Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Mini EFI Update 1.2 Enables 8GB
- Thread starter rw3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
super stoked about this. May have to grab a 4gb dimm around xmas (hopefully prices will have come down some...) and run with 6gb. 
I'm not stoked. Dude, let's talk about everyday usage like Safari, iTunes, iPhoto maybe Pages '09. Is this truly recognizing 8GB DDR3 because the 2007 Mac mini recognize 4GB but wasn't utilizing ALL 4GB EFI limit it 3GB. You're telling me that 8GB is working. I haven't heard you using any apps. Especially Memory Heavy usage programs. How long before this get super hot? Or the SSD is helping in keep cool? We need a lot more expansion on this.
Can you check activity monitor while doing 1080p conversion to make sure the operating system uses more then than 6GB? because i know all macs will recognize all the ram you will put in them in system profiler, but they will hit a imaginary limit and activity monitor will show this.
if it does address more than 6GB then its a dream com true!
if it does address more than 6GB then its a dream com true!
Below you will discover my findings as well as some benchmarks of the Corsair P256 SSD....
Also, the Mac Mini runs a lot hotter with the 8GB. I believe this is due to the very low air flow that the chipset and GPU see. However, after 24 hours of intense testing (Handbrake encoding 1080p BluRay rips), everything was good. Temps were within a reasonable range.
rw3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhUm4vaCaY8&fmt=18
If they use the same RAM as the MBP and 24" iMac, that's going to be $600~$1200 to upgrade to 8GB.
not to mention, the OS can handle it (10.5.8 via 36-bit PAE, 10.6 by being native 64-bit) but all the apps are still 32-bit and can only use 3.2GB.
If they use the same RAM as the MBP and 24" iMac, that's going to be $600~$1200 to upgrade to 8GB.
not to mention, the OS can handle it (10.5.8 via 36-bit PAE, 10.6 by being native 64-bit) but all the apps are still 32-bit and can only use 3.2GB.
Even so - Mac Mini cannot use 64-bit, period. Even under Snow Leopard =/
False, You are thinking of how windows does it's management, Unix core system's on what the OSX 10.0-10.6 are based on a completely different architecture and people get confused when post's like yours are read.
Understand "what is what" and learn the differences before you post, then try to back up your information.
Quote from Macworld with Link to clarify how Snow leopard is 64 bit, Even when booting from a 32bit EFI. "This Is Not Your Daddy's Windows"
"Applications running in Snow Leopard will have access to a full 16 exabyte virtual address space, just the same as if they were running in a 64-bit kernel. As a result, theres very little difference between booting into the 64-bit kernel and the 32-bit kernel in current Mac systems. (This is not to say that there won't be a bigger difference in the future, as RAM sizes continue to grow. But presumably new high-end Mac systems will boot into the 64-bit kernel when the need arises.)
So, bottom line: If youve got a Core 2 Duo or Xeon based Mac any Intel Mac not running a Core Duo or Core Solo processor youll be able to run applications in 64-bit mode, which will in turn be able to take advantage of faster 64-bit registers and math routines as well as access massive amounts of memory."
Link:http://www.macworld.com/article/142379/2009/08/snow_leopard_64_bit.html
Have A Nice Day
That is only true for the early Intel Mac minis that used the Core Solo or Core Duo CPU. Those CPUs are 32 bit only and since you need to have 64 bit capable hardware to be able to run 64 bit stuff in Leopard/Snow Leopard it's quite obvious those Mac minis won't run 64 bit stuff period.
However, all the other Mac minis use the Core 2 Duo CPU which is 64 bit capable and thus fulfils the "hardware has to be 64 bit capable"-requirement. That's why 64 bit stuff on those minis is peanuts in Leopard and Snow Leopard.
The question remains if it's useful regarding the fact the official max of the current Mac mini is 4 GB of RAM and the unofficial seems to be 8 GB (no idea if all of the 8 GB is usable since no one has tested it).
Rock on!
Now, if Apple would finally update the Mini DisplayPort firmware to support Audio over HDMI...
Now, if Apple would finally update the Mini DisplayPort firmware to support Audio over HDMI...
So couldn't Mac Mini's therefore theoretically support up-to 64 GB or RAM?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Mac_OS_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Mac_OS_X
If they use the same RAM as the MBP and 24" iMac, that's going to be $600~$1200 to upgrade to 8GB.
not to mention, the OS can handle it (10.5.8 via 36-bit PAE, 10.6 by being native 64-bit) but all the apps are still 32-bit and can only use 3.2GB.
Have you tested this with an app that can use more than 4 gb of RAM (e.g., piggy)?
