13" Mbp Only 1.5gb Sata ? - SOLVED!!!!!!!!!

[surftex363]

Originally Posted by iAlex

Maybe if the 12k views post their concern here: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

Apple will issue a firmware fix.

--

True!

Cause after paying a 170$ restocking fee, im pretty bummed about them screwing me out of a good resell value in 3 years when everyone is using SSD's.

Plus, i wouldnt mind one right now.


Does anyone know if SSD's increase battery life or reduce it?

[iAlex]

Originally Posted by BaronvdB

I just placed an order lastnight for the 2.53ghz uMBP and was planning on upgrading the an SSD after a few months.

Should I return it before I open it so i don't get charged a restocking fee?

Thanks.

Well, my $599 mac mini fully supports 3Gbit SATA, and will be able to use the latest SSDs capable of 220MB/s+ sequential access read/writes like the Corsair or the Intel. Strange that your "NEW" $2048.00 (with apple care) MBP will be stuck at around 100MB/s when you make the move to SSD, which will be a forgone conclusion in the next year, year 1/2. ~That's a BIG difference in performance, and possibly resale value. Food for thought anyway.

[alphaod]

The chipset supports 3Gbps and the connector for SATA 150 and 300 are the same, so I'm sure this is just a firmware snarfu.

[jav6454]

Originally Posted by alphaod

The chipset supports 3Gbps and the connector for SATA 150 and 300 are the same, so I'm sure this is just a firmware snarfu.

Just like the whole 4GB RAM limit for previous Gen MacBooks and MacBook Pros.

[Jiten]

Originally Posted by iAlex

Maybe if the 12k views post their concern here: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

Apple will issue a firmware fix.

--

Sadly we also been saying that with the first gen unibody Macbook Pros regarding the 4 Gig RAM limit and we have yet to see an update. So I would not hold my breath.

[1984]

Originally Posted by Ruahrc

Typical macrumors forums over-the-top knee-jerk reactionary response to something like this. No, it can't be the logical explanation, it's Apple screwing us over, or being greedy and punishing those disloyal unfaithful fans who go 3rd party to upgrade their hardware.

Ruahrc

Maybe but there are also too many apologists claiming you won't see that much of a difference as if that make it right. You need to take into account the 4GB vs 8GB RAM limit as an example. Apple is not some guardian angel looking out for your best interests. They are a business and as such will sometimes make poor decisions that screw over their customers. We need to keep them on their toes by making sure they know we are paying attention. If unchecked they will simply do this more and more often.

Again, they are not using different parts. It's the same part as the previous MacBooks but the firmware has been altered to cut throughput in half. It does not save them any money. If this is truly an error it needs to be addressed. If there is some logical reason such as power savings then they need to say so and either add an option to the energy saver preference to switch between 1.5 and 3.0 or release a firmware patch for those who want to get good use out of there investment in an SSD.

[1984]

Originally Posted by Andrmgic

Agreed.. we need some more windows benchmarks of SSDs on these new machines.

It wouldn't make sense for apple to put 5 different chipsets across 3 different macbook configurations.. it would have to be more cost-effective to use the same one.

If speeds in windows are better, then it might indicate that the 1.5Gbps limitation is not hardware, but a kernel extension from apple that exists on the new notebooks.

They are using the same chipsets. They are being reported as only 1.5 in the latest models and the benchmarks so far seem to indicate slower speeds to match. We need those with SSD's + Bootcamp/Windows and the latest 13" and 15" models to do benchmarks in both OS X and Windows.

It would be interesting if you could only get your SSD's full potential by running Windows on your Mac. That would be an interesting Mac vs PC commercial. Poor PC Guy would finally get the upper hand.

[Kingcodez]

This is to the guy who's wondering why people are freaking about about the SATA 1.5 cap:
Before I wanted a 2.4 uMB, since the refresh, the 2.26 uMBP is slightly slower, and 3 or 400 dollars cheaper.
With my original SSD Budget of 350, I can now mess with the idea of buying a much larger 256GB SSD, and even the further thought of selling it down the road for a fair chunk of change.

Now if my 250 Read, 200 +/- Write SSD is now slowed down because of a stupid SATA cap, this means that the $800 that I would've spent on the SSD is now pretty much wasted, because I could've bought a slow (now they are junk in comparison to today's speeds) Samsung or Toshiba SSD that doesn't even saturate the SATA 1.5 Bus.

If I'm spending all this money on a laptop, I want to get the most for the money, I want to future prrof it for as long as I feel that I can still get my use out of it.

(Don't give me any of that 'in 2 days it will be obselete crap", When Moble Quad gets going, it will be awhile before they have good low TDP processors, and even then for my uses, I will not need to upgrade for a long time, C2D is more than enough, better if it was 3+GHz with a super low TDP.)

Processor wise, I couldn't ask for more in the P8600 @2.4, or whatever P series is used in the 2.26 (8400 maby) I just went from a 2.1 AMD POS to a 2.4 whatever is in the blackbook, and honestly the speed dosen't matter since the bottle neck is always the HDD.

