Macbook Pro (2010) 16gb memory

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

All in all we do deserve a decent explanation from Apple.

Do you recall if it crashed when you tried to run an app that may have required a (safe mode disabled) .kext ?