Resolved Upgrading the 2011 imac to ivy bridge final results

[dmax35]

Knock it off, old man! Man up a little, will ya? Anyone here asking for your opinion? Or more importantly, anyone giving you the rights to be a forum cop here?

I can't imagine any more pathetic life than keeping an eye on a random person in forum every single day of your life.

One advice, little man, let it off and get a life

What ever wanna be no knowledge. Your response tells the story. Instead of pissing me off with your comments, now you have more haters. Congrats!

And stick your advice.......

 

[iSayuSay]

What ever wanna be no knowledge. Your response tells the story. Instead of pissing me off with your comments, now you have more haters. Congrats!

And stick your advice.......

Mumble mumble here goes the bubble.

Didn't get what you mean, but .. thanks, I guess?

 

[GermanyChris]

From a CPU spec perspective, the 2600 can only handle ram up to 1333MHz; whereas the 3770 can handle ram up to 1600MHz. Now don't get me wrong, but my preliminary research finds that z68 can handle 1600MHz, so it shouldn't be a problem to get those ram speeds if you were to use the 3770...but that's something that needs to be tested yet.

No this is wrong Ivy is 2133 Sandy was 1866.

 

[Djerzprod]

No this is wrong Ivy is 2133 Sandy was 1866.

Ummmm, dude...before you go and try to correct someone...try to research longer than five minutes! If you look at your attachment, under "System Information", the first thing that it says under Model is...wait for it...."HACKINTOSH" You can overclock ram on a hackintosh even higher than 2133 you jackenapes.

Now, what you should have done was provided a nice little link like I am going to do right here http://http://processors.findthebest.com/compare/806-810/Intel-i7-2600-vs-Intel-i7-3770. This will clearly show the proper comparison of both normal chips that apple would put in their machines. I did not compare the 2700 because the 2700 does not have VT and therefore would be useless if you want to use parallels or whatever. Now, are there anymore links that I need to post so that you don't come back talking about hackintoshes again, cause in this thread we are simply talking about the 27" iMac and the possibility to upgrade it with ivy bridge. Have a Nice Day!

 

[GermanyChris]

Ummmm, dude...before you go and try to correct someone...try to research longer than five minutes! If you look at your attachment, under "System Information", the first thing that it says under Model is...wait for it...."HACKINTOSH" You can overclock ram on a hackintosh even higher than 2133 you jackenapes.

Now, what you should have done was provided a nice little link like I am going to do right here http://http://processors.findthebest.com/compare/806-810/Intel-i7-2600-vs-Intel-i7-3770. This will clearly show the proper comparison of both normal chips that apple would put in their machines. I did not compare the 2700 because the 2700 does not have VT and therefore would be useless if you want to use parallels or whatever. Now, are there anymore links that I need to post so that you don't come back talking about hackintoshes again, cause in this thread we are simply talking about the 27" iMac and the possibility to upgrade it with ivy bridge. Have a Nice Day!

Do you want a screen shot from windows? the i7 2600 is the high line iMac chip. If you'll meander over to the MBP section you'll find the 15" and 17" MBP's humming along at 1866..It just needs to be 1.5v...

 

[Djerzprod]

Do you want a screen shot from windows? the i7 2600 is the high line iMac chip. If you'll meander over to the MBP section you'll find the 15" and 17" MBP's humming along at 1866..It just needs to be 1.5v...

What are you talking about...this is an iMac thread, not MBP (mobile cpu vs desktop). Dude just stop while you are behind.

 

[GermanyChris]

What are you talking about...this is an iMac thread, not MBP (mobile cpu vs desktop). Dude just stop while you are behind.

and they use the same chipset..

"I think we confirmed what we pretty much knew all along: Sandy Bridge's improved memory controller has all but eliminated the need for extreme memory bandwidth, at least for this architecture. It's only when you get down to DDR3-1333 that you see a minor performance penalty. The sweet spot appears to be at DDR3-1600, where you will see a minor performance increase over DDR3-1333 with only a slight increase in cost. The performance increase gained by going up to DDR3-1866 or DDR3-2133 isn't nearly as pronounced"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/8

 

[philipma1957]

I didn't mean to offend or doubt his intelligence, I'm sure he's capable enough. But rather asking the motive.