I see the uMBP with a fast SSD being good for atleasr 36-48 months. Then something cool, like a huge awesome battery, or a 2.8GHz SLXXX series C2D chip will be out, SSDs will be saturating the SATA 3 bus, and DDR3 will have super low latency and be running at 2GHz. (whatever). Then I will upgrade.

Right now the pinnacle of easily available technology in a super-awesome package is the MBPs, I want a SSD because they seem awesome, not many people have one, and I spend all my time on a computer, just like a lawyer spends all his time at his desk, or wearing suits. Or an accountant sitting in her chair, with a calculator, or Excel. I want the best my money can buy, and I want it to remain the best for a little while at least. Not having SATA 3, means that in 6 months, when the round of 512GB SSDs debut, when write speeds are hovering in excess of 250MBps, I can't get the ost out of the 800 dollars that I will spend on one, because someone decided to limit my Mac to SATA 1.5 instead of the regular, mainstream faster SATA 3.

This means I'll have to pick up a 2.4 uMB, add my own SD reader to the optibay, and pray that I get a semi decent screen.




And to the Panhandle that keeps touting the power advantages of SATA 1.5 over SATA 3, What exactly are those numbers?
The P8600 sucks down 25w TDP of juice, let's just assume that it's at 25W all the time for simplicity. The chipset will take XX more, as will everything else in the system.

Now I don't doubt that there may be power savings using 1.5 over 3. But how significant are those savings? What does it translate to in the real world.

It surely can't be much. The netbooks use 1.5 because half of them are using the crappy Intel chipsets, GMA950 IIRC. That's understandable they need it to be cheap, and modern GM45 ect chipsets cost extra cash, or simply wern't around during the design phase (EEE PC 1000H for instance).

If it's anything under 2% of the total chipset's power usage, then it's not worth it. That'd be like 1-2watts without counting the HDD or anything else )wifi, screen, ect.)

Which would then translate into a 1 or 2% power savings.
No where near a 10% as someone gave a quick example of. (to which 30 people then justified the changes and accepted the limitation, assuming that the new bigger battery had nothing to do with the difference in runtime compared with the last Macbook Iteration.)

Something as small as SATA isn't going to contribute much to the overall power usage. This is a computer, not a wrist watch. If you are going for a super super power efficient computer, that will run off watch batteries, then sure, slow the heck out of it. Put in a super slow slow processor, and use flash memory, do whatever. But we don't exactly have those constraints.

Manufacturers lie about the battery life. They do the No OS, HDD unplugged, Screen off, everything off, computer is inside of a freezer-battery test. Yeah sure, that might get 7 hours, but I'm realistically going to expect 6 since Apple usually isn't that far off from their claims.

[iomatic]

So... should I keep or return the Intel SSD I ordered?

[jav6454]

Originally Posted by iomatic

So... should I keep or return the Intel SSD I ordered?

Depends which MacBook model you have

[jyavenard]

Originally Posted by fuzzielitlpanda

first gen mb will run at 1.5 as that was the technology at the time. even if you install a hdd that can run at 3.0, it will be limited by the sata interface and run at 1.5. the limitation is in the hardware, so no software update will upgrade it. that is what troubles me about this new discovery in the 13" mbp

It's exactly the same hardware controller (part of the nvidia 9400 chipset). So what else could it be ..

Physically there are no difference. And the wiring between SATA1 and SATA2 is the same.

[Shao]

I can also confirm the speed of the SSD is halfed..

I have both MB and MBP, bought 1 week apart from each other..have screen shots of both with ocz vertex with HDtune Pro.....

[fpnc]

Originally Posted by Shao

I can also confirm the speed of the SSD is halfed..

I have both MB and MBP, bought 1 week apart from each other..have screen shots of both with ocz vertex with HDtune Pro.....

Thanks for sharing. That seems to be some of the most conclusive evidence yet that the SATA is only running at 1.5Gb.

[Shao]

Originally Posted by fpnc

Thanks for sharing. That seems to be some of the most conclusive evidence yet that the SATA is only running at 1.5Gb.

Thanks FPNC!!!~ I really hope that it can be a firmware update...otherwise i will be like......and then.. and cry my head off....
because i actually bought 2 MB...5 days later new version comeo out...reseller won't take it back..so i sold it on ebay cheap cheap..bought the new MBP..and this problem comes out....Faints

[ltldrummerboy]

My 2.8Ghz 15" MBP will be here next week. I'll run some tests and post the results.

[Kingcodez]

According to one of the techs from Seagate:

"2.5" SATA II Drives 97.2% of drives power consumption is the drive it self and approx 2.6% is in the bus interface and 0.2 is resistance in cables and circuit boards"

so saving power isn't a valid reason.
That would be completely ridiculous.

[kokesh]

Originally Posted by bcaslis

I agree this would be insane. For example, if they did this to make extra money off the SSD, then they need to TELL SOMEONE ABOUT IT. Otherwise you wouldn't buy one from them would you?

