13" and 15" MacBook Pros Have a Slower SATA Interface

[Poirot818]

Gee Apple you made a reasonable design choice to probably save on power... slower but no real impact on my work.

Ok, you're so sure that capping the SATA connection saves battery life. What kind of savings are we talking about? It must be significant to warrant such a thing.

But wait, if capping the SATA connection surely gives a massive boost to the battery life, and assuming most users will never saturate the 1.5 Gbit/s connection, then why the hell did Apple and other laptop companies offer 3 Gbit/s SATA connections in their previous laptops? If dramatically improving battery life was that simple, then why didn't anyone do it before? 3.0 Gbit/s SATA connections were out long before any SSDs.

It's because capping the SATA connection to 1.5 Gbit/s simply doesn't improve the battery life. Quit making excuses for Apple. They messed up and they owe us an official explanation.

 

[mike1123]

I have searched Google and there seems to have a difference: 7200 rpm seems better than 5400 rpm:

http://www.barefeats.com/hard56.html

That may be true for that size, but for the 500GB line up right now, it is debatable whether or not the 7200.4 Seagate is superior to the 5400 RPM Hitachi that comes standard in the high-end 15"/17".

 

[Surklyn]

Wow... Really?? ... seriously??? r u kidding me? If it's not " the iPhone doesn't have a front facing camera..." it's something else...

NO ONE.... will know the difference between the speed. I don't care how "techie" you are... how SUPER sensitive to speed you may be, you will almost NEVER need the speed SATA 3gb.. I don't care if you have the top of the line SSD doing super massive extreme intensive video recording/editing... if your doing this on a laptop.... well.. 'nuff said. EVEN IF YOU ARE... doing this on a laptop... system degradation will NOT be noticeable. If your system is lagging.. it PROBABLY due to lack of ram or some other bottleneck in your system.

As has been said in previous posts... Direct to disk video recording (why you would do this... period is beyond me.. ) would take up most of the hard drive's speed and STILL would BARELY hit 1.5... what the Heck do all of you DO with your laptops that require this insane amount of speed... THAT you will almost NEVER, if ever... use.

Really.. all you people who are considering returning your computer for this... need to get over yourselves. (/rant)

 

[DonSqueak]

Here's an interesting article regarding OCZ's Vertex Series Mac Edition SATA II 2.5" SSDs:

OCZ had to slow down its SSDs because Mac OSX can't handle the speed


The article quotes Tobias Brinkmann, OCZ's Director of Marketing EMEA, as saying, "The Mac version has different read and write specs due to Mac OS limitations."

The article offers this (below) regarding the issue:

If this was the only reason, why keep WhiteBook and 17" at the higher spec?

 

[zorahk]

Wow... Really?? ... seriously??? r u kidding me? If it's not " the iPhone doesn't have a front facing camera..." it's something else...

NO ONE.... will know the difference between the speed. I don't care how "techie" you are... how SUPER sensitive to speed you may be, you will almost NEVER need the speed SATA 3gb.. I don't care if you have the top of the line SSD doing super massive extreme intensive video recording/editing... if your doing this on a laptop.... well.. 'nuff said. EVEN IF YOU ARE... doing this on a laptop... system degradation will NOT be noticeable. If your system is lagging.. it PROBABLY due to lack of ram or some other bottleneck in your system.

As has been said in previous posts... Direct to disk video recording (why you would do this... period is beyond me.. ) would take up most of the hard drive's speed and STILL would BARELY hit 1.5... what the Heck do all of you DO with your laptops that require this insane amount of speed... THAT you will almost NEVER, if ever... use.

Really.. all you people who are considering returning your computer for this... need to get over yourselves. (/rant)

you missed the entire point of this thread. way to go.

 

[Surklyn]

If this was the only reason, why keep WhiteBook and 17" at the higher spec?

Interesting... the OS can't handle the speed..? Unless OS/X has crappy drivers ( which may very well be the case) .... I don't see how this is an OS issue..

 

[Macminiintel]

hmm my white late 2007 MacBook's SATA speed is 1.5GB. Guessing it must be the new NVIDIA chipset they started using in the white model to get it at 3GB. I upgraded it to a 7200RPM 500GB hard drive and the performance has been great. I don't think i'd buy a SSD i mean to get a 500GB SSD, it would probs cost more than the actual computer itself. So when i get my new 13'' MacBook Pro. I will be taking out the 250GB hard drive from and swapping them over, I don't think its anything to worry about really.

