.png
iMac5K64.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: OurDarkness, mattoligy, Naaaaak and 3 others
I don't know the part numbers. 204-pin DDR3L Kingston HyperX 2133MHz... the other version are different MHzs so I don't think you can buy a wrong one!
xodh said:
Looks encouraging. Thanks for posting that! What is the part number of the chips you bought?
Click to expand...
 
majestice said:
I don't know the part numbers. 204-pin DDR3L Kingston HyperX 2133MHz... the other version are different MHzs so I don't think you can buy a wrong one!
Click to expand...

Does this look the right one:

HyperX Impact SODIMM - 8GB Module - DDR3L 2133MHz CL11 SODIMM
Part Number: HX321LS11IB2K2/16 (Kit of 2)
Specs: DDR3L , 2133MHz , CL11 , 1.35V , Unbuffered ,
Timings: 2133MHz, 11-12-13, 1.35V/1.5V; 1866MHz, 10-11-12, 1.35V/1.5V; 1600MHz, 9-9-10, 1.35V/1.5V

Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that! Numbers look promising. Wonder how your results compare with a similar 1866 setup?

majestice said:
I don't know the part numbers. 204-pin DDR3L Kingston HyperX 2133MHz... the other version are different MHzs so I don't think you can buy a wrong one!
Click to expand...
 
xodh said:
Does this look the right one:

HyperX Impact SODIMM - 8GB Module - DDR3L 2133MHz CL11 SODIMM
Part Number: HX421S13IBK2/16 (Kit of 2)
Specs: DDR3L , 2133MHz , CL11 , 1.35V , Unbuffered ,
Timings: 2133MHz, 11-12-13, 1.35V/1.5V; 1866MHz, 10-11-12, 1.35V/1.5V; 1600MHz, 9-9-10, 1.35V/1.5V

Thanks :)
Click to expand...
YES

boros said:
Thanks for that! Numbers look promising. Wonder how your results compare with a similar 1866 setup?
Click to expand...
I don't know how much RAM affects Geekbench to begin with. 1866 RAM if CL10 then it will be about the same as 2133 CL11. With CL13 stock RAM the difference is on paper like 40-45% but very small on practical applications. I just have lots of video converting, compressing, rendering that takes for hours and hours and this RAM was still quite cheap
 
It's at least worth pointing out that it's possible faster memory might be more prone to transient errors which could corrupt a long-running task. That's why the Mac Pro uses ECC RAM, which can recover from those sorts of errors. The non-ECC RAM we use in the iMac, that isn't the case.

It would probably never be an issue, but you have to think there's some reason Apple decided to go with 1866 by default. Perhaps it's just price. Perhaps they found something during the QA process.
 
syndr0me said:
It's at least worth pointing out that it's possible faster memory might be more prone to transient errors which could corrupt a long-running task. That's why the Mac Pro uses ECC RAM, which can recover from those sorts of errors. The non-ECC RAM we use in the iMac, that isn't the case.

It would probably never be an issue, but you have to think there's some reason Apple decided to go with 1866 by default. Perhaps it's just price. Perhaps they found something during the QA process.
Click to expand...

Yeah if they sold the computer with better RAM their profit margins would be lower and like said before the practical differences in speeds would be non-existent to 95% of iMac users.

I have never had computer that had ECC RAM and if I had any problems, then it obviously wasn't serious enough for me to ever consider getting ECC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OurDarkness
majestice said:
To the ultimate doubter... I can now finally CONFIRM after (lost tracking and package in delivery causing one day delay) my iMac arrived today Kingston HyperX 2133MHz RAM works. It boots up. It shows 2133MHz on system profile and also on Geekbench. I run Luxmark, Geekbench, Unigine and Cinebench and the computer didn't crash. This prooves wrong the OWC claims that new iMac can only run RAM highest at 1866. No I haven't run ramtest on it cause that would take days and I just want to get the computer operational.
Click to expand...
I am very excited to hear this as my balistix 2133 is out for delivery. I was 90% sure it would work but thanks for all the info and tests!! :)
 
syndr0me said:
It's at least worth pointing out that it's possible faster memory might be more prone to transient errors which could corrupt a long-running task. That's why the Mac Pro uses ECC RAM, which can recover from those sorts of errors. The non-ECC RAM we use in the iMac, that isn't the case.

It would probably never be an issue, but you have to think there's some reason Apple decided to go with 1866 by default. Perhaps it's just price. Perhaps they found something during the QA process.
Click to expand...
You could also ask why they cheaped out (or whatever) and didn't go with a ddr4 motherboard. I guess timing, parts availablity and costs...
 
majestice said:
Yeah if they sold the computer with better RAM their profit margins would be lower and like said before the practical differences in speeds would be non-existent to 95% of iMac users.

I have never had computer that had ECC RAM and if I had any problems, then it obviously wasn't serious enough for me to ever consider getting ECC.
Click to expand...
You're guessing. You have no idea why Apple went with 1866. Neither do I. Saying it's due to profit margin without really knowing is simply confirmation bias.

That said, your post confirming 2133 works was good enough for me to buy 32GB of it myself. I'll let it memtest86 overnight, and if there are no crashes or odd behavior, I'll return the unopened 1866 I bought.

ECC has its place. In servers, particularly, where stability is critical. On the Mac Pro where long-running jobs are more common. Non-ECC is an acceptable risk for most people using an iMac (certainly is for me). But you'd get laughed out of the building if you tried to use it for anything mission critical. And by that I mean more critical than editing photos and videos, browsing the web and playing games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back