Now, if Apple would finally update the Mini DisplayPort firmware to support Audio over HDMI...
No audio in the Mini DisplayPort, unfortunately.
Nope. The 9400m's memory controller is limited to 8 gb. Plus, there are no 32 gb DDR3s!
That would be a separate fix in the EFI and I doubt Apple would do it. I've set my 9300 (a slower 9400) hackintosh to 512 mb in the BIOS and the system had issues. I set it back to 256 mb and all is good.
Most folks probably wouldn't but I think it's a good insurance for when 4GB SO-DIMM becomes more affordable (it's currently down to about $250, which is about $100 less than beginning of the year).
I can think of few cases where intended users may want more than 4GB though. One most obvious would be high definition iMovie '09 video editing, which often exceeds 4GB. Many developers use Macs for development, and that could be another case where one would want more than 4GB. Granted, these are rather specialized cases, but you asked for "why would someone" and there you have it.
I know a lot of our customers were happy to see 8GB of RAM. When you're running large mySQL databases, the more GB's the better.
The 2009 Mac mini could address 8 GB before the EFI update, but after a long period of time (20 hours in one users tests) would slow to a crawl.
Testing with the new EFI and 10.6 seemed to fix this, but tests were not thorough - so if anybody is actually using more than 4GB please report back.
Test were not done by me, but by a user over on 123macmini.com.
Testing with the new EFI and 10.6 seemed to fix this, but tests were not thorough - so if anybody is actually using more than 4GB please report back.
Test were not done by me, but by a user over on 123macmini.com.
What confuses me about these firmware issues with ram capacity is, why I can't just call Apple up on my new Mac Mini and ask them about this issue?
In other words, how come Apple doesn't know the answer to whether or not the new minis can take eight gigs of ram?
And since they obviously DO know the answer, why would this information be withheld from warrantied users?
There is some gaming going on between customers and Apple for maximum use out of their machines? Like it is some game? I don't get it. Why would the withholding of this information help Apple?
You cannot get blood out of a rock: i.e. Mac Mini users are not Mac Pro users and there is no reason to limit operating information on a Mac Mini just because it is Apple's least expensive computer. Withholding pertinent information on the Mac Mini's capabilities is not going to make Mac Mini users buy an iMac or a Mac Pro.
In other words, how come Apple doesn't know the answer to whether or not the new minis can take eight gigs of ram?
And since they obviously DO know the answer, why would this information be withheld from warrantied users?
There is some gaming going on between customers and Apple for maximum use out of their machines? Like it is some game? I don't get it. Why would the withholding of this information help Apple?
You cannot get blood out of a rock: i.e. Mac Mini users are not Mac Pro users and there is no reason to limit operating information on a Mac Mini just because it is Apple's least expensive computer. Withholding pertinent information on the Mac Mini's capabilities is not going to make Mac Mini users buy an iMac or a Mac Pro.
8GB works fine
This is an excellent development and the timing is perfect. I have a recent mac mini and also a MacBook Pro 17" running 10.6.1 with 8GB RAM.
I switched the hard drive and RAM from the MacBook Pro into the mac mini and it seems to work fine. Photoshop was responsive, powerpoint was as responsive as it usually is. The mac mini system could see and appeared to be using the extra RAM quite happily.
This is an excellent development and the timing is perfect. I have a recent mac mini and also a MacBook Pro 17" running 10.6.1 with 8GB RAM.
I switched the hard drive and RAM from the MacBook Pro into the mac mini and it seems to work fine. Photoshop was responsive, powerpoint was as responsive as it usually is. The mac mini system could see and appeared to be using the extra RAM quite happily.
Nice find! Activity Monitor shows the full 8GB (well I think including the Nvidia 9400M's shared RAM.) Now we know it is true!
Until you do something that breeches the 4 gb barrier and then the 6 gb barrier, I'm not convinced. You need to run 4 instances of piggy, then 6 instances of piggy (each instance takes up 1 gb of RAM) and then see if the system is still responsive. Just because it's visible to the system, doesn't mean it's compatible.
I did the first 2 times I looked at it. Now I just need the price of RAM to come down.
The RAM is Hynix 4GB DDR3 that Apple shipped with my 2.93 GHz 17" MacBook Pro. (MacBookPro5,2)
I'm hoping to upgrade a few mac mini servers with MacBook Pro compatible RAM
So if I'm shopping for RAM, say on macramdirect, that's what I should enter for the model I'm shopping for? Seriously considering picking up a 4GB stick. Somehow I manage to really use up what I have with Logic, Safari, and a bunch of other stuff going.