Unprocessed1
macrumors 65816
Try spending $2000 on a laptop, only to find out that SSD performance will be hampered, and they're downgrading SATA tech from 3 years ago. And you want to return it to Apple? Just a small $200 fee.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13" and 15" MacBook Pros Have a Slower SATA Interface
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Try spending $2000 on a laptop, only to find out that SSD performance will be hampered, and they're downgrading SATA tech from 3 years ago. And you want to return it to Apple? Just a small $200 fee.
If anyone is getting rid of their new uMBP 13"
Because of battery issues, and or SATA speed issues, please let me know in the next couple of weeks. If you transfered over anything really cool like Adobe CS4 MasterSuite that would be cool too.
Since your machine sucks so much, I am willing to give you 65 cents on the dollar.
Let me know!
Because of battery issues, and or SATA speed issues, please let me know in the next couple of weeks. If you transfered over anything really cool like Adobe CS4 MasterSuite that would be cool too.
Since your machine sucks so much, I am willing to give you 65 cents on the dollar.
Let me know!
Funny how people can just go and make posts like this. Grow up, just because it doesn't affect you personally, there's no need to put down users that are otherwise concerned.
turkay
macrumors regular
from dailytech;
"The thread posted at Mac Rumors is more than 30 pages in length with numerous pages of clutter, though there is some interesting reading material available. DailyTech sent over an e-mail to the Apple support team, but will likely be told no comment until an official statement -- if Apple wants to release one -- is made."
That is for a single link. Pragmatically those all of the "points" on one end of this network are shared. So in part the SATA speed is driven by the fact going to be multiplexed between multiple devices. Otherwise it would be a complete waste that the bus speed is 2-3x times as fast as what hard drives can typically do.
Two points. Folks are twisted up about stuff they are going to buy 2, 3, 4 years from now. What I'm trying to illustrate is that there is no guarantee that the "bleeding edge fastest stuff" is going to be interface compatible with the controllers can buy now. 4 years from now they will exist. In the future there will be USB 3.0 and lots of new stuff (more cores , etc. etc.). The more important part is to look at what can do now with the equipment that exists now (or short term future). If those solve your problems then your in good shape.
Likewise, RAID principles don't stop working once you move to SSD drives. A Controller than can deal with 6 Gb/s is going to be much better at leveraging two 3 Gb/s SSD drives than a controller that can only deal with 3 Gb/s branches. You won't be able to RAID/stripe on the latter as the individual devices on each branch approach 3 Gb/s.
So the 9400 is capable of concurrently running all of the interfaces at full speed and concurrently sending all of that data to the CPU ? There is a switch in the 9400. Throw too much concurrency at the switch at the same time and it is easier to saturate it.
Again I think you are looking at individual branches as opposed to what the max bisection bandwidth is. Those are two different things.
Additionally, can package northbridge and southbridge into one phyisical package. That doesn't mean there isn't a single bus path between them in the implementation anymore.
torbjoern
macrumors 65816
So you thought that you would get the "PRO" with BETTER specs and LOWER price?? Since when did Apple give anything away for free?
It's not a scam. It's the buyer's responsibility to figure out the value of the product, not automatically assume this and that. This is business, and Apple has obligations mainly to its shareholders.
Petitions? The sales numbers will speak for themselves.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
deconstruct60
The point I'm trying to make is ... desktop boards do all the stuff with the 9400m, and have more SATA and PCIe connections - and everything works fine ! But the real clincher is that this all worked fine in the 13" MacBook. What does the 13" MBP have that's new ? A FireWire 800 port and a ExpressCard SD slot. That's 800 mbit/sec and some USB 2 peripheral. That's all that's new. Does it sound like an additional 3 gbits/sec of bandwidth ? Oh and SATA bandwidth figures are unidirectional not for bidirectional throughput.
So it doesnt make sense that Apple chose to cripple the SATA speeds down to 1.5 GBit/sec when they had the bandwidth, had the thermal envelope and had all the mojo in the world
Thanks, but I am one of those impacted and I called Apple. Per Apple care, the SATA speed is considered an undisclosed technical spec. By the way, I am a shareholder and long term that doesn't make me happy.
turkay
macrumors regular
excuse me but this is stupid approach, I am not calling you stupid I am calling the approach you are taking here, so please let's not start a food fight.
I for once think this issue will change soon, it's obviously a matter of some temporary shortage of supplies or so, that
must have been forced to use it. There out for a profit sure, but we are talking here about peanuts...they wouldn't put their reputation at stake for peanuts.It's a matter of shortage of supplies imo.
daneoni
macrumors G5
1.5Gbps is not 150MB/s
If every last MB/s counts, then lets look at the real speed.
1.5Gbps = 192MB/s
3.0Gbps = 384MB/s
Intel® X25-E Extreme SATA Solid-State Drive
Bandwidth Sustained sequential read: up to 250 MB/s
Sustained sequential write: up to 170 MB/s
So here 1.5Gbit are still faster then it's write speed, but is 58MB under it's max read speed
Intel® X25-M Extreme SATA Solid-State Drive
Bandwidth Sustained Sequential Read: up to 250 MB/s
Sustained Sequential Write: up to 70 MB/s
And this time 1.5Gbit is MUTCH faster then the write speed, but still not as fast as it's read speed.
