-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Feb 16, 2016 3:05 AM in response to anshumgby PhoenixFnX,Hi guys,
Like you, I just bought this awesome iMac 25 5K with the M395X 4Go graphic card with minimal RAM : 2x4Go.
I also want now to get a bunch of RAM
I'm reading all your posts and there is an information you seem to miss :
The DDR CAS Latency (CL).
CAS Latency is the number of cycle to access the data. MHz is the number of cycles per seconds.
Dividing cycles by cycles per seconds, you get seconds : The time to access data.
1866MHz
Be careful with cheap model with CAS Latency (CL) 13 :
This means you have an actual time for Memory access of 13/1866 = 0,7 centi-nanoseconds.
There is a big difference with CAL Latency 10 : 10/1866 = 0.54 centi-nanoseconds.
But this is more expensive.
1600MHz
Even a 1600MHz with CL10 is better : 10/1600 = 0.63 centi-nanoseconds.
And a 1600MHz with CL9 is better than the 1866CL10 : 9/1600 = 0.48 centi-nanoseconds.
Does that makes sence ?
Then I guess I found a nice model : http://www.ldlc-pro.com/fiche/PB00170724.html
(Sorry for french link, check the reference)
Careful again with multiple sets of RAM, the minimal CL is used : DONT mix Super Low CL with a normal CL : Useless !
-
Feb 16, 2016 3:33 AM in response to PhoenixFnXby PhoenixFnX,Sorry I can't Edit my first POST.
There is a mistake I made with the actual RAM frequency which is always Half the faced one.
1866MHz (Actual frequency is 933Mhz)
Be careful with cheap model with CAS Latency (CL) 13 :
This means you have an actual time for Memory access of 13/933 = 1.39 centi-nanoseconds.
There is a big difference with CAL Latency 10 : 10/933 = 1.07 centi-nanoseconds.
But this is more expensive.
1600MHz (Actual frequency is 800Mhz)
Even a 1600MHz with CL10 is better : 10/800 = 1.25 centi-nanoseconds.
And a 1600MHz with CL9 is better than the 1866CL10 : 9/800 = 1.13 centi-nanoseconds.
1600MHzCL9 is 5% faster than 1866MHzCL10 (instead of 11% in my previous post, which can make a difference comparing prices)
that being said there is more bandwidth available on a higher MHz RAM.
Things like video editing benefit more from more bandwidth than lower cas latency.
-
Feb 16, 2016 11:09 AM in response to PhoenixFnXby PhoenixFnX,Again, another mistake in the conclusion, it is the opposite :
1866MHzCL10 is 5% faster than 1600MHzCL9 and surprisingly, it it 5% more expensive
-
Apr 1, 2016 8:22 AM in response to spf57by raripps,I did not see if follow up post from spf57, about the ram from OWC. I recently bought the same two 16 gig chips, installed them in all different slots and combinations, but without fail I could not go more than a day or sometimes an hour, without my screen going dark, and my computer logging me out. Every time I took them out of the computer, I did not have this problem. I assumed wonder one or both were defective, and sent them back for a replacement, but the new ones they sent me exhibit the exact same behavior.
When I talk to Apple, they of course told me that they can't guarantee third-party RAM, but I could bring my 27 inch iMac to my local Apple Store and they could test it with different brand of RAM chips. Have held off on that for now, and I'm also trying to deal with OWC to figure out if the problem is just my RAM, or all their branded chips in general. If anyone has any experience, good or bad, using OWC 16 GB chips in there 5K iMac, it would be great hear from them.
-
Apr 1, 2016 2:25 PM in response to rarippsby SlickRick,Hi raripps, just want to let you know that I'm using the 16 gig chips from OWC with no problems at all. Since they sent you a different set and the computer is still exhibiting that strange behavior then it has to be the computer. Why don't you take out the 16 gig chips and put in the original 8 that came with the system? You'll know after a while if its the computer acting up.
This is chip I'm using;
Hope this helps.
-
Apr 1, 2016 2:45 PM in response to spf57by SlickRick,Hi spf57, Sorry for the late response. I never saw your question and did not receive an alert about it. I only saw it after receiving an alert for a similar question by member raripps. I left him a detailed answer which answers your question as well.
I do have one question for you, did you migrate all of your files and system form the old computer? That could be the conflict if so. I did a fresh clean install and re-installed all of the software. Very time consuming but no problems as of yet.
Hope this helps.
-
Apr 1, 2016 2:47 PM in response to rarippsby SlickRick,Another question I have for you, did you migrate all of your files and system from the old computer? That could be the conflict if so. I did a fresh clean install and re-installed all of the software. Very time consuming but no problems as of yet.
-
Apr 1, 2016 4:51 PM in response to SlickRickby raripps,I have run the computer without the first set of 16 gig chips and the second. Whenever the original factor RAM is installed, this problem does not occur. Not even once. As soon as I put in the larger 16 gig chips I have the problem. So whatever it is, it's a problem with that RAM in this computer.
I have worked with Apple to check the computer but it never shows a problem. I heard from OWC today who suggested that I run rember to test the ram. So at some point I'll take out the good ram, putting in the bad RAM and run the utility and see if it shows anything to be problematic.
-
Apr 2, 2016 12:56 AM in response to rarippsby SlickRick,Here are a few things you can try. Click the links for the information.
Make sure the ram is seated properly. Push it down a little harder but be careful. Do this first before everything else. Keep me posted..
-
Apr 2, 2016 11:45 AM in response to SlickRickby raripps,Have tried all of these things either on my own, or with Apple- hardware tests have shown no problems, and I just ran a ram test four times. Two out of the four times it stopped with the problems, I have sent the results to OWC, and I'm awaiting their reply.
Thanks for the suggestions though.
To be continued...
-
Apr 2, 2016 11:57 AM in response to rarippsby SlickRick,Great, so it appears it is definitely the ram. Did they send you a new memory kit before you you returned yours or after? You don't want them sending you the same ram back and saying it's a new chip set.
-
Apr 2, 2016 11:58 AM in response to PhoenixFnXby Csound1,PhoenixFnX wrote:
Again, another mistake in the conclusion, it is the opposite :
1866MHzCL10 is 5% faster than 1600MHzCL9 and surprisingly, it it 5% more expensive
R U sure this time?
-
Apr 30, 2016 11:29 AM in response to anshumgby Tiki2002,Thanks for posting this question - I just got my first iMac ( 27" late 2015 model) and all the info your post received helped me choose and install this memory Crucial 16GB Kit (8GBx2) DDR3L 1866 MT/s (PC3-14900) SODIMM 204-Pin Memory For Mac - CT2K8G3S186DM (from Amazon.ca) . I have 24 GB of RAM now, and will be doing music and photo editing. Everything is working fine (past 2 weeks) and I will try to post more later, once I get more experienced at all the editing.
-
Jun 9, 2016 7:15 PM in response to anshumgby Forever.c2c,Please look at the CAS Latency CL as well
OWC has CAS latency CL =11 and Crucial I think has 13 .. lower Latency is better in Random-access memory (RAM)
I hope this helps !!
-
Jun 9, 2016 7:54 PM in response to Forever.c2cby babowa,I'd assume that the OP has purchased RAM by now - after all, they posed the question 8 months ago and have not returned since.