Should We Still Install Matched Pairs of RAM?
When I say "still", I'm not actually talking about current generation Macs. I'm specifically talking about 2012's. Is there still benefit to installing matched pairs or are those days long gone?
I have two 2012 Macs with 4 GB each. I just got my hands on 8 GB from a 2012 iMac. So the question is, which Mac do I upgrade to 8 GB?
...but I could also do 2 GB + 4 GB in each Mac, bringing each Mac to 6 GB.
Way back when, it was always said to install in matched pairs, otherwise the RAM run's "slow". But is this still the case by 2012? Even if it is true, just how much slower is it? It still may be worthwhile to run unmatched pairs to get an extra 2 GB in each machine.
macbook memory mac-mini
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
add a comment |
When I say "still", I'm not actually talking about current generation Macs. I'm specifically talking about 2012's. Is there still benefit to installing matched pairs or are those days long gone?
I have two 2012 Macs with 4 GB each. I just got my hands on 8 GB from a 2012 iMac. So the question is, which Mac do I upgrade to 8 GB?
...but I could also do 2 GB + 4 GB in each Mac, bringing each Mac to 6 GB.
Way back when, it was always said to install in matched pairs, otherwise the RAM run's "slow". But is this still the case by 2012? Even if it is true, just how much slower is it? It still may be worthwhile to run unmatched pairs to get an extra 2 GB in each machine.
macbook memory mac-mini
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
Matched pairs are ideal, but the difference is super minimal. The extra 2 GB of memory afforded by a 2G + 4G config will outdo any advantages offered by a 2G + 2G config. (A more important thing to know is that if you install two sticks of RAM which are rated for different speeds, your computer will operate all RAM at the speed of the slowest stick.)
– Wowfunhappy
Jan 26 at 5:47
Hey. You have permission to edit my answer significantly to add your benchmark. Also, feel free to add your answer and select it over mine. Great work documenting to others how to get an actual benchmark.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:15
@bmike well, if I had saved the spreadsheet, I'd post the raw data. But I did not so people will just have to take my word for it, or run their own benchmarks.
– l008com
Jan 29 at 8:34
add a comment |
When I say "still", I'm not actually talking about current generation Macs. I'm specifically talking about 2012's. Is there still benefit to installing matched pairs or are those days long gone?
I have two 2012 Macs with 4 GB each. I just got my hands on 8 GB from a 2012 iMac. So the question is, which Mac do I upgrade to 8 GB?
...but I could also do 2 GB + 4 GB in each Mac, bringing each Mac to 6 GB.
Way back when, it was always said to install in matched pairs, otherwise the RAM run's "slow". But is this still the case by 2012? Even if it is true, just how much slower is it? It still may be worthwhile to run unmatched pairs to get an extra 2 GB in each machine.
macbook memory mac-mini
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
When I say "still", I'm not actually talking about current generation Macs. I'm specifically talking about 2012's. Is there still benefit to installing matched pairs or are those days long gone?
I have two 2012 Macs with 4 GB each. I just got my hands on 8 GB from a 2012 iMac. So the question is, which Mac do I upgrade to 8 GB?
...but I could also do 2 GB + 4 GB in each Mac, bringing each Mac to 6 GB.
Way back when, it was always said to install in matched pairs, otherwise the RAM run's "slow". But is this still the case by 2012? Even if it is true, just how much slower is it? It still may be worthwhile to run unmatched pairs to get an extra 2 GB in each machine.
macbook memory mac-mini
macbook memory mac-mini
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
asked Jan 26 at 5:22
l008coml008com
1,762516
1,762516
Matched pairs are ideal, but the difference is super minimal. The extra 2 GB of memory afforded by a 2G + 4G config will outdo any advantages offered by a 2G + 2G config. (A more important thing to know is that if you install two sticks of RAM which are rated for different speeds, your computer will operate all RAM at the speed of the slowest stick.)
– Wowfunhappy
Jan 26 at 5:47
Hey. You have permission to edit my answer significantly to add your benchmark. Also, feel free to add your answer and select it over mine. Great work documenting to others how to get an actual benchmark.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:15
@bmike well, if I had saved the spreadsheet, I'd post the raw data. But I did not so people will just have to take my word for it, or run their own benchmarks.
– l008com
Jan 29 at 8:34
add a comment |
Matched pairs are ideal, but the difference is super minimal. The extra 2 GB of memory afforded by a 2G + 4G config will outdo any advantages offered by a 2G + 2G config. (A more important thing to know is that if you install two sticks of RAM which are rated for different speeds, your computer will operate all RAM at the speed of the slowest stick.)
– Wowfunhappy
Jan 26 at 5:47
Hey. You have permission to edit my answer significantly to add your benchmark. Also, feel free to add your answer and select it over mine. Great work documenting to others how to get an actual benchmark.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:15
@bmike well, if I had saved the spreadsheet, I'd post the raw data. But I did not so people will just have to take my word for it, or run their own benchmarks.
– l008com
Jan 29 at 8:34
Matched pairs are ideal, but the difference is super minimal. The extra 2 GB of memory afforded by a 2G + 4G config will outdo any advantages offered by a 2G + 2G config. (A more important thing to know is that if you install two sticks of RAM which are rated for different speeds, your computer will operate all RAM at the speed of the slowest stick.)
