Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

1600MHz RAM on a Late 2011 MacBook Pro?

While the 2011 MBP ships with 1333MHz RAM, some say that 1600MHz may not be supported in.


Others say that it is backwards compatible (going down to 1333MHz when installed).


But even some have suggested (and tried in a Mac mini; see last post) that the system profiler reports the full 1600MHz being accessible by the chipset.


Apple officially said that my MBP only supports up to 8GB, but this has been proven to be untrue. So could Apple be wrong about this? The i7 chipset might support 1600MHz.


If so, will 1600MHz increase performance?

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.5)

Posted on Dec 12, 2012 9:04 AM

Reply
Question marked as Best reply

Posted on Mar 29, 2017 3:47 AM

Just seen this on macsales.com:


It’s in that line that we’ got some great info for those of you who bought a MacBook Pro last year. In an interesting development, it seems that although Apple sold and marketed the 2011 MacBook Pros as using 1333MHz memory, they are, in fact, capable of utilizing 1600MHz memory, just like the current crop of MacBook Pros.

Lloyd Chambers of Mac Performance Guide did some in-depth testing and found that a 2011 MacBook Pro with 1600MHz memory saw a 2% average performance boost over the same configuration with 1333MHz memory.

50 replies
Question marked as Best reply

Mar 29, 2017 3:47 AM in response to Rudolfensis

Just seen this on macsales.com:


It’s in that line that we’ got some great info for those of you who bought a MacBook Pro last year. In an interesting development, it seems that although Apple sold and marketed the 2011 MacBook Pros as using 1333MHz memory, they are, in fact, capable of utilizing 1600MHz memory, just like the current crop of MacBook Pros.

Lloyd Chambers of Mac Performance Guide did some in-depth testing and found that a 2011 MacBook Pro with 1600MHz memory saw a 2% average performance boost over the same configuration with 1333MHz memory.

Feb 6, 2017 2:35 PM in response to Pheidius1

Thanks for the update on this. I was doing Geekbench benchmarks and found this profile:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/1046173


Notice the 2133 MHZ RAM installed on that unit. Clearly, he's able to boot and run his Mac and run all Geekbench 4 tests.


So given the 32GB theoretical limit of the i7 processor (http://ark.intel.com/products/53474/Intel-Core-i7-2760QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-t o-3_50-GHz?q=2760QM, real-life data that 2133 MHZ will work in a Late 2011 MBP, and that 1600 MHZ offers about a 2% overall system performance increase, I wonder what kind of performance increase a 32GB 2133 MHZ RAM upgrade would give the late 2011 MBP, especially the 17" (post GPU thermal issue fix).


I'm tempted to test it out and TOFTT, but I can't find where to buy that 2133 MHZ 204-pin RAM. Any suggestions?

Apr 26, 2017 8:00 PM in response to Rudolfensis

I know this thread is 5 years old, but wanted to add this link that shows what performance increase can be expected by upgrading. The link refers to the 2011 MacBook pro with 1333mhz ram. It has been noted elsewhere in the thread that using 1600mhz adds 2-3% performance, obviously negligible for most users. I ran the 16gb 1600mhz for a while in my 2011 i7 2.4ghz and have gone back to my 8gb 1333mhz and see no difference except in large file Photoshop work, [which I rarely do], so the 16gb will go in the next 2012 pro I buy. Here is the link: http://www.macworld.com/article/2034655/lab-tested-the-ramifications-of-addition al-memory-on-a-mac.html

Dec 12, 2012 10:42 AM in response to Rudolfensis

Apple support says that RAM with a higher frequency when installed in a MBP designed to run at a lower rate, will down clock the the RAM to the level of the MBP design parameters. No advantage is gained in installing RAM that has a higher clock speed than what the given MBP is designed for. I conducted this experiment in my 2010 MBP by installing RAM from my late 2011 MBP and verified the result.


RAM speeds are constantly being increased but the problems that must be over come are stability and reliability. Given two identical numerical groups of RAM, one with a 'low' frequency and one with a 'high' frequency, the latter group will have a larger failure rate. As these issues are addressed and the reliability and stability reach acceptable standards, then they are put into production. Ex. Examine the history of RAM in MBPs over the years, 667 Hz in 2006, 1600 Hz. today.


Ciao.

Dec 12, 2012 10:49 AM in response to OGELTHORPE

Thanks! 🙂


That's interesting about RAM history. So what about 1333MHz vs 1600MHz — will the high frequency increase potential stability and failure rates noticeably?


Also, does branded/expensive RAM reduce these?