But what is it that you have to view that need to send 250MB/s of that to your RAM, that 192MB/s can not do.
you can't connect any thing to the MacBook Pro that can get near the 1.5Gbit/s limet, so it's only for internal use only.
And remember this is it's MAX speed, not it's avage speed
So if you open a 250MB picturer, then on a Intel X25 SSD it will take down to 1sec to load it to the RAM using 3.0Gbps, and down to 1.3sec on a 1.5Gbps
I can see the problem there. If I open 100 pictures of 250MB I can save a total of 30sec.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think it's a sucky thing with the SATA, the battery I'm 50/50 about.
Maybe it's a simple maths thing.
On the 15"
FW 800 + Expresscard + 3 USB ports = SATAII
FW 800 - Expresscard + SD Slot - 1 of the 3 USB ports = SATA 1.5
On the 13"
No firewire + 2USB ports = SATAII
Firewire 800 + 2USB ports +SD Slot = SATA 1.5
Hmm
Only thing linking it is the SD slot, must be that 😛
turkay
macrumors regular
excuse me but this is stupid approach, I am not calling you stupid I am calling the approach you are taking here, so please let's not start a food fight.
I for once think this issue will change soon, it's obviously a matter of some temporary shortage of supplies or so, that
It's a matter of shortage of supplies imo.
No offence but YOUR approach is tooooooo optimistic and errr.. I guess you got it 😎
The first makes a better computer for me. PLEASE don't take it away. The second I'll never notice.
But now that it has FIREWIRE, I am actually going to upgrade, and 9400M, and 1Ghz frontside bus, and snazzier wider gamut screen. This all translates into realworld better machine, not to mention longer life.
I am getting mine next week.
The rest of this. Snicker. I am not putting SSD into this machine. And probably the machine that gets SSD will be e-sata. So for me. Tempest in a teapot.
How non pro can they make the 15 inch? At what point can you call the 15 inch a MacBook without the pro?
(well I did play with one today at best buy and I liked it except the screen was very much like a mirror. Too bad they did not have a matte 17 inch. but they did not have the 17 inch at all.)
(well I did play with one today at best buy and I liked it except the screen was very much like a mirror. Too bad they did not have a matte 17 inch. but they did not have the 17 inch at all.)
Unprocessed1
macrumors 65816
it's obviously a matter of some temporary shortage of supplies or so, that
It's obviously not a shortage of supplies since it's the same chipset that's being used in the whitebook and that supports 3 Gbit/s speed. But I guess that's how Apple cult victims think.
excuse me but this is stupid approach, I am not calling you stupid I am calling the approach you are taking here, so please let's not start a food fight.
I for once think this issue will change soon, it's obviously a matter of some temporary shortage of supplies or so, that
It's a matter of shortage of supplies imo.
Well thank you for not calling me stupid 🙂
I was making a joke (maybe a stupid joke, I'll hold my hands up to that).
But if you actually read my post I was trying to say that I think (hope) it has to be some sort of oversight or bug, as I don't see any reason for the SATA speed to have been capped.
If it was a suppliers thing/hardware problem and this can't be fixed, then I feel sorry for the people who bought the new notebooks, as I'm guessing all of the ones who are clued up with recent techy trends would have expected SATAII to be working as per norm.
P.S. Check your sarcasm meter before calling someones reasoning stupid in future please 😀
torbjoern
macrumors 65816
Maybe the hard-core Apple fanatics don't care all that much about it. I mean... those who owned several macs throughout the 90s and still keep the G3 iMac as a religious artifact in the secret room in their basement (no Fritzl-reference intended), do they care about reduced performance? Do they care about the limitations entailed by the fact that batteries from now on are non-user-removable? The answer is obvious.
I don't mind telling you that a few months' usage of the G3 iMac gave me the allergy to apples for nearly a decade - but those who zealously claimed that it could beat a mainstream Win 3.11 PC at the time (when Win was WIN), are the same ones who buy the new 13" MBP and then trawl the internet for hagiographies about it.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Unless you do constant large file copies all day long, this has pretty much zero bearing on actual system performance. Most I/O operations are small, and typically more or less random. SATA link speed doesn't matter in those (majority of) cases.
It's a bit of a perplexing move, but really not worth tearing out your hair over.
It's a bit of a perplexing move, but really not worth tearing out your hair over.
Unprocessed1
macrumors 65816
excuse me but this is stupid approach, I am not calling you stupid I am calling the approach you are taking here, so please let's not start a food fight.
I for once think this issue will change soon, it's obviously a matter of some temporary shortage of supplies or so, that
It's a matter of shortage of supplies imo.
Umm so according to your logic, they just decided to ripoff the hardcore buyer's that first bought the updated the MBP's? Your statements contradict each other.
- Status