Buying RAM and SSD for a laptop

[ABB125]

Good evening,
I have a Lenovo Thinkpad P53, currently with 2x8GB RAM and a 512GB NVMe SSD installed. I could do with more RAM and storage, but I haven't done anything like this before, so would appreciate some advice.
Firstly, I have two spare RAM slots, one spare M.2 NVMe SSD slot and one spare SATA port with space for a 2.5" drive (I believe it is a 7mm slot).
The main intensive-use software I use is Solidworks (CAD), but I also occasionally do quite demanding video editing (DaVinci Resolve). My thoughts were to get another 16GB of RAM (and thus meet the recommendation on the Solidworks website) and a 1TB SSD (likely an NVMe one as I can't see any real price differential between that and a SATA one on the websites I've looked at).
A few questions:

• Is it better to get a single 16GB RAM card, or 2x8GB (like currently installed)?
• If my budget stretches to it, would there be any issues with adding an extra 32GB of RAM (giving 48GB in total)? Again, single card or a pair?
• I ran Crucial's system scan and it says I have 2667MHz Samsung RAM currently installed. Does this have any effect on what extra I could get? According to Crucial's website, I could have faster (3200 MHz) or slower (2400MHz) RAM; can I? What (if any) are the advantages and disadvantages?
• Is RAM (and storage) "plug and play", ie: I slot the cards in and when I next turn the laptop on I have extra power, without having to do any more?
• What brands of RAM/SSD do you recommend?
• Any other advice/pointers?

Thanks very much for any help.

 

[Crossover]

Taking your points in turn:

Regarding the RAM, check what the motherboard can take. I would do the single stick if possible as it leaves you a slot free for later

No issue with adding 32GB RAM depending if the system supports it

The 2667MHz is the frquency - the higher the better. The system will always run at the lowest available, I believe (be it the lowest RAM module or the system). I don't think frequency makes too much noticeable difference

RAM is plug and play. You may get a BIOS warning to confirm the system changes (though I have mainly come across this on older HP desktops). Storage is now fairly plug and play other than needing to format the disk

I have had good experiences with Crucial, on both RAM and SSD's. I think Western Digital are OK for SSD as well

If you are going to be running intensive programs and have a spare NVMe slot, I would spend the extra and go with this option - the "bus" speed is much higher than SATA so it can make better use of the higher IOPs of the SSD chips

EDIT: I also work in IT, like the poster below

 

[3rd rail land]

A few questions:

• Is it better to get a single 16GB RAM card, or 2x8GB (like currently installed)?
• If my budget stretches to it, would there be any issues with adding an extra 32GB of RAM (giving 48GB in total)? Again, single card or a pair?
• I ran Crucial's system scan and it says I have 2667MHz Samsung RAM currently installed. Does this have any effect on what extra I could get? According to Crucial's website, I could have faster (3200 MHz) or slower (2400MHz) RAM; can I? What (if any) are the advantages and disadvantages?
• Is RAM (and storage) "plug and play", ie: I slot the cards in and when I next turn the laptop on I have extra power, without having to do any more?
• What brands of RAM/SSD do you recommend?
• Any other advice/pointers?

Thanks very much for any help.

I work in IT and have done a lot of desktop and infrastructure engineering so I think I can answer your questions.

Regarding the RAM if you just want 32GB and don't plan to increase this in the future then 4 x 8GB sticks is the way to go. Ideally the make, model and clock speed of each stick should be the same.
If you want more than 32GB in the future then remove the existing sticks and get 2 x 16GB sticks again of the same, make, model and clock speed.
In this situation I wouldn't worry about the clock speed, aside from having sticks all at teh same speed, as you probably won't notice much difference between the 3 speeds you have mentioned.
Yes, RAM and drives are plug and play/hot swappable so no drivers required
3 brands that produce high quality RAM that come to mind are Crucial, Corsair and Kingston. Crucial, Seagate and Western digital make decent drives. Other brands are available.
One thing you may not realise is that NVMe is a newer technology than SATA so NVMe drives will almost certainly provide faster read/write speeds.
Another thing to note is that modifying the hardware may invalidate the warranty unless you get the parts direct from Lenovo. Check the Ts and Cs before you make any purchases.

 

[DB]

Agree with all the above. Just a few things to add:
- If you mix speeds of RAM, it will normally work (provided it's not ECC server-grade RAM, which is very picky), but will run all modules at the speed of the slowest. Best to match them if you can
- NVMe is, as stated, a better option than SATA if you have a slot for it, as it's faster.

I don't buy Lenovos (we use Dell), but when you first boot after upgrade it might give a message saying that the RAM has changed, and you may need to go in and out of the BIOS/UEFT setup to clear the message. Once it's booted, you will need to use the Disk Management utility (part of Windows, assuming that's what you are using) to initialise, partition and format the new drive - with a modern SSD that should literally only take a few minutes.

I'd generally recommend Crucial - they are a subsidiary of Micron, who are one of the largest actual manufacturers of memory chips, and as I recall they guarantee that if you use their checker tool then the components they supply will work with the system specified.

 

[JohnMcL7]

A lot of good advice so I'll just add a couple of small points.

Lenovos can be very slow to power on the first time after the ram has changed while it checks it over so it might appear to do nothing for a few minutes, it just needs to be left to finish after which it should run normally.

I'll echo the advice about using disk management for your SSD since some people worry when there's no sign of their new disk when they boot Windows but it's likely fine.

Which processor are you using? It may not be worth buying faster ram if your system isn't going to use it, I've not found anything concrete but a couple of forum topics claim their ram in the P53 is only running at 2400Mhz.

 

[ABB125]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I'll do a bit more research over the next few days.
JohnMcL7 - it has an i7 9750 2.6GHz

 

[JohnMcL7]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I'll do a bit more research over the next few days.
JohnMcL7 - it has an i7 9750 2.6GHz

Thanks for the information, the specs show that CPU supports a maximum of DDR4-2666:

Intel® Core™ i7-9750H Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.50 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Core™ i7-9750H Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.50 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

 

[bspahh]

This is the hardware maintenance manual for a Lenovo P53

https://download.lenovo.com/pccbbs/mobiles_pdf/tp_p53_hmm_en.pdf

It will have instructions on how to change the memory and disks

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Wow scary. I have added RAM etc to a desktop but not had the courage to do it with a laptop. Hope it all goes well.

 

[mikeg]

Wow scary. I have added RAM etc to a desktop but not had the courage to do it with a laptop. Hope it all goes well.

Depends what model laptop, some thankfully still have the little door on the bottom that unscrews and gives you access to the RAM. Others require a little more disassembly but in the case of my thinkpad it's just a case of taking off the bottom panel. Then there are others which are a nightmare and that's before we start talking about the dreaded fruit company

 

[najaB]

Regarding the RAM, check what the motherboard can take. I would do the single stick if possible as it leaves you a slot free for later

You're normally better off adding RAM modules in pairs - odd numbers of modules lose the advantage of dual channel operation. Which is especially important if you're using integrated graphics.

 

[Crossover]

You're normally better off adding RAM modules in pairs - odd numbers of modules lose the advantage of dual channel operation. Which is especially important if you're using integrated graphics.

I have to say I wasn't aware of that - given the laptops we buy usually ship with a single stick of RAM anyway I have never seen it as much of an issue. I know that servers are different (particularly dual processor)

 

[mikeg]

You're normally better off adding RAM modules in pairs - odd numbers of modules lose the advantage of dual channel operation. Which is especially important if you're using integrated graphics.

Assuming of course that the memory controller on the motherboard and CPU type support this, but looking at the limited spec details we've been given, I'd agree that's likely the case, but for many consumer laptops is not the case.

 

[DB]

Most business-grade laptops are OK for access to the insides, as it's expected by customers. On the current Dell ones the whole bottom panel can be removed (six or seven screws) and all of the major serviceable components (RAM slots, SSD, wifi card, etc) are placed on the bottom of the motherboard (and therefore accessible). The battery is also accessible once the bottom is off, and that's two or three screws and a cable to remove it.

It varies a lot between manufacturers, and there has in recent years been a tendency in slimline consumer laptops to solder the RAM to the motherboard, which means it can't be upgraded, and if a RAM chip fails that means a new motherboard. Apple are always the worst for being non-serviceable, and their laptops have for a few years had soldered SSDs as well, meaning no upgrade and new motherboard if the SSD fails (and this is far more likely to happen than with RAM chips). They also make heavy use of proprietary screws and glue, meaning that even replacing the battery is difficult. Fortunately most other brands haven't gone to this extreme.

 

[najaB]

I have to say I wasn't aware of that - given the laptops we buy usually ship with a single stick of RAM anyway I have never seen it as much of an issue. I know that servers are different (particularly dual processor)

Assuming of course that the memory controller on the motherboard and CPU type support this, but looking at the limited spec details we've been given, I'd agree that's likely the case, but for many consumer laptops is not the case.

Agreed, it depends on the particular system. As an example, I gained about 10fps by adding a second memory module on a system using integrated graphics (the game wasn't memory bottlenecked with one module).

 

[DB]

I have to say I wasn't aware of that - given the laptops we buy usually ship with a single stick of RAM anyway I have never seen it as much of an issue. I know that servers are different (particularly dual processor)

Servers (and high-end workstations with dual processors and server-grade ECC RAM) are difficult - particular banks of slots are normally associated with each processor, and if not all the slots are filled it has to be done in a specific pattern. Mixing different modules is also normally a definite no.

 

[najaB]

Servers (and high-end workstations with dual processors and server-grade ECC RAM) are difficult - particular banks of slots are normally associated with each processor, and if not all the slots are filled it has to be done in a specific pattern. Mixing different modules is also normally a definite no.

It applies to consumer-grade motherboards as well. That's why if there are four RAM slots they will normally be two different colours (e.g. two blue, two black) to help you identify the channels.

 

[DB]

It applies to consumer-grade motherboards as well. That's why if there are four RAM slots they will normally be two different colours (e.g. two blue, two black) to help you identify the channels.

In some cases, certainly - but those are generally fairly easy to deal with due to the colours and small number of slots, and it's normally possible to only fill one slot in a channel. The servers normally require referring to a diagram to work it out! If the manufacturer is sensible the diagram will be on a label stuck to the inside of the server lid.

 

[ABB125]

I've decided I'll get an extra 2x8GB of RAM, and a 1TB SSD. I'll provide an update once it's arrived and installed.
Thanks for your help.

 

[AM9]

Good evening,
I have a Lenovo Thinkpad P53, currently with 2x8GB RAM and a 512GB NVMe SSD installed. I could do with more RAM and storage, but I haven't done anything like this before, so would appreciate some advice.
Firstly, I have two spare RAM slots, one spare M.2 NVMe SSD slot and one spare SATA port with space for a 2.5" drive (I believe it is a 7mm slot).
The main intensive-use software I use is Solidworks (CAD), but I also occasionally do quite demanding video editing (DaVinci Resolve). My thoughts were to get another 16GB of RAM (and thus meet the recommendation on the Solidworks website) and a 1TB SSD (likely an NVMe one as I can't see any real price differential between that and a SATA one on the websites I've looked at).
A few questions:

• Is it better to get a single 16GB RAM card, or 2x8GB (like currently installed)?
• If my budget stretches to it, would there be any issues with adding an extra 32GB of RAM (giving 48GB in total)? Again, single card or a pair?
• I ran Crucial's system scan and it says I have 2667MHz Samsung RAM currently installed. Does this have any effect on what extra I could get? According to Crucial's website, I could have faster (3200 MHz) or slower (2400MHz) RAM; can I? What (if any) are the advantages and disadvantages?
• Is RAM (and storage) "plug and play", ie: I slot the cards in and when I next turn the laptop on I have extra power, without having to do any more?
• What brands of RAM/SSD do you recommend?
• Any other advice/pointers?

Thanks very much for any help.

You haven't mentioned much about how you are using the GPU. If you are running DaVinci Resolve, the GPU memory and CUDA capability of the graphics subsystem will play a great part in the grading and other add-ons. The resident CPU has intel UHD 630 graphics and quick-sync which is more than adequate for Resolve use, even if you wish to drive an external UHD/4K display. That would keep as much of the GPU's VRAM available for editing and grading, especially important when working with UHD footage. Similarly, Fusion when used as an enhanced compositing tool with Resolve needs a lot of (CPU) system ram so there is a balancing act to perform there.

 

[ABB125]

You haven't mentioned much about how you are using the GPU. If you are running DaVinci Resolve, the GPU memory and CUDA capability of the graphics subsystem will play a great part in the grading and other add-ons. The resident CPU has intel UHD 630 graphics and quick-sync which is more than adequate for Resolve use, even if you wish to drive an external UHD/4K display. That would keep as much of the GPU's VRAM available for editing and grading, especially important when working with UHD footage. Similarly, Fusion when used as an enhanced compositing tool with Resolve needs a lot of (CPU) system ram so there is a balancing act to perform there.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know much about graphics. I have a NVIDIA QUADRO T1000 4GB (I think). I don't use Resolve very often, perhaps a couple of times a year, so it's not the biggest influence on my needs. I haven't yet used it on this laptop, but it's higher-spec than anything I've used before so should be fine!

 

[najaB]

The servers normally require referring to a diagram to work it out!

Indeed. We recently upgraded two servers at work that had different motherboard revisions. Despite having the same number of modules in the same locations one boots with 192GB and the other with 160GB. They're only used for spinning up Hyper-V VMs for testing (and the RAM was free) so it wasn't worth the time figuring out why.

 

[ABB125]

Indeed. We recently upgraded two servers at work that had different motherboard revisions. Despite having the same number of modules in the same locations one boots with 192GB and the other with 160GB. They're only used for spinning up Hyper-V VMs for testing (and the RAM was free) so it wasn't worth the time figuring out why.

That's a lot of RAM!!!

 

[DB]

That's a lot of RAM!!!

With virtualisation it's needed! We've got 512 each in our main ones.

 

[Crossover]

Most business-grade laptops are OK for access to the insides, as it's expected by customers. On the current Dell ones the whole bottom panel can be removed (six or seven screws) and all of the major serviceable components (RAM slots, SSD, wifi card, etc) are placed on the bottom of the motherboard (and therefore accessible). The battery is also accessible once the bottom is off, and that's two or three screws and a cable to remove it.

I can attest to the same - it is Dell we have and they are very easy to work on for the basic stuff (though the move to having the battery inside was a tad annoying!)

That's a lot of RAM!!!

Not particularly when it comes to servers - one of "my" servers has 256GB RAM, but it is used to run quite a number of virtual servers

 

[ABB125]

With virtualisation it's needed! We've got 512 each in our main ones.

I'm not sure I'd ever need that much for any personal device! Although I was once told that someone (Bill Gates?) said, many years ago, something along the lines of "why would anyone need more than 256MB of RAM?"; how times have changed...

Not particularly when it comes to servers - one of "my" servers has 256GB RAM, but it is used to run quite a number of virtual servers

Well I don't really know anything about servers (but they're what, amongst other things, websites run on?), I was basing my comment on the consumer scale!

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure I'd ever need that much for any personal device! Although I was once told that someone (Bill Gates?) said, many years ago, something along the lines of "why would anyone need more than 256MB of RAM?"; how times have changed...

He didn't actually say it, but it wasn't 256MB but rather 640KB (which was the conventional RAM limit for DOS).

 

[ABB125]

He didn't actually say it, but it wasn't 256MB but rather 640KB (which was the conventional RAM limit for DOS).

Even worse! Would 640kB actually run anything these days?

 

[DB]

Well I don't really know anything about servers (but they're what, amongst other things, websites run on?), I was basing my comment on the consumer scale!

They are what every back-end service runs on, both on company networks and the internet. Most now normally make use of virtualisation, which means fewer physical servers but they need to be a lot more powerful.

 

[ABB125]

They are what every back-end service runs on, both on company networks and the internet. Most now normally make use of virtualisation, which means fewer physical servers but they need to be a lot more powerful.

Interesting, thanks.