POST A COMMENT

33 Comments

Back to Article

  • bjc112 - Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - link

    Are these considered the only chips to go with for the mac mini?

    I have a stick of PC3200 ( off brand ) CL 2.5
    that is 1GB.

    Am I going to run into issues?

    (Currently have an off brand as well)

    Put in some basic mushkin, and the mini wouldn't post..

    Put it in a windows desktop, booted right up..

    Switched from Mushkin to Generic, mini works fine.. Now I want 1 GB.

    :D
    Reply
  • eieiou22 - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link

    To clarify my question, I was referring to the VS (Value Select) model line, not the CMSS model line. (There is about a $100 price difference) Reply
  • aviram - Friday, October 07, 2005 - link

    Hi All,

    There is one conflicting report from http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html">http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html

    quote:

    August 18th, 2005 -- Maybe memory latency speed makes a difference after all. I was doing some testing on two different G5/2.5GHz Power Macs. They are configured identical in every way (8GB RAM, GeForce 6800 Ultra). In fact, they have identical Raptor 10K boot drives in the top factory slot with contents of one cloned to the other. When I ran my Motion 2 "render RAM preview" test, one system ran 8% faster than the other. Why? Well, there is one difference. The faster G5 had CAS 2 memory and the other one had CAS 3.



    -avi
    Reply
  • eieiou22 - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link

    Does anyone know if the CORSAIR DDR400(PC3200) 1GB module will work with the mac mini? Thanks. Reply
  • eieiou22 - Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - link

    Reply
  • AstroManLuca - Saturday, March 26, 2005 - link

    I find this article strange... I bought a fairly standard-issue Geil 1GB PC3200 module from NewEgg for $135, and it works perfectly in my mini. I didn't bother going for any of this so-called "Mac RAM" and I haven't had any problems. I think Anand is a bit too cautionary here.

    Also, how did he arrive at those prices? Crucial is selling 512 MB modules for the PowerMac G5 for $61 each, for a total price for 1 GB of $122. Prices may have fallen since the article was posted but I have no idea where he got the $278 price.
    Reply
  • Abecedaria - Saturday, March 05, 2005 - link

    It's really great to see increased interest in the Mac here at Anandtech and I applaud Anand for his work so far. Keep it coming. The Mac community really needs Anand's unique perspective to point out both the advantages and the flaws in the Mac platform.
    Here's some tips for those new to the Mac. I don't want to sound like an ad, but many long time Mac heads use Other World Computing ( http://www.macsales.com ) for Mac upgrades. I did a quick check and they have cheap, generic, Apple-spec RAM that's cheaper than anything mentioned in the article. (i.e. 2x1GB DDR 400 - $357.00)
    And yes, Mac people do build their own Macs and I'd sure love to see some articles on it. That, and some good "how to overclock" articles.

    abc
    Reply
  • Abecedaria - Saturday, March 05, 2005 - link

    Reply
  • WangDangDoodle - Friday, March 04, 2005 - link

    #17 Truly interesting - I always suspected that building your own Mac was possible.

    In addition, to tips on what to look for and what to avoid in building your own Mac, many of us would be interested to learn [the best way] to extract a ROM from one card to flash another card.

    If there is not room on Anandtech.com, consider posting a reader submitted "build it" article on Extremetech.com which is also showing an increased interest in MACs.

    Peter R.
    Reply
  • michael2k - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    Why do you have to be defensive? "Don't get me wrong, I'm a long time PC user?"

    It's so stupid that people are attacked, and thus have to be defensive, for looking at a Mac.
    Reply
  • hopejr - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    #5 - you can use PC memory in a mac, just need to be careful. I'm doing it myself and have been for a while with no problems.

    #19 - I feel the same way about the iMac G5. I want to get one but I don't like the GFX 5200.

    #20 - I priced a PC with similar specs to the iMac G5 (except for the video card as the only 5200's I could find had 128MB, the processor, firewire, and styling in the 2" thick case), and it only came out AU$50 cheaper. For a student, the iMac G5 is not overpriced at all. Just think of all the cool software that comes with them that are actually full versions, and not this stupid trial version stuff, and a decent OS (IMHO). Don't get me wrong, I'm a long time PC user, but I just think that Apple has got it pretty well right.
    Reply
  • JAS - Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - link

    The Macintosh information has been very useful to me. Please keep it coming. Reply
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    #5, to answer your question, there's nothing stopping you from using Mac memory in your PC. Apple simply limits themselves to a subset of all memory(they only use memory that supports a specific timing, they don't want to take chances), so when you drop Mac memory in to a PC, it runs just like any other memory. The only conditions on that are that the SPD timings may not be as liberal on a PC part, and since the memory will never be overclocked, the memory vendor likely didn't use chips with much headroom. Reply
  • knitecrow - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    surprise surprise....

    apple tries to milk everything and anything including charging outrages prices for memory upgrades.
    Reply
  • computerfan - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    I love the Apple reviews. I have always been a PC user but these apple reviews have given me lots of important information. I am now awaiting confirmation of my ADC (Apple Developer Connection) student membership and am on the verge of purchasing an iMac G5 system. Hopefully they will upgrade the iMac line before I purchase it because it needs a better video card.

