So who went to System Profiler on New MacBook Pros to verify this? Cause if this is the case then this is messed up! 
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
here is another benchmark i did in win 7 as xbench is not too reliable:
For some reason, windows is showing the interface as SATAII, but you can see performance is hindered quite a bit.
For some reason, windows is showing the interface as SATAII, but you can see performance is hindered quite a bit.
No, it doesn't affect battery life. At max it's 5-10 minutes, and def. not worth it. The batteries were redesigned for longer life, it has nothing to do with SATA I/II
Bummer...although thats the speed of my current Mac Mini, and its fine. I wouldn't likely be buying a SDD anytime soon...still bummer for those who want it!
Well ok for a start moving to SATA 150 looks more like a bug as they would have to disable it on the chipset.
Next up only 4+ disc raid arrays can get close to maxing out SATA 300, SATA 150 is more than enough even for the fastest SSD drives.
Finally its a driver issue most likely as i don't see them installing there own special SATA controller separate to the included one on the chipset. That would not be a cost cutting exercise, it would cost more money to install a separate chip and don't think for a moment Nvidea would make a custom chip for Apple.
Next up only 4+ disc raid arrays can get close to maxing out SATA 300, SATA 150 is more than enough even for the fastest SSD drives.
Finally its a driver issue most likely as i don't see them installing there own special SATA controller separate to the included one on the chipset. That would not be a cost cutting exercise, it would cost more money to install a separate chip and don't think for a moment Nvidea would make a custom chip for Apple.
You guys need to stop complaining about everything
Normal hard drives (especially laptop drives) pretty much never reach these speeds... so the majority of people won't notice.
For SSD, the > 1.5Gb speeds are for read only tests... in real world circumstances the only time you'll notice a significant difference is during boot. Copying large files is limited by the interface at the other end, so no change there, and with normal usage the write time is still rather slow.
As for the comment about wanting to buy a SATA drive in a few years... to be honest, I think now is the wrong time to be thinking about that. Hard drives will change dramatically as SSD is perfected, and the interface will need to be much faster than 3Gb (6Gb is imminent already). And yes the inclusion of 3Gb would mean you have a slightly smaller bottleneck on your end, but there's still a gigantic one at the other.
Normal hard drives (especially laptop drives) pretty much never reach these speeds... so the majority of people won't notice.
For SSD, the > 1.5Gb speeds are for read only tests... in real world circumstances the only time you'll notice a significant difference is during boot. Copying large files is limited by the interface at the other end, so no change there, and with normal usage the write time is still rather slow.
As for the comment about wanting to buy a SATA drive in a few years... to be honest, I think now is the wrong time to be thinking about that. Hard drives will change dramatically as SSD is perfected, and the interface will need to be much faster than 3Gb (6Gb is imminent already). And yes the inclusion of 3Gb would mean you have a slightly smaller bottleneck on your end, but there's still a gigantic one at the other.
The difference is not going to be that big. Yes, there would be a slight difference in the hi-end SSD's, but even there the difference is not going to be that huge.
It's like difference between 667Mhz RAM and 800MHz RAM. Sure, it would be nicer to have the faster system, but the difference isn't that big.
Take a chill-pill. There's about 90% change that you wouldn't ever notice the difference, and even if you did, it would be minor.
Don't give up your day job.
That refers to the drive standard, not to the actual interface spec being used.
There is no downgrade to HD performance - a HD simply can't transfer data that fast. It remains to be seen whether it has any noticeable effect on SSD performance.
Great post. I don't understand the people that think the downgrade was INTENTIONAL. It makes zero sense.
I got a 15" 2.66GHz uMBP in March '09. It has the 6MB L2 cache as well as the 3.0GB SATA interface. It is capable of 8GB memory.
When Apple announced these new laptops at WWDC, I was quite upset.
However, after learning of the downgrades, I am quite convinced that my machine is the best of the lot, perhaps even the best Apple has released in years.
Never felt better about a computer purchase at this point.
When Apple announced these new laptops at WWDC, I was quite upset.
However, after learning of the downgrades, I am quite convinced that my machine is the best of the lot, perhaps even the best Apple has released in years.
Never felt better about a computer purchase at this point.
You guys need to stop complaining about everything
Normal hard drives (especially laptop drives) pretty much never reach these speeds... so the majority of people won't notice.
For SSD, the > 1.5Gb speeds are for read only tests... in real world circumstances the only time you'll notice a significant difference is during boot. Copying large files is limited by the interface at the other end, so no change there, and with normal usage the write time is still rather slow.
As for the comment about wanting to buy a SATA drive in a few years... to be honest, I think now is the wrong time to be thinking about that. Hard drives will change dramatically as SSD is perfected, and the interface will need to be much faster than 3Gb (6Gb is imminent already). And yes the inclusion of 3Gb would mean you have a slightly smaller bottleneck on your end, but there's still a gigantic one at the other.
Many people with Intel SSD's have noticed their daily activities are noticeably slower. If people are going to dish out $300-800 on these drives, they want to get the best performance possible.
PRO machine.. haha
Ok, maybe in the Macbook line.. but in the *PRO* line. Come'on, SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper, and if the price is right, SSDs >= 256GB, most people would start putting SSDs in their laptops.
If this is some sort of down-low, quiet money saving scheme purposely done by Apple, it really makes one think. Apple already going south (AGAIN) ... and without Jobs for 2 months!?!
Hell, I can't believe SATA 3Gbit/s is that much more expensive than SATA 1.5Gbit/s, I mean SATA 3Gbit/s has been around for years already.
Ok, maybe in the Macbook line.. but in the *PRO* line. Come'on, SSDs are getting cheaper and cheaper, and if the price is right, SSDs >= 256GB, most people would start putting SSDs in their laptops.
If this is some sort of down-low, quiet money saving scheme purposely done by Apple, it really makes one think. Apple already going south (AGAIN) ... and without Jobs for 2 months!?!
Hell, I can't believe SATA 3Gbit/s is that much more expensive than SATA 1.5Gbit/s, I mean SATA 3Gbit/s has been around for years already.
battery life?
That's funny! Could the 1.5 spec have anything to do with the increase in battery life over the previous MBP's? Probably not, but I'm sure the A-team looked at each and every way to squeeze more battery life as evidenced with the previous post on the big difference with the new model over the older one. And however they achieved the extra battery life is ok with me.
That's funny! Could the 1.5 spec have anything to do with the increase in battery life over the previous MBP's? Probably not, but I'm sure the A-team looked at each and every way to squeeze more battery life as evidenced with the previous post on the big difference with the new model over the older one. And however they achieved the extra battery life is ok with me.
I really don't see why people are complaining. Unless you are going to have a SSD it's not going to make any difference what so ever. There are also reports that this slower sata bus is increasing battery life. If this is true; Good move apple.
No. An SSD is on or off. It doesn't use more or less power depending on application. You could accomplish more with a 3.0 interface thereby saving battery use.
If they are noticing a noticeable drop in performance than it is a bad driver not the controller speed. The Intel SSD drives can not individually get close to SATA 150.
Apple fanboys keep saying that and not providing a source. Stop making things up to defend them.
- Status