Gregory Mcintire wrote:
I already have 2GB RAM and after a fresh boot it is a long time before there are any page outs. It remains at 0 for a day or more at seems.
So am I right to assume that getting 3GB would not give me any noticeable speed increase. The reason I say 3GB is that my MacBook is a 2006 model and will not address 4GB.
It depends on what you're doing. If you've got a lot of open, memory-hungry applications, more memory is going to help. Always.
There are two ways to put 3GB in it though. One way is to use a 2GB module and a 1GB module. The other way is to use two 2GB modules. The advantage of this, as I understand it, is that Apple strongly recommends that you use two balanced RAM modules and two 2GB cards would be that where a 1GB and a 2GB would not.
The whole thing about matched memory sizes is way overblown. The advantage is marginal. Intel calls it symmetric interleaving, and that's just a fancy way of saying there's a tiny head start when switching from one module to the other. You still get what they call "asymmetric interleaving" up to the size of the smaller module if unmatched in size. I've looked into it, and I'm thinking that a single 2GB module might even be better than 2x1GB. This isn't like other memory controllers where matched pairs effectively act to double the memory bandwidth.
So, what is the consensus?
Read this:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/MacBook/Testing/Memory_Benchmarks
Their consensus for most memory-hungry applications was that 3GB (1GB+2GB) always completed tasks faster than a matched 2x1GB pair.
They had some funky results with their graphics tests, but those results were barely any different.