    Keep the Apple reviews coming!!!
    Reply
  • michael2k - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Monkeydonutstick:
    Like this? http://www.anandtech.com/mac/


    eetnoyer: Do you know that Shuttle sells about as many units (barebones+complete) in a year as Apple does eMacs/iMacs in a quarter?
    http://www.tongfamily.com/guide/pcs/2003/11/26/shu...
    http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2005/0,4814...

    Should Anand then move reviews of Shuttle cases and units to AnandShuttle.com because "the majority of viewers" don't use Shuttle?

    Each particular segment of Anand's viewership has their own interests, and are brought here because of the site; if you don't like that he's behind in his memory roundup, well, look somewhere else, do your own, or wait. No one has infinite time and resources, and Anand does what he will. Or even better... the last time someone was in the Mac threads complaining about a HL2 roundup, he released it 'as is' rather than finishing it to everyone's satisfaction.

    Would you want that? You can't have everything.
    Reply
  • Monkeydonutstick - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    #16

    I am using a Mac that I built right now. Generic pc100 memory, Motherboard and cpu from ebay, a pc radeon flashed with a mac rom, an old atx case and a slightly modified psu. total cost about 200.00.
    Reply
  • eetnoyer - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Maybe because the majority of anandtech readers actually use PCs exclusively (looked at any marketshare numbers lately?) and are DIYers (last time I checked, I couldn't build my own Mac). I don't really care that he spends his time on Mac reviews, I just think that it should be segregated somehow. The only reason I posted a comment is because I'm disappointed that over 6 months after the editors promised a value memory round-up "soon", there is still nothing in evidence. If you're bored, you can look back through other memory reviews to see that I have occasionally posted the same type of comment there. Finally, my lack of interest in the SLI or RAID reviews has no bearing on any part of this discussion. All I want is the value memory round-up or a statement that it's never going to happen.

    P.S. #14 - Congratulations, you're the first person who was ever clever enough to twist my name to the word annoying.
    Reply
  • Monkeydonutstick - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    I would also like to see a separate page for Mac info. Not because I don’t like the reviews but I think they could expand a lot more on a separate page Reply
  • melgross - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    EEtnoyer, your name is correct. You really are annoying. Just because you don't lke something doersn't mean that others won't.

    I, like many others, I'm sure, have been longtime readers of Anands site long before he started to show an interest in Macs.

    We have four of them at home. So the site is now even more interesting than before.

    As far as memory goes, older machine could benefit from faster memory, but not all newer machines can.

    The reason some Mac owners get faster memory is that they may not be buying from top-line sources, and the memory may not be scec'ed properly, so they get faster stuff. Not a good thing to do anyway. Others simply don't know one way or the other, and assume that faster memory is better.

    Even on PCs where you may be able to clock higher, the performance increase of the machine as a whole is so small as to not be useful in the real world, as opposed to the world of specmanship.

    A machine is so complex in its functioning, that the memory speed increase alone can contribute little to it. It's often not worthwhile to spend the extra time and money.
    Reply
  • michael2k - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    It's nice knowing that there are cheaper alternatives; if all he had posted was "PC ram of this timing works" then we wouldn't know where to look for better prices. Reply
  • CindyRodriguez - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    I really applaud the on-going interest in the Mac platform. It's nice to see a well designed, robust platform like the Mac/OS X getting some more attention.

    I don't get the article though. Couldn't it be summed up with the statement that 'Macs use standard memory but Apple apparently sets the timing in firmware'? 4 pages of how Macs use standard memory?

    I'll try to be better than the average complainer on the boards though. How bout an article about real problems associated with upgrading Macs. Perhaps something about upgrading optical drives and getting the mac to boot from CD? That is, you'd have to cover finding drives with compatible firmware or hacking compatability.
    Alternately, maybe go into the possiblilty of flashing various video cards. That'd be interesting. Running RAID on mac boot volumes? Which interface is best for Mac RAID [SCSI, FW400, FW800] since FW800 had issues on the G5s? Or, how bout tackling the possiblility that the software shortage is a myth? Pick several tasks and see if you can find the appropriate software to get the job done on the Mac.. that'd be interesting. It'd be nice to see someone do a well written overview of how to overclock and modify various Macs too.