Or can cheap RAM, provided you're lucky and get one without faults, be just as good? (In other words, is it all about quality assurance?)

OGELTHORPE wrote:


Apple support says that RAM with a higher frequency when installed in a MBP designed to run at a lower rate, will down clock the the RAM to the level of the MBP design parameters.

No advantage is gained in installing RAM that has a higher clock speed than what the given MBP is designed for. I conducted this experiment in my 2010 MBP by installing RAM from my late 2011 MBP and verified the result.


I'd normally agree with you, but Apple support would also say that my MBP supports up to 8GB, when in fact the Intel chipset supports 16GB (in fact, up to 32GB).


The Intel chipset also supports 1600MHz... but what does that mean for MBP? Will it work, or clock down?


Then there's the question of latency... even for a 1333MHz, what latency do I buy? Can any of them be trouble for a Mac?

Dec 12, 2012 12:43 PM in response to Rudolfensis

You're kind of all over the place here, so I'll break things down a bit:


1) 1600 MHz RAM works fine in the 2011 MacBook Pro, but it provides no tangible benefit for everyday use. I said this in my initial reply to you.


2) RAM is RAM, at least in the vast majority of cases. Modern Macs, 2011 vintage and onward, are not nearly as picky about memory as they have been in the past. I've tested ADATA, G.Skill, Crucial, Samsung, and others, including 1333 and 1600 MHz, and with one or two exceptions, all have worked just fine, passing memory test software run over the course of 12 continuous hours.


3) The whole idea of faster speeds resulting in instability is probably true when a new RAM specification comes out, for example when 1600 MHz modules started appearing. As time goes on and production practices mature, this becomes less and less of a problem. I would consider it a non-issue at this point.


4) Latency. Like the actual speed of the memory, you won't see any noticeable difference in everyday use.


As for exactly what you should buy, I've had the best luck with Crucial and G.Skill memory. I'm currently running 16 GB of Crucial 1333 MHz because 1) I was lucky enough to pick it up on sale for a very cheap price and 2) it runs at a lower voltage than most other RAM (1.35v vs 1.5 v).


I'm not going to make any sort of claim that having the lower voltage memory has made a difference to my battery life or anything like that. However, if there's any way I can save a bit of power some place, I'm going to take advantage of it. The quad-core i7 CPU and AMD Radeon GPU in the MacBook Pro can be power hogs. Get the system going hard enough, and the standard 85W AC adapter will start working as hard as it possibly can. If Razer, a much smaller company, can design a slim-line (and very attractive looking I might add) 120W AC adapter for its Blade notebook, surely a corporation with billions in cash in the bank can do the same for its products.

Dec 12, 2012 12:43 PM in response to Rudolfensis

If Apple has started to use 1600 Hz RAM, it means that the RAM designs are such that it will be sufficiently reliable. Note that most RAM vendors offer a lifetime guarantee on their RAM. If it failed all the time, they would be in the poor house.


The truth is that RAM is RAM. If it works you will be all right. Cheaper RAM usually means that the RAM is checked less frequently and/or the manufacturing tolerances may not be as rigorous. Personally I always recommend OWC and Crucial as third party sources. They are two of the best, especially in those very rare instances should you get a faulty chip.


The story is that when the 2011 MBPs were in development, 16 Gb RAM was not available. Once the model is released, the specifications are then set in stone by Apple. Others have shown that 16 Gb RAM can work in the 2011 MBPs. I do have 16 Gb RAM in my late 2011. I have yet to see where 32 Gb has been successfully installed in any MBP.


You should find that installing 1600 Hz will clock down in a 2011 MBP. Only 2012 MBPs can take advantage of the faster RAM.


In regards to latency, I have not really looked into that in any great detail. I suppose theoretically one would want the fastest responding RAM possible but I suspect that in the whole processing chain, the differences between the various brands would be so small that it would not be noticeable.


The bottom line is, if the RAM meets this criteria: 204-pin PC-10600 (1333 MHz) DDR3 SO-DIMM and works, your in business.


Ciao.

Dec 12, 2012 1:30 PM in response to Rudolfensis

If it works properly from day one, the odds are it will outlast the rest of your MBP. As I stated earlier, if it works it works. Now there are brands that have shown to be problematic. For that reason I recommend OWC and Crucial because both have good reputations and are customer friendly.


What I try to avoid is getting the least expensive product that theoretically will do the job only to find that it must be returned and exchanged. For me that is a hassle that I don't want to experience. If the price difference is large enough, I may opt for the low ball. If it is just a few dollars, I'll go with the known vendor.


Ciao.

1600MHz RAM on a Late 2011 MacBook Pro?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.