– Wowfunhappy
Jan 26 at 5:47
Matched pairs are ideal, but the difference is super minimal. The extra 2 GB of memory afforded by a 2G + 4G config will outdo any advantages offered by a 2G + 2G config. (A more important thing to know is that if you install two sticks of RAM which are rated for different speeds, your computer will operate all RAM at the speed of the slowest stick.)
– Wowfunhappy
Jan 26 at 5:47
Hey. You have permission to edit my answer significantly to add your benchmark. Also, feel free to add your answer and select it over mine. Great work documenting to others how to get an actual benchmark.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:15
Hey. You have permission to edit my answer significantly to add your benchmark. Also, feel free to add your answer and select it over mine. Great work documenting to others how to get an actual benchmark.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:15
@bmike well, if I had saved the spreadsheet, I'd post the raw data. But I did not so people will just have to take my word for it, or run their own benchmarks.
– l008com
Jan 29 at 8:34
@bmike well, if I had saved the spreadsheet, I'd post the raw data. But I did not so people will just have to take my word for it, or run their own benchmarks.
– l008com
Jan 29 at 8:34
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No - even in the core 2 days, it was almost always faster to have more RAM that wasn’t matched compared to less RAM that was matched. I believe the penalty was 3% range - so you could test it in a benchmark, but real world - more RAM wins.
The only way matched ram would matter was in a perfect tie. Say two chips of 4 compared to four chips of 2. Always go with more RAM when you have capacity unless you are on a power budget - mobile devices on battery have to power all RAM and if you provision too much, you waste battery.
These days, the memory controllers are so good, I don’t think you can even benchmark differences due to a mix of memory sizes or locations.
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
1
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "118"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fapple.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f349716%2fshould-we-still-install-matched-pairs-of-ram%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No - even in the core 2 days, it was almost always faster to have more RAM that wasn’t matched compared to less RAM that was matched. I believe the penalty was 3% range - so you could test it in a benchmark, but real world - more RAM wins.
The only way matched ram would matter was in a perfect tie. Say two chips of 4 compared to four chips of 2. Always go with more RAM when you have capacity unless you are on a power budget - mobile devices on battery have to power all RAM and if you provision too much, you waste battery.
These days, the memory controllers are so good, I don’t think you can even benchmark differences due to a mix of memory sizes or locations.
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
1
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
add a comment |
No - even in the core 2 days, it was almost always faster to have more RAM that wasn’t matched compared to less RAM that was matched. I believe the penalty was 3% range - so you could test it in a benchmark, but real world - more RAM wins.
The only way matched ram would matter was in a perfect tie. Say two chips of 4 compared to four chips of 2. Always go with more RAM when you have capacity unless you are on a power budget - mobile devices on battery have to power all RAM and if you provision too much, you waste battery.
These days, the memory controllers are so good, I don’t think you can even benchmark differences due to a mix of memory sizes or locations.
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
1
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
add a comment |
No - even in the core 2 days, it was almost always faster to have more RAM that wasn’t matched compared to less RAM that was matched. I believe the penalty was 3% range - so you could test it in a benchmark, but real world - more RAM wins.
The only way matched ram would matter was in a perfect tie. Say two chips of 4 compared to four chips of 2. Always go with more RAM when you have capacity unless you are on a power budget - mobile devices on battery have to power all RAM and if you provision too much, you waste battery.
These days, the memory controllers are so good, I don’t think you can even benchmark differences due to a mix of memory sizes or locations.
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
No - even in the core 2 days, it was almost always faster to have more RAM that wasn’t matched compared to less RAM that was matched. I believe the penalty was 3% range - so you could test it in a benchmark, but real world - more RAM wins.
The only way matched ram would matter was in a perfect tie. Say two chips of 4 compared to four chips of 2. Always go with more RAM when you have capacity unless you are on a power budget - mobile devices on battery have to power all RAM and if you provision too much, you waste battery.
These days, the memory controllers are so good, I don’t think you can even benchmark differences due to a mix of memory sizes or locations.
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
edited Jan 26 at 15:13
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
answered Jan 26 at 5:58
bmike♦bmike
159k46285620
159k46285620
1
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
add a comment |
1
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
1
1
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Ok I downloaded XBench. I ran four memory tests with 4 GB and four memory tests with 6 GB. I put it all in a spreadsheet, did the math, and here's the result: The RAM speed was a statistically insignificant 1.4% FASTER with 6 GB (not slower). So that settles that, 6 GB of RAM all around.
– l008com
Jan 26 at 8:44
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
Wonderful! Actual benchmarks rock and are so much better than “collective wisdom and opinion or even well reasoned speculation”. So for you the memory controller and CPU wasn’t the bottleneck, ram speeds was the bottleneck if you get faster rates with more RAM.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:11
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Different!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fapple.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f349716%2fshould-we-still-install-matched-pairs-of-ram%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Matched pairs are ideal, but the difference is super minimal. The extra 2 GB of memory afforded by a 2G + 4G config will outdo any advantages offered by a 2G + 2G config. (A more important thing to know is that if you install two sticks of RAM which are rated for different speeds, your computer will operate all RAM at the speed of the slowest stick.)
– Wowfunhappy
Jan 26 at 5:47
Hey. You have permission to edit my answer significantly to add your benchmark. Also, feel free to add your answer and select it over mine. Great work documenting to others how to get an actual benchmark.
– bmike♦
Jan 26 at 15:15
@bmike well, if I had saved the spreadsheet, I'd post the raw data. But I did not so people will just have to take my word for it, or run their own benchmarks.
– l008com
Jan 29 at 8:34