[coolmacdude]

And it's a heck of a lot faster now.

For $90 (got the OWC 3GB kit), this is a very worthwhile upgrade.

highly recommended, for anyone that still has 1GB or less.

[mduell]

Newegg has the same for $60 ($40 for 2GB and $20 for 1GB).

[mdc]

It's well worth the money to get your MacBook to its maximum amount of memory, and it's such a simple installation, there isn't a reason not to do it.

[Christopera]

It's 75 on OWC with free shipping, not to rain on the OP's parade.
3GB makes the MacBook a lean mean computing machine.

CoolMacDude you running leopard or tiger?

[ankurcd]

3 GB .... your Macbook must be blisteringly fast now... .... enjoy... me planning to do the same when...

[Ant1-Hero]

you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram

[kerosen]

Originally Posted by Ant1-Hero 

you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram

Is that true?
If yes, then the solution would be to have 2 identical memory sim ?

[Christopera]

The solution I have seen is to simply go to 4GB. You regain dual channel but can only utilize 3GB.

Although, from the tests I have seen it is barely worth it.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Ant1-Hero 

you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram

Why would you LOSE video performance due to the LOSS of DUAL channel RAM?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Why would you LOSE video performance due to the LOSS of DUAL channel RAM?

The GPU uses a portion of main memory as your video memory, and video memory bandwidth can have a significant effect on graphics performance. Note that the performance being discussed is games and similar 3D apps, not playing/editing video.

[ghporter]

Isn't that "lost" performance compared to the (unachievable) equivalent of paired RAM? I mean, compared to 2GB of RAM, 3GB is better, and while you may not get the video performance you would with matched (theoretical) 1.5GB sticks, you'll still get better performance than with only 2GB of RAM. Or am I missing something?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Isn't that "lost" performance compared to the (unachievable) equivalent of paired RAM? I mean, compared to 2GB of RAM, 3GB is better, and while you may not get the video performance you would with matched (theoretical) 1.5GB sticks, you'll still get better performance than with only 2GB of RAM. Or am I missing something?

Graphics performance (framerate in games) is better with 2x1GB than 2+1GB with GMA950/X3100. Overall system performance is probably better with 2+1GB than 2x1GB.

[coolmacdude]

Originally Posted by Christopera 

It's 75 on OWC with free shipping, not to rain on the OP's parade.
3GB makes the MacBook a lean mean computing machine.

CoolMacDude you running leopard or tiger?

It looks like they lowered the price $10 since I ordered it (was 85), and I don't see any option for free shipping. The lowest is $4.50 for UPS ground.

And I'm still running Tiger here, but will be upgrading soon.

[coolmacdude]

Originally Posted by Ant1-Hero 

you will however loose video performance due to the lose of duel channel with the integrated video ram

This is not correct. Please see this page.

OWC conducted extensive tests on this and found no reduction of any measurable significance.

I think this is a rumor someone started without much evidence and a lot of people just repeated it with very little basis.

[coolmacdude]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Graphics performance (framerate in games) is better with 2x1GB than 2+1GB with GMA950/X3100. Overall system performance is probably better with 2+1GB than 2x1GB.

Again, this is a myth and is not factual. See above link.

In addition I conducted my own test of the Halo timedemo and actually got better frame rates at 3GB.

The integrated graphics on the Macbook is so abysmal for games anyway that the huge inadequacies of the graphics processor will completely mask any perceptible quality differences due to minor configuration issues like memory pairing.

I am aware that there is a basis for this opinion based on hardware architecture, but in terms of real world performance metrics, I have not seen ANY evidence that graphics performance is perceptibly lower with 3GB.

[zaghahzag]

those links are really interesting and will be of interest to my friend who has a macbook..

its evidence the OSX wants as much RAM as possible.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by coolmacdude 

This is not correct. Please see this page.

OWC conducted extensive tests on this and found no reduction of any measurable significance.

I think this is a rumor someone started without much evidence and a lot of people just repeated it with very little basis.

Originally Posted by coolmacdude 

Again, this is a myth and is not factual. See above link.

In addition I conducted my own test of the Halo timedemo and actually got better frame rates at 3GB.

The integrated graphics on the Macbook is so abysmal for games anyway that the huge inadequacies of the graphics processor will completely mask any perceptible quality differences due to minor configuration issues like memory pairing.

I am aware that there is a basis for this opinion based on hardware architecture, but in terms of real world performance metrics, I have not seen ANY evidence that graphics performance is perceptibly lower with 3GB.

