I'd like to bump my system ram to 16 gigs of ram. I can buy an 8 gig crucial stick for quite a bit less than two 4gig sticks. Is is still an issue to match ram sticks? If I just buy the single will there be a noticeable speed deficit.
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.
What's the best set up for 16gig of ram?
- Thread starter vapourtrails
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know why Apple bothers to write documentation... no one thinks they should have to read it.
Yes, you need to install RAM in matched pairs. No, a single 8 gb stick is not significantly cheaper than 2x4gb sticks.
It was never a "issue" to have matched ram sticks, you just run a little bit slower (and it isn't a noticeable difference for most things).
Save some money and consider upgrading to a SSD or a Fusion drive in the future. It will give better value than slightly faster memory.
Save some money and consider upgrading to a SSD or a Fusion drive in the future. It will give better value than slightly faster memory.
Search the big 24 page 'what RAM' thread: Someone moved one of the stock 4GB DIMMs so that both DIMMs are on the same channel, and then installed a single 8GB DIMM in the other channel. Benchmarks showed that the machine was running in dual channel mode. Apparently, the memory controller can stitch two 4GB DIMMs together in an 8GB block that matches the 8GB in the other channel.
(This is actually not that shocking. Consider the case where someone installs a dual rank DIMM in one channel, and a single rank DIMM of the same total capacity in the other channel. They might expect the two DIMMs to work as a matched pair. This case isn't much different the previous situation - a dual rank DIMM is essentially two single rank DIMMs that plug into the same socket.)
Agreed. And while people talk about the so-called 'performance hit' from installing memory in unmatched pairs, we're talking micro-milliseconds. Only people with magical powers of perception would ever be able to tell any difference (translation: No one could).
Debatable depending on specific workloads in question. I agree I doubt anyone could "perceive" a difference and for most users there won't be however I wouldn't completely dismiss it.
Matched pairs will utilize dual channel. Manufacturers wouldn't bother if it didn't make a difference especially considering its "standard equipment" that doesn't add a premium (profit). Nowadays quad channel is becoming more commonplace.
This imagine and quote is from Gamers Nexus...
"Users who push a lot of copy tasks through memory will also theoretically see benefits, depending on what software is controlling the tasking. Video editors and professionals will see noteworthy advantages in stream (RAM) previews and will see marginal advantages in render time. It is probably worth having in this instance -- in the very least, I'd always go dual-channel for editing / encoding if only for future advancements.
Gamers, mainstream users, and office users shouldn't care. Actually, at the end of the day, the same rule applies to everyone, simulation pro or not: It's density and frequency that matters, not channeling. Quad- and better channels theoretically have a more profound impact, but this is in-step with the increased density of kits that are targeted for quad-channel platforms. If you want to push speed, density and frequency should be at the top of your list. Generally, when you're spending that kind of money, you're going with a multi-channel kit of two or more anyway, but the point still stands."
IMO if you are buying RAM, buy in sets/kits. You are paying for it, might as well maximize performance of your investment. If you happen to just have a stick or 2 unmatched sticks of RAM laying around then its whatever. Like Steve from GN says, frequency and quantity are priority.