Mac Mini Late 2012 6,1 firmware update to accept new 16G DDR3?

MacTracker shows 16 GB of RAM as the maximum for the Late 2012 Mac mini.

It shows the 2.5 GHz Core i5 CPU as being a 3210M. That processor can support up to 32 GB of RAM. That does not mean that every system that uses that processor runs all of the address lines needed to support 32 GB. If the Late 2012 Mac mini does not have the final address line, that would cut the maximum to 16 GB, and there wouldn't be anything you could do in software or firmware to fix it.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/65708/intel-core-i53210m-processor-3m-cache-up-to-3-10-ghz-bga/specifications.html

Never heard of that and I have 2 Late 2012 Mac mini's. Both are still in service, one as a desktop computer and the other as a media, music and file server.

Plus the fact, that OWC (who always goes above and beyond) never sold more than a 16GB kit, leads me to believe that it is not possible.

If you are looking for a big performance bump, just go with a 1 or 2TB 2.5" SATA SSD and 16GB of RAM in the 2012 Mac mini.

Another thing is Macs are very picky about the memory they use so it is best to only use memory from Crucial or OWC because they have a proven track record of providing compatible memory as long as the the tools used on their respective websites are used to get the exact part numbers compatible with a particular Mac. If you order Crucial memory (or even OWC memory) from a third party vendor, then make sure to order the exact part number Crucial's or OWC's tools recommended.

Using memory based only on technical specifications is no longer a safe option because there are so many other technical specs which Apple does not mention which are needed for compatibility. I used to purchase memory solely on technical specifications back in the early 2000s, but stopped doing so with the introduction of the Intel Macs where the Crucial memory I purchased based purely on technical specifications failed to work reliably, yet the same memory sticks worked perfectly fine in other Intel systems. I purchased the proper Crucial memory listed as "Mac Compatible" and had no issues even though the technical specifications for both types were identical. There was some other difference which was needed (maybe a tighter tolerance?). These days, memory is so complex, it is always required to use the tools on the memory vendors websites to identify the proper compatible memory for a specific computer or motherboard. I've even had conversations with Dell tech support to assist me in memory upgrades and even they have trouble with it.

Plus Kingston memory in general can be problematic. You definitely want to avoid the "Kingston Value RAM" with Macs. I've never seen any success stories on this forum regarding Macs & Kingston Value RAM.

Also, your link appears to show a large full size memory stick while a Mac Mini requires a smaller module referred to as an SO-DIMM. And the memory you linked is ECC & Registered which would only be supported on a Mac Pro tower (not entirely sure Registered memory is supported on any Mac).

I looked at OWC’s website, and it shows that a 2012 Mac mini can only run 16GB of RAM. and if that machine was capable to run more than that, they would likely know that and offer upgrade packages beyond 16GB. but, of course, I would do no harm to reach out to them and ask. they are the go to source for Mac compatible hardware.

There was no need to edit original reply.

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 Mac mini's are fairly versatile when it comes to SSD upgrades. Over the years I have used PNY, Crucial and OWC SSDs those year model Mac mini's without any issues.

I appreciate that, but thought my reply was redundant. but now that I think of it, I think I should have left it there.

so If others are interested, I asked the OP if the mini was equipped with an SSD. and if not, an SSD upgrade would far outperform a RAM upgrade.

Hartscott wrote:

Curiosity, what are the limitations/pitfalls of a value RAM vs Crucial or OWC?

Macs can be very picky about RAM.

Crucial is owned by Micron, a semiconductor company who actually manufactures a lot of RAM; and OWC has a long history of supplying hardware for use with Macs. If you make use of the selection tools, on their respective Web sites, to order RAM for your specific model of Mac, odds are it will be compatible.

The phrase "a value RAM" would not exactly fill me with confidence. What function of RAM, exactly, would you compromise to make a "value" product? Provided that your Mac CAN accept third-party RAM, you already are getting the biggest savings by buying Crucial or OWC RAM instead of Apple RAM.

I do not believe that RAM is a good place to risk cutting corners on compatibility or quality.

@Servant of Cats has it correct.

I started buying Crucial memory for my organization's computer upgrades decades ago because they had an easy to use website with memory that never caused us any problems (only ever had a couple of failures from thousands of memory modules) and they had a good compromise on price & performance compared to other brands. Same goes for the Crucial MX series SSDs (avoid the BX500 SSD since it is a low end budget economy model with lots of issues), plus Crucial is one of the few SSD manufacturers which actually provides some extra features than most other brands (Samsung is one of the others, but are much more expensive).

I've never had a compatibility issue with any Crucial MX series SSD so far in any Mac from 2011 or 2012 (even used them in some 2010 models without any issues). I've seen multiple reports of compatibility issues with Samsung SSDs especially with the EVO series on Macs (especially older Macs), the higher end Samsung SSDs seem more compatible. Our organization never used any Samsung SSDs due to the high prices, plus at the time Samsung didn't provide their SSD firmware updates in a platform/OS independent manner, but they do so now. Many Apple branded OEM SSDs are actually Samsung based SSDs, but they are higher end models (probably with custom firmware as well). Unfortunately SSDs are not compatible with all systems although they should be in theory.

In general, anyone wanting to use an SSD with an older computer from 2010 or earlier would be advised to use an OWC Mercury Electra 3G SSD since it should be the most compatible SSD available since it uses a SATA II Controller so there is no issue with negotiating the SATA Link Speed on those older systems which only had a SATA II controller. Like I said before, I have used Crucial MX series SSDs on 2010 Macs without issue, but it could be risky on earlier models since the chances of compatibility issues increases. I'm not a fan of the current OWC Mercury Electra SSDs, but for an older system I would definitely recommend it for people as the safest option unless they want to take a chance with a Crucial MX series SSD.

deleted. reply was similar to den.thed's reply.

👍

:)

You're welcome.

Actually you should be fine with 16GB and an SSD, because any page-outs will be somewhere around 10 times faster than they were with the old HDD.