The one game benchmark that OWC ran shows exactly what I stated: Better graphics performance with matched memory sizes than larger unmatched memory sizes. The difference depends on the game because some are more sensitive to memory bandwidth than others. Quake 3 is a good example of a game that is sensitive to memory bandwidth:


(M) is equal sized modules, (U) is unequal sized modules

With X3100 I would expect the difference to become even more dramatic, since the GPU is faster so games are more likely to become VRAM-bound, but I can't find any benchmarks (everyone knows better so they don't even bother?).

[coolmacdude]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The one game benchmark that OWC ran shows exactly what I stated:

How? The only game benchmark they did was Halo, which showed 14.xx FPS for both matched and unmatched.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Better graphics performance with matched memory sizes than larger unmatched memory sizes. The difference depends on the game because some are more sensitive to memory bandwidth than others. Quake 3 is a good example of a game that is sensitive to memory bandwidth:

That is interesting, and this is the first evidence I have seen of this. However Quake 3 is a very old game, and almost all newer games are going to be limited by the graphics hardware rather than the memory, to the extent that you will see no difference.

Originally Posted by mduell 

With X3100 I would expect the difference to become even more dramatic, since the GPU is faster so games are more likely to become VRAM-bound, but I can't find any benchmarks (everyone knows better so they don't even bother?).

I would doubt this, since the X3100 does not improve 3D gaming performance very much. MacBook 2.2GHz versus others

[mduell]

Originally Posted by coolmacdude 

How? The one benchmark they did was Halo, which showed 14.xx FPS for both matched and unmatched.

All of the matched results (with the exception of the starved 2x256MB model) are above 14, all of the unmatched results are below 14; it doesn't get much easier than that. With the 2x256MB result excluded, you can show that there's a ~99.9% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 3) that matched is faster than unmatched; if you include the 2x256MB result it drops to ~93% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 1.5).

Originally Posted by coolmacdude 

That is interesting, and this is the first evidence I have seen of this. However Quake 3 is a very old game, and almost all newer games are going to be limited by the graphics hardware rather than the memory, to the extent that you will see no difference.

Some of the newer games are still limited by VRAM speed.

Originally Posted by coolmacdude 

I would doubt this, since the X3100 does not improve 3D gaming performance very much. MacBook 2.2GHz versus others

The benchmarks that didn't change are the proof of what I'm saying; they're bound by the VRAM bandwidth, which didn't change. The benchmarks that are about twice as fast show that some of the benchmarks are GPU bound, which was improved.

[coolmacdude]

Originally Posted by mduell 

All of the matched results (with the exception of the starved 2x256MB model) are above 14, all of the unmatched results are below 14; it doesn't get much easier than that.

Um... no that was only for the older system. I'm talking about the newer model. And besides, as I mentioned earlier, the differences on ALL the systems were so small that they are obviously not even perceivable.

Originally Posted by mduell 

With the 2x256MB result excluded, you can show that there's a ~99.9% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 3) that matched is faster than unmatched; if you include the 2x256MB result it drops to ~93% probability with 95% confidence (z-score = 1.5).

:sigh: Please read what I wrote above and in previous posts. Say I am playing Halo with either configuration, am I going to notice a difference? The answer is no.

Originally Posted by mduell 

The benchmarks that didn't change are the proof of what I'm saying; they're bound by the VRAM bandwidth, which didn't change. The benchmarks that are about twice as fast show that some of the benchmarks are GPU bound, which was improved.

While this may be the case, I still think for most games, there will not be a noticeable difference just because of unmatched memory. I have tested other games besides Halo and they are all faster for me.

[legacyb4]

Newegg.com - Transcend 2GB 200-Pin DDR2 SO-DIMM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Notebook Memory - Retail

I think I'm going to pull the trigger on 2 x 2GB for my early 2007 Macbook; I know I'll only end up getting an extra 1GB out of it (I'm at 2 x 1GB now) but such is life.

Update: I received my Transcend 2GB memory upgrade and after installing both SO-DIMMs, System Profiler shows 4GB although addressable memory is still limited to 3GB.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Newegg has the same for $60 ($40 for 2GB and $20 for 1GB).

[ghporter]

I checked out the Transcend offer, but decided to go with the Kingston part instead. After rebates (and Kingston limits it to TWO per household rather than one) it's only about $39 each. I'm happy!

Added... I should have mentioned that I'm getting two of these for my iMac; I don't have a MacBook, and my MBP is an older one that only supports 2GB.

[IAmZoraK]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I checked out the Transcend offer, but decided to go with the Kingston part instead. After rebates (and Kingston limits it to TWO per household rather than one) it's only about $39 each. I'm happy!

Added... I should have mentioned that I'm getting two of these for my iMac; I don't have a MacBook, and my MBP is an older one that only supports 2GB.

I think i'm going to go for the same offer with my Macbook. I can't wait!