5 ms·

Correct, all three-figure models are at least DDR3. The X20x support up to 8 GB (2x 4 GB). Edit: And no, they really don't support more. The memory controller

by dom0 10y ago

Correct, all three-figure models are at least DDR3. The X20x support up to 8 GB (2x 4 GB). Edit: And no, they really don't support more. The memory controller only supports 2 Gb chips, so with two ranks per channel you only get 2x 4 GB. (Intel i7-600, i5-500 series processor datasheet, section 2.1.1).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yuhong 10y ago
The datasheets are often outdated. See http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100923006778/en/Samsung-Mass-Producing-40nm-class-8GB-DDR3-Module http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100923006778/en/Sams... for an example.
- dom0 10y ago
  Yes, such things are often outdated, but the availability of different memory chips does not change existing hardware. The MC really doesn't support it, there is no way to change anything about that... I believe there were other chips at the time that supported more than 8 GB (i7-9xxM perhaps), but these are a different die (Clarksdale quad cores, ie. high end mobile chips that are selected desktop chips).
  - yuhong 10y ago
    The point is that the datasheet is now inaccurate. This happened before with 2Gbit DDR3 and Intel had to update the datasheet for the Mobile 4 Series chipsets.
    - dom0 10y ago
      The datasheet says that the IMC only supports 2 Gb chips, which remains accurate. Even a single 8 GB DDR3 module will not work with these laptops.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    And if you read http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-mobile-ee-and-mobile-processor-series-vol-1-datasheet.html http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-... , it does not say anything about 4Gbit DDR3 either.
    - dom0 10y ago
      The difference is that with the one DS we know it's accurate because anything beyond 2 Gb simply doesn't work. So that DS is accurate. On the other hand we know that with Clarksdale more than 2 Gb does, in fact, work, just like they work on Lynnfield. As one would expect, it's the same silicon after all. If you'd excuse me now, I believe my work here is done ;)
  - yuhong 10y ago
    And here is another example (notice it almost works, proving there is no hardware limitation): http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade-my-macbook-mid-2010-to-16gb-of-ram-2x8g http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade...

by dom0 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yuhong 10y ago

The datasheets are often outdated. See http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100923006778/en/Samsung-Mass-Producing-40nm-class-8GB-DDR3-Module http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100923006778/en/Sams... for an example.

dom0 10y ago
Yes, such things are often outdated, but the availability of different memory chips does not change existing hardware. The MC really doesn't support it, there is no way to change anything about that... I believe there were other chips at the time that supported more than 8 GB (i7-9xxM perhaps), but these are a different die (Clarksdale quad cores, ie. high end mobile chips that are selected desktop chips).
- yuhong 10y ago
  The point is that the datasheet is now inaccurate. This happened before with 2Gbit DDR3 and Intel had to update the datasheet for the Mobile 4 Series chipsets.
  - dom0 10y ago
    The datasheet says that the IMC only supports 2 Gb chips, which remains accurate. Even a single 8 GB DDR3 module will not work with these laptops.
- yuhong 10y ago
  And if you read http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-900-mobile-ee-and-mobile-processor-series-vol-1-datasheet.html http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-... , it does not say anything about 4Gbit DDR3 either.
  - dom0 10y ago
    The difference is that with the one DS we know it's accurate because anything beyond 2 Gb simply doesn't work. So that DS is accurate. On the other hand we know that with Clarksdale more than 2 Gb does, in fact, work, just like they work on Lynnfield. As one would expect, it's the same silicon after all. If you'd excuse me now, I believe my work here is done ;)
- yuhong 10y ago
  And here is another example (notice it almost works, proving there is no hardware limitation): http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade-my-macbook-mid-2010-to-16gb-of-ram-2x8g http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade...