Thinkpads Forum

I know that the max RAM for the X220 is apparently 8GB (which should be ideal for me though ive been told it supports 16gb). I read someone saying they had 1600MHz RAM.

Does anyone know if 1866MHz RAM is supported by the X220?

I have an i5 processor - is there any system limitation with using 1866MHz e.g. system only utilizes a percentage of the RAM?

Thanks,
Kevin

Ps. I posted this at notebook review too but no one seems to know

Welcome to TPF.

You can use that RAM, but there's no performance benefit to it. It'll clock down to the memory bus speed of your X220.

Cheers.

sarbin wrote:Welcome to TPF.

You can use that RAM, but there's no performance benefit to it. It'll clock down to the memory bus speed of your X220.

Cheers.

Thanks for the welcome

Do out know the bus speed of the i5 x220. Can't find it on the spec.

1333 MHz if I remember correctly.

mikemex wrote:1333 MHz if I remember correctly.

Ok. I have since read posts from other x220 users around the web who have gotten higher speeds with 1600 and 1866 modules.

mikemex wrote:1333 MHz if I remember correctly.

Crucial list both 1333MHz and 1600MHz as compatible with the X220.

Crucial list both 1333MHz and 1600MHz as compatible with the X220.[/quote]

Apparently it supports 8GB modules as well so 16GB is possible.

System0 wrote:Apparently it supports 8GB modules as well so 16GB is possible.

Indeed it does... however, I decided that 8GB would be enough and simply added an extra 4GB to mine as it shipped with a single SODIMM (managed to get the same Samsung memory, by part number at least even though it looks a little different).

ansible212 wrote:
Indeed it does... however, I decided that 8GB would be enough and simply added an extra 4GB to mine as it shipped with a single SODIMM (managed to get the same Samsung memory, by part number at least even though it looks a little different).

Mine came with 2x2GBs. 16GB would be useful if you use 8GB for a RAM File. Would really speed up your computer.

As far as I know, mobile chipsets are not overclockable and that means that no matter what speed the memory module is rated at, it will always run at 1333 MHz. Besides, it is well proven that Sandy Bridge CPUs rely on the cache subsystem for everything and thus memory performance gains from playing with memory latencies are marginal or null.

Me, I'm going to upgrade to 8GB simply because the machine came with a single 4GB DIMM and dual channel improves graphics performance quite a bit bot other than that, I would stay happy with 4GB. It's a lot of memory, quite astronomical if you put things in perspective. There are times in which I've opened close to 300 tabs in Mozilla and it won't slow down or run out of memory.

The RAM drive idea sounds appealing, though. The machine has a battery and thus volatility of the memory isn't that of an issue. 10-12GB of ultra fast storage should be great for things such as video encoding.

System0 wrote:Mine came with 2x2GBs. 16GB would be useful if you use 8GB for a RAM File. Would really speed up your computer.

In which case, given the ridiculously low price of DDR3 RAM at the moment I'd have gone for 16GB too.

I'm reading conflicting reports on whether the ram drive is worth it or not. Some people suggest that if you have an SSD the additional benefits of a RAM drive are minimal. I don't know too much about the issue to be honest so can't really say. Will try and read more about it

This is a simple article about RAM drives but it's a good introduction:

http://www.storagereview.com/introduction_ram_disks

Getting a little OT....

My take on it, as stated in the last paragraph of that article you referenced, is that a RAMDISK will have its greatest impact is the case where there's a very high amount of transactional processing to and from the storage medium (i.e., reading and writing data on a hard drive). Using an SSD in this rare situation would probably be ill-advised as the (relatively) large amount of time needed to complete the writing, compared to RAM, coupled with the increased wear on the flash memory (which has a finite number of erase/write cycles allotted to its lifetime). Modern hard drives have a fair amount of buffering (cache) built-in so this does help to decrease the time when accessing often needed data. Same goes for operating systems and disk controllers that are able to buffer data, delay operations or queue requests in a more efficient manner.

Back in the day (circa 1980), RAMDISK was a good solution when dealing with very limited amounts of storage; both RAM and disk-based. A computer may only have had 64KB of memory, coupled with a 250KB floppy drive (hard drives were only for those lucky enough to afford one). Processing a data set that was too large to fit into semiconductor memory meant you were at the mercy of the spinning, clicking, creaking 8" floppy. Enter the RAMDISK solution. Even a 1MB "drive" was very expensive but at least you were accessing the data in uS (microsecond) terms instead of mS (milliseconds); 3 orders of magnitude improvement.

I guess it comes down to how each software application is written. If it is able to dynamically allocate as much memory (RAM) it needs, then install as much RAM as possible. If the program was designed to off-load data to a hard drive, then carve out some memory into a RAMDISK.

Thanks. It was good to hear from someone who knows a lot about the subject. 8GB sounds like the best investment by a long way.

As we are on the subject of RAM etc, does anyone know what basis Crucial recommends RAM.

For example, for the X220 there are 4 8GB kits available (2x4GB).



There is a 1.35 and 1.5 volt option for 1333 and 1600 RAM. Both 1333 modules have CL=9 and both 1600 modules have CL=11.

Crucial recommend the 1.5 volt option which is 1333 GHZ. There is only £3.50 a difference in price between all options therefore I'm not sure if the recommended module is chosen because of price.

• Have they chosen the 1333 module because that's apparently the limit for the X220 (even though others have shown they can higher RAM can be used correctly).
• Why have they chosen the 1.5 volt module over 1.35 volts? I thought less is generally better for battery consumption etc.

All 4 options available are confirmed to work on the X220. I would have thought that the 1.35V 1600 module would have been the best to get considering there is little to no difference in price between the 4 options available. Is this the case?

the CPU in your X220 can only support 1.5V electrically.   even if you install 1.35V modules, they'll negotiate up to 1.5V.

you're welcome to purchase 1600MHz 1.35V modules but they'll run at 1333MHz and 1.5V.   if faster LV modules are less expensive then buy what's less expensive.   crucial (micron) is a solid choice no matter which speed/voltage you get.

if you're still curious about all of this, go to ark.intel.com and look up your CPU.   that will tell you the limitations on memory speed and voltage.

erik wrote:the CPU in your X220 can only support 1.5V electrically.   even if you install 1.35V modules, they'll negotiate up to 1.5V.

you're welcome to purchase 1600MHz 1.35V modules but they'll run at 1333MHz and 1.5V.   if faster LV modules are less expensive then buy what's less expensive.   crucial (micron) is a solid choice no matter which speed/voltage you get.

if you're still curious about all of this, go to ark.intel.com and look up your CPU.   that will tell you the limitations on memory speed and voltage.

Thanks Erik. I've been reading a lot about this (out of curiosity more than anything else). There are lots of people using 1600 and 1866 modules though they are doing so using bios 1.28. It seems that the benefit of using faster ram, even if you can get it using an old version of your bios, is minimal at best. Some people are claiming 20% jumps in benchmarks but the actual jump in real life performance in games and photoshop seems very small.

Via Crucial, the 2x4GB or 2x8GB at 1333 seem like the best value (the 8gb modules are said to run at 1.35 volts but will run at 1.5 volts as you suggest). I was considering the 8GB modules as with 16GB of RAM I could use a RAM disk. Seems to be a lot of pros and cons of using that too. Apparently, using one can actually slow down your computer launching and shutting down due to everything having to load up in the cache etc. Plus if you save internet cache via the RAM disk things like passwords aren't saved.

i've only tested RAM disks in workstations but found the tactile benefits to be imperceptible.   they make sense for tasks with heavy I/Os but far less with something written once and accessed a couple times, including application swap space, user temp, and page file.   an SSD covers speed bottlenecks for most users.   if you already have an SSD then you're set.

buy the amount of memory you need and you'll be fine.   the rest doesn't matter much at all, voltage included.

erik wrote:i've only tested RAM disks in workstations but found the tactile benefits to be imperceptible.   they make sense for tasks with heavy I/Os but far less with something written once and accessed a couple times, including application swap space, user temp, and page file.   an SSD covers speed bottlenecks for most users.   if you already have an SSD then you're set.

buy the amount of memory you need and you'll be fine.   the rest doesn't matter much at all, voltage included.

Thanks again. I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this (i.e. dumb it down for me!)

Yeah I have a 256GB mSata M4 Crucial drive for the main OS. It's slower than a regular SSD but still pretty good (7.3 in WEI)

Little OT:
I have 3GB of RAM and have never used it all.
I know the principle the more the more but if you have 16 or 8 GB of RAM and you only use less than 4 at most what is the points of the remainder just sitting there?
Isn't it better to invest the money in better SSD of bigger HDD?

garnet wrote:Little OT:
I have 3GB of RAM and have never used it all.
I know the principle the more the more but if you have 16 or 8 GB of RAM and you only use less than 4 at most what is the points of the remainder just sitting there?
Isn't it better to invest the money in better SSD of bigger HDD?

Yeah. You don't need more ram if you aren't using your existing amount. I already have a 256GB SSD and 320GB HDD so looked into whether I needed 16GB of ram.

So last night I did lots of tests. A few times I did break the 4GB mark with my normal usage, however I don't see that being a problem if I have 8GB. I've ordered 8GB. The money wasn't really an issue for me and I must admit I was tempted to max the laptop out. Though I doubt I'll use it with my current usage. I can review this situation in a year and if I am using more, I can order 16GB then and sell the 8GB off.

System0 wrote: Yeah I have a 256GB mSata M4 Crucial drive for the main OS. It's slower than a regular SSD but still pretty good (7.3 in WEI)

Sorry to bump, I removed my 3G card to have a Samsung PM810 mSATA in its place - which made a significant improvement over actual HDD boot times - and although it is SATAII, it seems I am getting a better WEI of 7.6 compared with your M4. Is the M4 not SATAIII? Anybody noticed a difference between a SATA II and III mSATA? Does the x220 support SATAIII mSATA SSD's? I have just ordered a 128GB PM810 yesterday but I was previously tempted to go for Mushkin Atlas (SATAIII) with the better Sandforce chipset, which I can still order before my next migration (and pass on the Samsungs to the wife and the son ). Anyone using Mushkin on this forum care to share their experience?

And as regards 16GB 1600Mhz RAM (on BIOS 1.28), I must sheepishly admit that I don't see any practical difference even when running virtual machines. (WEI of 7.5 stayed the same with the faster RAM). Then again I was already using 16GB @ 1333Mhz before so perhaps once you hit a threshold minimum RAM, rated speed becomes less important than quantity here

Yeah I think it is SataIII. Not 100% sure.

Perhaps my score should be better.

The chipset supports SATA III, but only two ports compared to six SATA II. I don't know which port is connected to what device, or if SATA III ports are connected at all. The most ovious answer is that SATA III ports are connected to the main hard drive bay and probably the Ultrabay or the mSATA slot. But remember that there was a bug in the chipsets regarding SATA III, I wouldn't be surprised if they avoided it by using SATA II ports. Also, SATA III ports are likely to draw a bit more power.

System0 wrote:Crucial list both 1333MHz and 1600MHz as compatible with the X220.

Apparently it supports 8GB modules as well so 16GB is possible.[/quote]

I did install 2x8GB modules yesterday, but do not see any performance increase, SSD drive is better upgrade ...
-LD

As somebody who has been running on 16GB RAM for almost a year, I find the following still true:

- There is 16GB at 1600MHz
- There is 8GB at 1833MHz
- There is 16GB at 1833MHz, BUT it runs at 1600MHz (this is new)

All of these are "compatible" with the X220.

So, will the x220 support any 4gb/8gb RAM module running at 1333MHz(PC3 10600) regardless of brand or it's better to buy the one suggested ffrom lenovo?

Any name-brand is fine, Kingston, Corsair, Samsung, you name it. No point paying 4-5x more for Lenovo-rebadged Samsungs...

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=112133

I am using 2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1866Mhz.. at full speed using old bios version, if upgrade to latest bios version it drops to 1333mhz

BIOS: Lenovo 8DET58WW (1.28), 14/02/2012 (I believe this is the latest one that supports 1833mhz, after that speed drops) I had to rollback to this version

Memory (bought these on ebay) ~ USD 150$

http://imageshack.com/scaled/640x480/33/fkl9.jpg

http://imageshack.com/scaled/640x480/15/kc1m.jpg