 

[Surklyn]

you missed the entire point of this thread. way to go.

Really... I did??? Hmm.. let me recap the "point".... Apple decided to "downgrade".... a downgrade no sane person will notice..., people are mad, damn apple for doing this... this is a "PRO" machine.. why are we getting a consumer hardware?? SSD drives will not perform to their AWESOMENESS..., Damn apple?? damn Apple damn Apple??? YA... that pretty much sums up the point.

 

[deconstruct60]

Posts like this guys are just stupid. My $200 Dell Mini 9 has support for SATA II, a card reader, an SSD, etc. You can buy 5 of these for the price of the cheapest macbook pro so get real.

Comparing Apples-to-Oranges is dubious. The screen sizes and quality are different. The cases are different. The keyboard is different. The CPUs are radically different.

Pick a Dell laptop with the same components and quality.

The Mini 9 is multiples cheaper than some Dell laptops too. Does that means the Dell folks who did those other ones are bozos and don't comprehend the market?

 

[jgbr]

Not wanting to inflame this further but why are you needing a huge amount of juice with a 13inch MBP?

The whole reason i got mine last wednesday because i wanted something light, fully functioned and not too big but alittle more connectivity then the MBA.

Although I do have the 2.5/4GBRam model, i find it fully responsive and excellent. My only reason for SSD at a later date is my track record to going through hard drives due to the large amount of travel and shocks my laptops normally get.

In addition - on a sidetrack - this is abit like the multithreat app debate - how much software do you think, truly works fast enough to utilize the bandwidth. I'd put money you wont be able to tell. (Yes PCS can use the sata 2 bandwidth but windows ensures that does not happen!)

You can tell the difference between 2Gb and 4GB and you can between 5400RPM and 7200 RPM and SSD.

I would also say most other 13inch people are using their machines for web/email/dvds/word?

So effectively the question is more of asking yourself, does this really effect you? Alike the 3GS V 3G Debate...

Do you truly have that need for speed?

 

[jgbr]

PS: THE BANDWIDTH IS 1.5GBS PER SEC OR 3GB per second. SSD's only at max pump up to 220 MB!

 

[mike1123]

PS: THE BANDWIDTH IS 1.5GBS PER SEC OR 3GB per second. SSD's only at max pump up to 220 MB!

It's gigaBITS. Hence, 150MBPS ~ 300MBPS, so yes, the 3.0 is important for an SSD transferring at 220MBPS.

 

[Surklyn]

I would also say most other 13inch people are using their machines for web/email/dvds/word?

So effectively the question is more of asking yourself, does this really effect you? Alike the 3GS V 3G Debate...

Do you truly have that need for speed?

NO... lol.. no one has the need for this speed.. in a laptop. They may "WANT" it.. they may even think they feel the new speed... but it is all subliminal. It does not translate into real world differences, except for the most demanding applications.. which (as has been said before) wouldn't be running on a laptop.

 

[br0adband]

So the internal hard disk doesn't even reach 1.5Gb yet people complain they don't get a theorotical 3.0Gb which is impossible anyway.

This is really not a big deal. IMHO

I think what's pissing people off is, as one other posted noted that Apple loves being on the forefront of technology and loves to harp on "high performance" stuff, that in this situation, if someone outlays the cash for a new MBP of any size (it seems, I could be wrong on that) and then outlays even more cash for a very high performance SSD that's easily capable of well past the 150MB/s theoretical max of SATA I (in theory, but in actual practice I see 135-140MB/s saturation on an SATA I bus with an Intel or OCZ Vertex SSD), they're finding that they are not getting nor will they get the absolute best performance they've paid for, either from the SSD which can easily push 220MB/s without breaking a sweat, or from the MBP that should be a perfect match for such high performance hardware.

It's shooting yourself in the foot, basically, from Apple's POV. They give you this, that, and this, and you throw in something else, and the matchup doesn't ensure max performance. The Apple Tax becomes an Apple Penalty, almost an Apple Fine of sorts. It's almost as if you're being penalized for spending so much money on the laptop and then the high end high perf SSD and you'll never get the performance you've paid for...

Unless Apple comes out with a fix, that is. Entirely possible, of course, but... one has to wonder why they do such idiotic things so often. They can't possibly think people won't notice, I mean really...

For me, if I had just gone out yesterday or today and grabbed a 13.3" MBP and then hit Fry's for an SSD and got home and was seeing a ~140MB/s cap on the transfers, I'd be pissed, instantly. I consider it to be defective hardware if it's not performing up to my expectations based on it being brand new - and I'm not talking about the SSD either. For that much money, the damned things need to offer the best of the best... nothing else will be acceptable.

 

[jgbr]

I Think SSd's still have their sequential slow down problem don't they? So efficiency capping them to 150 would ensure speed consistency whereas alike the PC's letting them rip at full power, slows them down over a period of time.(Drops to 90 over time or in one session)

Maybe this was a clever move afterall.

PS: 150/1.5 is far faster then even a 10,000RPM HD.

 

[rockonchen]

Hope this is not the official reply from Apple

Wow... Really?? ... seriously??? r u kidding me? If it's not " the iPhone doesn't have a front facing camera..." it's something else...

NO ONE.... will know the difference between the speed. I don't care how "techie" you are... how SUPER sensitive to speed you may be, you will almost NEVER need the speed SATA 3gb.. I don't care if you have the top of the line SSD doing super massive extreme intensive video recording/editing... if your doing this on a laptop.... well.. 'nuff said. EVEN IF YOU ARE... doing this on a laptop... system degradation will NOT be noticeable. If your system is lagging.. it PROBABLY due to lack of ram or some other bottleneck in your system.

As has been said in previous posts... Direct to disk video recording (why you would do this... period is beyond me.. ) would take up most of the hard drive's speed and STILL would BARELY hit 1.5... what the Heck do all of you DO with your laptops that require this insane amount of speed... THAT you will almost NEVER, if ever... use.

Really.. all you people who are considering returning your computer for this... need to get over yourselves. (/rant)

I really hope the official reply from Apple won't be like this post.

 

[mcbane666]

I Think SSd's still have their sequential slow down problem don't they? So efficiency capping them to 150 would ensure speed consistency whereas alike the PC's letting them rip at full power, slows them down over a period of time.(Drops to 90 over time or in one session)

Maybe this was a clever move afterall.

PS: 150/1.5 is far faster then even a 10,000RPM HD.

No the SSD gets its info from the logicboard, if your on SATA1 then the internals of the SSD are running at SATA1 speeds. If the Logic board wants file 001 the signal travels to the SSD at SATA1 Speeds for each byte of infomation, and each bYte is sent back at SATA1 speeds. the SSD will be waiting for the next command at 150mb/s
doesn't matter how high of an RPM an engine can spin at if the fuel pump can't supply enough fuel to go beyond 2000RPM

 

[winterspan]

Wow... Really?? ... seriously??? r u kidding me? If it's not " the iPhone doesn't have a front facing camera..." it's something else...

NO ONE.... will know the difference between the speed. I don't care how "techie" you are... how SUPER sensitive to speed you may be, you will almost NEVER need the speed SATA 3gb.. ..

You should just delete your post and leave this thread permanently as your rant provides nothing of substance --- only misinformation --- to the individuals who are trying to determine the facts of this issue.

Connecting a fast SSD that can read at 220+ MB/sec and write at 175+ MB/sec to a SATA I drive bus will have major effects on the drive's overall performance. The data is finally trickling in in this thread and others around the internet that reveal just how severe this is.

 

[jgbr]

That surely still leaves the point that even SATA 1 is still far beyond Hard Drive speeds and stops the sequential write problem.

Current tests show SSD's utilizing between 90 and 220.

 

[TEBnewyork]

Not wanting to inflame this further but why are you needing a huge amount of juice with a 13inch MBP?

The whole reason i got mine last wednesday because i wanted something light, fully functioned and not too big but alittle more connectivity then the MBA.

Although I do have the 2.5/4GBRam model, i find it fully responsive and excellent. My only reason for SSD at a later date is my track record to going through hard drives due to the large amount of travel and shocks my laptops normally get.

In addition - on a sidetrack - this is abit like the multithreat app debate - how much software do you think, truly works fast enough to utilize the bandwidth. I'd put money you wont be able to tell. (Yes PCS can use the sata 2 bandwidth but windows ensures that does not happen!)

You can tell the difference between 2Gb and 4GB and you can between 5400RPM and 7200 RPM and SSD.

I would also say most other 13inch people are using their machines for web/email/dvds/word?

So effectively the question is more of asking yourself, does this really effect you? Alike the 3GS V 3G Debate...

Do you truly have that need for speed?

Because I am into photography but hate traveling with a laptop. I shoot with a 25mp camera and you start stitching a few of those shots together and pretty quickly you are dealing with some really big files. Yes, a bigger screen than 13" is would be ideal and I would have loved the lightness of the Air but didn't give me the choice.