    Cheers,
    Cindy
    Reply
  • solbergn - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    So here's my experience:

    Got 2 Mac Mini 1.25's, and didn't want to pay $100 for 256mb more RAM. So I got some Kingston Value-RAM, DDR 400, for about $68 and popped the lid on the mini's. Worked like a charm. Both machines booted right up, and I had 2 extra 256mb sticks for my G4.

    I don't recommend just grabbing some RAM off the floor and throwing it in, but considering I've done this one, it's a good deal for anyone looking for RAM upgrades. I've also stuck Value-RAM DDR 400 in a Dual 1.25ghz G4, no problem.

    Lets look outside manufacturers that over price RAM for Macs. It's usually the same stuff as their cheaper counterparts, just a bigger price tag.
    Reply
  • Webster - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    For Crucial memory, do you have to get the upgrade they recommend? For me, they say to get:

    iBook (G4 1GHz), Part CT372708, 512MB, $146.27
    DDR PC2100 • CL=2.5 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR266 • 2.5V •

    But, I also noticed this memory, which looks similar:

    PowerBook G4 1GHz (12-inch Display), Part CT327971, 512MB, $93.99
    DDR PC2100 • CL=2.5 • UNBUFFERED • NON-ECC • DDR266 • 2.5V • 64Meg x 64

    Does the 64Meg x 64 mean it won't work in an iBook? I would rather not spend the extra $53 if they will both do the same thing.
    Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    #6, that's indeed true, though I will say from my experience that Apple is the worst price-gouger on RAM. Dell would rank second. Crucial is a lot cheaper, and they're high compared to quite a few vendors.

    #7, if you were truly sorry for sounding harsh, you wouldn't post what you did. I find Anand's Mac information to be incredibly useful, as someone who does both PC and Mac. I urge Anandtech to keep doing the occasional Mac article, everyone moaning about it seems to say "Anandtech's becoming a Mac site" when it's easy to see the site is still heavily balanced (and rightly so) towards the PC side. Lots of PC users have become interested in the Mac mini, and I believe there is plenty of relevance.
    Reply
  • michael2k - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    And who are you to say what the majority of Anand's viewers are?

    He does his thing for his pleasure as well as for the benefit of others. I'm sure HE was curious how the various ram vendors stacked up in his three Macs, and thought such research would benefit his readers.

    Or do you complain when he reviews SLI, or RAID, or high end gaming chassises because they aren't applicable to you? If it bugs you, don't read the Mac articles and let those who do care read them!

    Expanding your coverage is the only way to expand your readership; attracting NEW viewers and new visitors, rather than the existing one. Otherwise if he kept sticking to 'old formula', he'd get overshadowed by newer sites that DID do things better/different. So let off on Anand. I understand you might be unhappy, but how do you think all the old school Macheads feel about the new OS X and the new iPods that Steve Jobs has unleashed?
    Reply
  • eetnoyer - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Wow, another memory review that won't be relevant to the majority of your users. It's as bad as reading all of the extremely expensive memory reviews. I think alot of your readers would still like to see the value memory (PC) round-up that was promised about 6 months ago. And, if you insist on reviewing Apple products from here on out, maybe you should do it on anandmac.com or something like that with a link on the anandtech homepage.

    Sorry for sounding so harsh.
    Reply
  • deathwalker - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Apple isn't the only computer manufacture that is guilty of exessive memory pricing. Dell's memory prices when upgrading there Laptops and Desktops is simply outrageous. My opinion is that if you buy a laptop or Desktop from any vendor is that you should buy it with the absolute minimum amount of memory that they offer for the system then purchase you memory upgrade aftermarket from Newegg or Zipzoomfly (or your favorite supplier). Reply
  • paulsiu - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Other than the SPD, how different is the Mac memory from the PC memory? I probably can't reuse PC memory in a Mac, but can I use the Mac Memory on a PC? Reply
  • Chuckles - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Then why do people buy 2-2-2 RAM for thier Mac's? Reply
  • Reflex - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Re-read the first page guys, the Mac does NOT use any other speed than what they ship with. You cannot get better performance with lower latency or higher frequency memory, it simply will run it at the same specs as whatever you replaced it with. Reply
  • Shinei - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    From what I gathered from the article, Macs won't even POST if you tinker with the frequency or timings of the RAM... Unless I missed something, in which case, I'm with poster #1. Reply
  • Chuckles - Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - link

    Hey Anand,
    I'm curious as to the effect of changing the latency of the memory on a Mac. Did you test any modules with 2-2-2 ratings and compare them performance wise with higher latency modules?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now