Skip navigation

Macbook Pro (2010) 16gb memory

172544 Views 256 Replies Latest reply: Mar 19, 2014 5:04 PM by ThetaSigma312 RSS
  • Dude6 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 12:55 AM (in response to port77)

    Hope this info is clearing the issue.

    check the memory spec.

     

    http://ark.intel.com/products/43560/Intel-Core-i7-620M-Processor-4M-Cache-2_66-G Hz

  • Rich Allcorn Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 7:54 AM (in response to Dude6)

    Yes ... that's what is says. 

     

    But I'm running 16GB and have been for over a month now ...
    It's nice to be able to run a heavy virtual OS alongside my Mac OSx Mountain Lion, and never even notice a slowdown!  (Running Solaris 11 alongside, giving it 8GB to work with)

     

    You cannot believe everything you read. 
    Google it.  Find those who are "doing it", and check your system's specs against theirs.  If they match, go thou and do likewise.  It works!

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 8:03 AM (in response to Rich Allcorn)

    KIndly detail your exact Mac sepcifications, otherwise your comments are pretty meaningless.  There are many MBPs from 2010 that cannot run 16 GIGs.  I have a mid 2010 15" i7 that can't and I tried it.  Much of what is posted on this thread is redundant if people simply read all of it.  There are specifc Macs that won't run 16 GIGs with well documented explanations.  Only a few that can, from what I recall they are the smaller versions. 

  • Rich Allcorn Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 10:43 AM (in response to Digitalclips)

    MacBook PRO ...  13-inch, Mid 2010

    Processor  2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

    Memory  16 GB 1067 MHz DDR3

    Graphics  NVIDIA GeForce 320M 256 MB

    Serial Number:   xxxx

    Software  OS X 10.8.4 (12E55)

     

    Hardware Overview:

     

      Model Name:    MacBook Pro

      Model Identifier:    MacBookPro7,1

      Processor Name:    Intel Core 2 Duo

      Processor Speed:    2.4 GHz

      Number of Processors:    1

      Total Number of Cores:    2

      L2 Cache:    3 MB

      Memory:    16 GB

      Bus Speed:    1.07 GHz

      Boot ROM Version:    MBP71.0039.B0E

      SMC Version (system):    1.62f7

      Serial Number (system):    ... 

      Hardware UUID:    ...

      Sudden Motion Sensor:

      State:    Enabled

     

     

    Memory Slots:

     

      ECC:    Disabled

     

    BANK 0/DIMM0:

     

      Size:    8 GB

      Type:    DDR3

      Speed:    1067 MHz

      Status:    OK

      Manufacturer:    0x85F7

      Part Number:    0x483634314755363746373036364700000000

      Serial Number:    0x00000000

     

    BANK 1/DIMM0:

     

      Size:    8 GB

      Type:    DDR3

      Speed:    1067 MHz

      Status:    OK

      Manufacturer:    0x85F7

      Part Number:    0x483634314755363746373036364700000000

      Serial Number:    0x00000000

     

     

     

    WDC WD10JPVT-22A1YT0:

     

      Capacity:    1 TB (1,000,204,886,016 bytes)

      Model:    WDC WD10JPVT-22A1YT0                   

      Revision:    01.01A01

     

     

     

    This should give you what you need ...

     

    This site will give you the info you need to determine if YOUR MacBook Pro will take the 16GB

    http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20125391-263/add-16gb-ram-to-your-macbook-p ro

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 10:58 AM (in response to Rich Allcorn)

    Thanks.  Yep, as previously reported adinfinitum ... the low end MBPs from that era work with 16 GIGs.  Those of us with higher end MBPs and with i7s are not able to us more than 8 GIGs as per Intel Specs posted above your comment.  The solution for me is a new Mac Pro later this year.

     

    This thread is becoming so repetative it should be removed or at least reduced to a simple answer which has been given to the original question.  Those reading just a portion keep getting the wrong impression.

  • Glenn Radford Level 1 Level 1 (85 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:05 AM (in response to Digitalclips)

    I agree. I am patiently waiting for Apple to come up with a remedy that will allow me to increase my RAM in my 15" MPB i7 (2010), but it seems that every time I am notified of a message being posted in this forum, it's from someone saying that their 13" works fine with 16 gb RAM.

    This is well establised. We know this.

     

    What we need is ANY insight on how we can upgrade the higher end models, which seems to be a problem that only Apple can solve.

     

    I wonder if anyone from Apple reads these posts?

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:08 AM (in response to Glenn Radford)

    Sadly it isn't likely to happen.  Read the Intel specs on the i7 posted above here.  Max RAM for i7 of that era was 8 GIGs.  It seems it is nothing to do with drivers, graphics or OS X.  That's my uneducated take on this.

  • Glenn Radford Level 1 Level 1 (85 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:10 AM (in response to Glenn Radford)

    And I do not want to replace this computer when the only thing that is wrong with it is something that Apple should be able to remedy with a patch.

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:12 AM (in response to Glenn Radford)

    How do you know Apple could patch a limitation built into the chip by Intel?  Please explain, I'd love to know if that is possible.  I would have thought it wasn't possible, but I stand ready to be corrected by those with more knowledge on this issue.

  • Glenn Radford Level 1 Level 1 (85 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:14 AM (in response to Digitalclips)

    Interesting..... the threads of long ago suggested that the graphics swithover of the higher end models was somehow the cause of the incompatibility; The theory that it was a firmware issue seems to have been proven by the fact that some people had installed 16 gb of RAM and were able to boot up in SAFE mode, but could not in conventional mode.

    However, I am not an expert.

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:16 AM (in response to Glenn Radford)

    Hence I keep referring to the specifications recently posted by Dude6.

     

     

     

     

    Hope this info is clearing the issue.

    check the memory spec.

     

    http://ark.intel.com/products/43560/Intel-Core-i7-620M-Processor-4M-Cache-2_66-G Hz

     

     

  • hurkan Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:44 AM (in response to Digitalclips)

    I follow this discussion since the very first post and frankly I've been pleased to see it alive&kicking as some sort of solidarity to push the manufacturer lift the soft barrier of the product that we use.

     

    Apparently I did miss some fundamental turn of events for I thought that the problem with the 'higher' models would be solved by means of firmware given that we put some pressure on the manufacturer. Since when did the culprit switch decisively to intel and a hardware issue?. this bit is unclear to me..

    Cheers

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 11:47 AM (in response to hurkan)

    Maybe it hasn't.  As I say, this is out of my realms of comprehension.  However, seeing that Intel specification, I read it meaning it was a hardware limitation.  If you tell me a patch from Intel could change this I'd be thrilled.

  • Glenn Radford Level 1 Level 1 (85 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 12:06 PM (in response to Digitalclips)

    I would normally tend to resign myself to the theory that the Intel chip limitation would be the culprit; however, wouldn't the Intel i5 or i7 of that vintage also not be incompatible if you tried to boot up in SAFE mode with 16 gb of RAM installed? This is the question, I think.

    If the i5 / i7 would normally NOT work even if booted in safe mode, then obviously either the prior reports of booting capability in SAFE mode were false, or, if true, the spec is wrong, or thirdly a more recent 15 or i7 processor was used in this version of MBP.

    I think these are questions only Apple can answer.

  • Digitalclips Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 9, 2013 12:30 PM (in response to Glenn Radford)

    Not sure.  Mine did boot into safe mode but would crash pretty easily.  Maybe that's why this model was limited to 8 GIGs, it was beyond its capabilities with more than 8.  Just guessing and resigning myself to the possibility we are stuck at 8.

1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 18 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (11)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.