One could build a regular desktop today, and easily hackintosh it. It's easier to build, mod, maintain, upgrade. Could be potentially cheaper, and you could have a lot of powerful desktop GPU options instead of limited to 6970M. In short, it's tinkering haven.
For example it's posssible to easily replace CPU on my PC box with bare hands. No need for special tools or be concerned about broken flex cable, sensors, fans and all.

And if you care about legal or license agreement thing, replacing CPU on your iMac is no less harder nor illegal than building a Hackintosh.

He said he has a 40% performance increase and uses less power.

 

[Djerzprod]

and they use the same chipset..

"I think we confirmed what we pretty much knew all along: Sandy Bridge's improved memory controller has all but eliminated the need for extreme memory bandwidth, at least for this architecture. It's only when you get down to DDR3-1333 that you see a minor performance penalty. The sweet spot appears to be at DDR3-1600, where you will see a minor performance increase over DDR3-1333 with only a slight increase in cost. The performance increase gained by going up to DDR3-1866 or DDR3-2133 isn't nearly as pronounced"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/8

Dude, you're still not getting it. You originally posted a picture of a Hackintosh Benchmark, and you are now trying to say that the MBP uses the same chipset as an iMac so it should be able to run at higher than 1600MHz...you cannot overclock CPU or Ram on apple products, therefore if the limit on the 3770 is 1600MHz ram, then you cannot go above that; if you look at the benchmark that you posted, the guy was using an unlocked (k) CPU. The unlocked (k) CPUs will not act the same in apple products as they would in hackintoshes.

 

[GermanyChris]

Dude, you're still not getting it. You originally posted a picture of a Hackintosh Benchmark, and you are now trying to say that the MBP uses the same chipset as an iMac so it should be able to run at higher than 1600MHz...you cannot overclock CPU or Ram on apple products, therefore if the limit on the 3770 is 1600MHz ram, then you cannot go above that; if you look at the benchmark that you posted, the guy was using an unlocked (k) CPU. The unlocked (k) CPUs will not act the same in apple products as they would in hackintoshes.

Didn't read the Anand thing did you? 1600 and 1866 work just peachy in Mac's and run at 1600 and 1866. If you put 1600 in an iMac it's going to run at 1600. Yes you can overclock RAM with a hackintosh people stopped overclocking RAM with the disappearance of the FSB. The memory controller in Sandy Bridge will run a what ever the memory speed is.

Here is the kit that is in my MBP
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104230

 

[philipma1957]

Dude, you're still not getting it. You originally posted a picture of a Hackintosh Benchmark, and you are now trying to say that the MBP uses the same chipset as an iMac so it should be able to run at higher than 1600MHz...you cannot overclock CPU or Ram on apple products, therefore if the limit on the 3770 is 1600MHz ram, then you cannot go above that; if you look at the benchmark that you posted, the guy was using an unlocked (k) CPU. The unlocked (k) CPUs will not act the same in apple products as they would in hackintoshes.

the 2011 mac minis run 1333 1600 and 1866 run confirmed tested yada yada yada.

Didn't read the Anand thing did you? 1600 and 1866 work just peachy in Mac's and run at 1600 and 1866. If you put 1600 in an iMac it's going to run at 1600. Yes you can overclock RAM with a hackintosh people stopped overclocking RAM with the disappearance of the FSB. The memory controller in Sandy Bridge will run a what ever the memory speed is.

Here is the kit that is in my MBP
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104230

you are correct. in that it works with sandy bridge.


I made my suggestion a while back to use i7 2600s as it will work with these


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104317 2x 8 =16gb



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257 2x 4 = 8gb

 

[Djerzprod]

Didn't read the Anand thing did you? 1600 and 1866 work just peachy in Mac's and run at 1600 and 1866. If you put 1600 in an iMac it's going to run at 1600. Yes you can overclock RAM with a hackintosh people stopped overclocking RAM with the disappearance of the FSB. The memory controller in Sandy Bridge will run a what ever the memory speed is.

Here is the kit that is in my MBP
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104230

Once again...MBP vs 2011 iMac (with hypothetical 3770)...I am done with you bro cause you are OBVIOUSLY missing the point. The 3770 will not go above 1600MHz, you cannot compare the current desktop ivy bridge with a mobile ivy bridge. Secondly, if you can post a screenshot of a 2011 iMac running 3770 at above 1600MHz, then i will eat my words, until then...stop posting about your dumb ass MBP and get on a real machine.

----------

...and since when was this about MBP and Minis...when someone finally posts real information on 2011 iMac running 3770 with Ram specs, then i will humbly bow out...that is what this thread was originally about...No?

 

[GermanyChris]

Once again...MBP vs 2011 iMac (with hypothetical 3770)...I am done with you bro cause you are OBVIOUSLY missing the point. The 3770 will not go above 1600MHz, you cannot compare the current desktop ivy bridge with a mobile ivy bridge. Secondly, if you can post a screenshot of a 2011 iMac running 3770 at above 1600MHz, then i will eat my words, until then...stop posting about your dumb ass MBP and get on a real machine.

----------

...and since when was this about MBP and Minis...when someone finally posts real information on 2011 iMac running 3770 with Ram specs, then i will humbly bow out...that is what this thread was originally about...No?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/902738/902738

 

[Djerzprod]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/902738/902738

Well then brother...tell me what i'm doing wrong here cause i just installed these Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz and this is what my computer is showing

 

[GermanyChris]

Well then brother...tell me what i'm doing wrong here cause i just installed these Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz and this is what my computer is showing

I have no idea what you're doing wrong..

 

[Djerzprod]

I have no idea what you're doing wrong..

Exactly...cause i have been talking about desktop i7 and not i7 mobile...they are different.

 

[GermanyChris]

Exactly...cause i have been talking about desktop i7 and not i7 mobile...they are different.

Do you click on links?

If you had clicked on mine you have seen this pic in real life

 

[MacVibe]

There is some confusing, if not misleading, information on this thread, and maybe a new one should be started. Please correct me if I am wrong about the following.

1) the 2011 imac uses desktop cpu. the macboook pro uses mobile cpu (duh!)
2) the imac (desktop) has a max ram speed of 1333 (http://ark.intel.com/products/52213/). the macbook pro (and mini, since it uses mobile cpu), as is well documented, can use faster ram.
3) the imac (desktop) uses chips that have the HD 2000 integrated graphics, whereas the HD 3000 is only available on the class of cpu ending in "K" (http://www.intel.com/support/processors/corei7/sb/CS-032271.htm). This is an odd point of discussion to even have about the imac because it does not use switchable graphics anyway.

So, congratulations to the poster who got IB cpu working in the 2011 imac, but why is the HD 4000 integrated graphics relevant? Before and after benchmarks would be nice along with mention of any other mods.

 

[Djerzprod]

There is some confusing, if not misleading, information on this thread, and maybe a new one should be started. Please correct me if I am wrong about the following.

1) the 2011 imac uses desktop cpu. the macboook pro uses mobile cpu (duh!)
2) the imac (desktop) has a max ram speed of 1333 (http://ark.intel.com/products/52213/). the macbook pro (and mini, since it uses mobile cpu), as is well documented, can use faster ram.
3) the imac (desktop) uses chips that have the HD 2000 integrated graphics, whereas the HD 3000 is only available on the class of cpu ending in "K" (http://www.intel.com/support/processors/corei7/sb/CS-032271.htm). This is an odd point of discussion to even have about the imac because it does not use switchable graphics anyway.

So, congratulations to the poster who got IB cpu working in the 2011 imac, but why is the HD 4000 integrated graphics relevant? Before and after benchmarks would be nice along with mention of any other mods.