 

[Cole Slaw]

This is a move in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough, IMO.
I won't be happy until Apple utilizes 4200 r.p.m. PATA drives in the next version of the Macbook "Pro".
Oh, and please Apple, let's simplify the external port situation on the side of the MBP's at the same time. A single USB 1.1 port should do nicely, thank you.

 

[tyr2]

One thing that people seem to be overlooking is that disks can serve content much faster than their normal read speeds when they are serving from their buffers / cache.

Here's a article with a round up of 1TB drives, ok so these are 3.5 inch rather than 2.5 inch laptop drives, but you get the idea: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/1tb-14hdd-roundup_8.html

See the second big graph on that page. You have mechanical platter based drives delivering data at up to 250MBps, when delivering data from the buffer. This is over the performance of SATA I and indeed edging towards the SATA II performance limit.

It would be interesting to compare the buffer read speeds of the MacBook drives on SATA I and SATA II interfaces.

 

[mrboult]

Wow, this story now has over 450 posts!

I can't believe so many people feel they will be affected by this. My guess is it was a quick fix to some other problem encountered before launch and will be fixed with some kind of software+firmware update. Or a least I hope so for the sake of all the upset people here.

 

[Evangelion]

I feel sorry for all the people who can only run at 1.5 SATA rather than 3.0 SATA. Apple needs to fix this right away on their so-called pro machine.

Yeah, because those SATA 1.5-folks will be like snails on tar, while you fly past them

In reality, the differense is neglible.

 

[wizard]

It is likely engineering related.

Hi folks;

Unfortunately there are way to many bad posts in this thread that I've had to respond. Some have already tried to correct the misinformation but it looks like nobody is listening. Here are some points to ponder:

1.
It has already been mentioned that power varies with the square of the clock in CMOS systems. Now the serial nature of the interface impacts this somewhat but those actual serial lines are only part of the port. What this means Is that higher speed interface could impact battery life.
2.
The SATA ports reside on the 9400M. It is the same chip as seen in other Mac products. This makes it hard to believe it is a driver issue, but computer drivers are flaky touch things if software can be called a thing. It is extremely unlikely that anything changed on the 9400M hardware wise to permantly lower the SATA speed.
3.
When working out of Cache it is easy to saturate the SATA 1 bus. Controllers haven't gotten to that point for the faster SATA 2 spec. The problem here is that for most people on this forum this will not be a noticeable issue.
4.
It is unlikely that the new ports in the new MBP are the problem here. FireWire has been around a long time so that is not an issue plus it interfaces over other channels besides SATA. It is also extremely unlikely that the new SD slot is using a SATA port. It is not impossible though, I just haven't heard of any SATA to SD interface chips. It would be interesting to find out how Apple is interfacing the SD slot as that could be limiting things a bit if it is indeed using SATA.
5.
This could impact the speed of SSD, there is no arguement there at all. However it is silly to base a buying decision today based on what will be available in a year or two as SSD. For all intents SSD use most of the bandwidth available to SATA 2 already. True high performance SSD have already walked away from the legacy SATA port. Truth is flash drives can be built today that will more or less saturate the coming SATA upgrade. When it comes right down to it SATA is pretty much coming up lame out of the starting gate with respect to flash drives. Unfortunately the storage industry is in transition trying to run on a legacy port.
6.
If you are really worried about the performance of SSD you would be complaining about Apples use of SATA at all. Flash should be placed closer to the processor on a much faster PCI Express interface. That is why I'm calling BS on everybody here worried about the loss of performance with only 1.5 Gb/s enabled. If you want really fast SSD performance the demand going to Apple should be for PCI Express based storage. Even the lowly netbooks have gone this route.
7.
I've seen a lot of complaints here but has anybody looked up Apples specs for these devices? For that matter has anybody submitted a bug report? Apple may have mastered smoke and mirrors but their spec sheets are generally pretty accurate.

In any event I'm leaning to driver errors as the problem or intentional throttling to conserve power. I wouldn't get to worked up about it but I would still put pressure on Apple for an official statement. Obviously if it is a bug it should be fixed. If it is not a bug then we still need a comment from Apple.

It is not like this is a perfect situation, machines seldom are, but all the whining in this thread is very misplaced. It is up to the buyer to understand what he is purchasing. Personally I still think they are the best laptops Apple has introduced in years. I can't buy one now because of $$$$$ but if I had the need and money I'd not hesitate.


Dave