I just don't get it. It's the same chip. There can't be a cost savings in doing this.

"The whole point of a Doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!?"

Originally Posted by MacModMachine

sorry for the delay guys

just did a screen replacement on a customers bto 13" with ssd....low and behold 1.5gbit sata connection speeds.

I'm confused as to how a customer had a bto 13" with SSD. At least here in the States the BTO SSDs are not yet shipping. They won't ship for another 10 days or so. Unless you mean it was a BTO upgraded HDD and then they put in their own SSD?

For everyone asking about Apple-installed SSD users' SATA speeds, am I correct in my assumption that there are none of these BTOs yet in the wild? I was told by Apple Store that they won't be in the retail stores, and like I said, in the States they aren't yet shipping. Maybe they are in other nations?

[tsa1]

yeah i have a 2.26 and i have the 1.5 sata. It doesnt make sense to me, I hope this gets sorted out, i would like to upgrade to SSD.

Which drives are the ones that people say are crap? the ones apple uses, the samsung and toshiba? how much do those cost?

[California]

Three questions and one complaint.

1. Are the internal superdrives also 1.5 SATA? Or are they 3.0 and what were they on the UMBs?

2. How come there are no engineers on MR that can tell us what the firmware issue is and still no one can explain or fix the four gig ram issue on the UMBs?

3. I sold my UMB maxed at four gigs 2.4ghz two days ago for a little less than what I paid for it, but I will say that the battery use was horrid and Apple had to replace it last month.

4. I sold the 2.4UMB because of the firewire issue that was driving me nuts; but now I think I'll just look at it like when the first PB titaniums came out... the first four models the 400mhz/500mhz the 550 and 667mhzs all were VGA with 8mb to 16mb vram on those early Titaniums.

I'll bet Apple's strategy is somewhat the same here. Next upgrade will be substantial. I don't know if I should wait or not. This SATA issue is a big deal but I do believe it just have to do with the battery issue.

My infrequently used 2.4 UMB had a notoriously bad battery life and as I said, it was replaced.

[fuzzielitlpanda]

Originally Posted by jyavenard

It's exactly the same hardware controller (part of the nvidia 9400 chipset). So what else could it be ..

Physically there are no difference. And the wiring between SATA1 and SATA2 is the same.

yah i know it is the same hardware controller, which is why i am so surprised there is a cap on the sata interface.

Originally Posted by Shao

I can also confirm the speed of the SSD is halfed..

I have both MB and MBP, bought 1 week apart from each other..have screen shots of both with ocz vertex with HDtune Pro.....

well there you have it people. if you want to see why this is such a big deal, take a look at those two benchmarks (identical drive in two different macs). you can see that performance dropped by about 50% in reads.

[KettyKrueger]

My new MBP (see sig) is only 1.5.

It's really annoying but it's not like Apple advertised that it was 3.0. Although, I guess there is an assumption from a consumer that specs generally get UPGRADED and not DOWNGRADED, as the case may be here.

Seems odd the Windows shows it to be 3.0.

I think we may see a firmware upgrade soon...well probably not, but we can hope.

Still, my new baby is gorgeous, although she does have a stuck pixel already, grrrr.

[Carl Abudephane]

An update from my position in the UK with a 2.26 13".

I've just got off the 'phone with technical support at Apple and after illustrating that I did know what I was asking about(and not seeking reassurance that the computer supported SSD drives!), the response was very simple:

'I can confirm that this Mac has a SATA I connection. I am sorry that this Mac doesn't fulfill your needs.'

Off to return it in an hour or so. Very sad state of affairs.

[J&JPolangin]

...commandment #1, thou shall not buy a rev A product...

[MacModMachine]

Originally Posted by J&JPolangin

...commandment #1, thou shall not buy a rev A product...

that would be good if it was a revision A

...but this is a upgrade to the already out umbp

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by Carl Abudephane

An update from my position in the UK with a 2.26 13".

I've just got off the 'phone with technical support at Apple and after illustrating that I did know what I was asking about(and not seeking reassurance that the computer supported SSD drives!), the response was very simple:

'I can confirm that this Mac has a SATA I connection. I am sorry that this Mac doesn't fulfill your needs.'

Off to return it in an hour or so. Very sad state of affairs.

This doesn't make any sense.

The physical connection is the same for SATA I and SATA II, so that can't be the problem.

The MCP79 chipset supports SATA II, so that can't be the problem

If it's not the physical connection and it's not the chipset, then it HAS to be a firmware issue.

The question is.... is there a valid reason for having the firmware force a SATA I connection (i.e. power draw etc?) or is it a bug that will get fixed?

Nobody knows, so you have to ask yourself if you're happy enough with the MBP as is to keep it if they never fix the firmware.

For me, I'm happy enough with it as is to not worry too much about it. Even if I put a SSD in there, how often will I need to do sequential writes/reads at that speed? Almost never. I'd get an SSD for the random read/write performance and low latency, and SATA I vs SATA II doesn't make a bit of difference in those cases.