Thank you MacVibe for giving those specs, this is what I have been trying to say all along. As for GermanyChris...showing a screen shot of benchmarks from a website proves nothing...show me a screenshot of "About this Mac", something that proves that this is your machine's benchmarks.

 

[GermanyChris]

So the screen shot in post 36 isn't enough?

 

[Djerzprod]

So the screen shot in post 36 isn't enough?

NO...because it isn't even a screenshot from your machine...it's from another poster. Dude, i am done with you and I really think that your input has no relevance in this thread. I think it is time for you to leave with your weak excuse you call research (i.e. using screenshots of hackintosh benchmarks and other poster's screenshots).

 

[xiaomei]

@hackerwayne

Can we have some benchmarks of your machine, please?

 

[kfscoll]

Well then brother...tell me what i'm doing wrong here cause i just installed these Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz and this is what my computer is showing

Check ark.intel.com -- the iMac's desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs (like the i5-2500 and the i7-2600) only support up to 1333MHz memory whereas the mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs support up to 1600MHz memory. If you install that same memory in a 2011 MacBook Pro it'll run at 1600MHz (I've personally done that and it works fine).

 

[Djerzprod]

Check ark.intel.com -- the iMac's desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs (like the i5-2500 and the i7-2600) only support up to 1333MHz memory whereas the mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs support up to 1600MHz memory. If you install that same memory in a 2011 MacBook Pro it'll run at 1600MHz (I've personally done that and it works fine).

Problem is brother...I already know this (I posted it several times prior when replying to GermanyChris, I only did that to show them that it only works on mobile SB and not desktop SB.

 

[hackerwayne]

Specs: stock 4GB RAM, stock 1TB HDD and i7 3770S. Will post a second pic with Crucial 256GB SSD and 32GB RAM installed.

Main concern is:

Why did the upgrade at all?

Especially since you did it on a 2011 iMac? With which you still can get AppleCare and enjoy 3 years of manufacturing warranty?

Replacing the CPU means you potentially screw up the installation, or the machine itself. If something go sideways, I'm not sure Apple gonna take care about your machine. It's easy to identify that CPU has been DIY-replaced, and you lose excellent Apple support by doing so?

I thought the main reason of getting an AIO desktop is simplicity and much less involving tidbits upgrade like a regular tower would? You knew the risk and you bought it anyway.
I think if one still love tinkering, he should get regular tower instead? With which one can do those in much safer, easier and cheaper methods?

Sure, it's your machine, it's up to you what to do about it. But it's just quite strange to me to get an AIO and then do some essential upgrade at all (CPU or GPU)?

First of all, everyone knows opening their iMac will void the warranty (duh!) and of course i know the risk! Regular ****** PC tower can't run Mac OS (hackintosh) properly. I had a i5 hackintosh before and i know how troublesome it is. Ive also upgraded my Mac Pro '07 to 8 core and it still works today. So really i don't give a f about warranty, since i do extremely heavy work on the iMac. So why not buy a Mac Pro? Simple, cuz its 2 years old model already and not worth the $.

----------

the 2011 mac minis run 1333 1600 and 1866 run confirmed tested yada yada yada.




you are correct. in that it works with sandy bridge.


I made my suggestion a while back to use i7 2600s as it will work with these


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104317 2x 8 =16gb



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820104257 2x 4 = 8gb

Again, thats clearly a mobile CPU.. Im assuming its either a Mac Mini or MBP.. They both uses M-CPU

----------

Check ark.intel.com -- the iMac's desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs (like the i5-2500 and the i7-2600) only support up to 1333MHz memory whereas the mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs support up to 1600MHz memory. If you install that same memory in a 2011 MacBook Pro it'll run at 1600MHz (I've personally done that and it works fine).

Well.. lets just end it here, 1600MHz RAM will NOT work in 2011 iMac with Sandy Bridge (does work, but only showing 1333MHz), but after upgrading to Ivy Bridge, it shows 1666MHz. For those who ask for benchmark, heres the snapshot: