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

[fluffy]

Unless you're doing high-performance scientific computing across a HUGE dataset (which you will not be doing on a laptop) it is extremely unlikely you'll ever see anything even remotely approaching 1.5Gbps, much less 3Gbps.

Pro video at 1080p60 takes about 3Gbps *uncompressed*, but if you're doing that you're probably not recording directly to a laptop hard drive.

The highest-end pro audio is even less of an issue. 192KHz at 24 bits per channel (which is massive overkill and far beyond anything useful) is 4.6Mbps per channel. So at 1.5Gbps you're going to be able to handle over 3200 channels of audio simultaneously. There is NO WAY that could ever be necessary.

A 1 TB hard drive takes an hour and a half to be read at 1.5Gbps. Is there anything you could possibly do that needs to deal with that much data in that short amount of time?

Basically, the outrage over this reminds me of this rant by Louis CK, especially the part about WiFi on airplanes.

 

[Poirot818]

]This is just another example that shows that only the 17" Intel MacBook Pro should carry the Pro name.

It's also the only new MBP that kept the 3 Gbit/s SATA connection.

 

[Jota]

Thats awesome! I just ordered my Intel X25-M the same day new mbps arrived...Anyway, it will be faster than the 5400...

 

[dukebound85]

Alright. I'm pretty furious this very second. Just about an hour ago I plunked down nearly 2 grand between a new macbook pro and an x25-m. Should I cancel my order ASAP? Realistically is it going to be a big deal?

If it's the same hardware, then that means it is possible for a software unlock? Help me. Someone tell me what to do. I don't want to have spent money for something worthless now.

its not worthless

 

[scotty321]

This is just ridiculous. Why is Apple taking these professional machines and turning them into consumer machines? As far as I can tell, these MacBooks still have the word "Pro" in their names... yet Apple is turning them into ANYTHING BUT professional machines.

This, plus the ExpressCard slap-in-the-face to all of us professional users, is absolutely disgusting and unforgiveable coming from Apple.

I talk at length about the ExpressCard B.S. coming out of Apple in my blog entry here:
Apple: Bring the ExpressCard slot back to the 15″ MacBook Pro!

If you are as rightfully angry as I am, be sure to leave Apple feedback here:
Apple - MacBook Pro - Feedback

 

[Unprocessed1]

Alright. I'm pretty furious this very second. Just about an hour ago I plunked down nearly 2 grand between a new macbook pro and an x25-m. Should I cancel my order ASAP? Realistically is it going to be a big deal?

If it's the same hardware, then that means it is possible for a software unlock? Help me. Someone tell me what to do. I don't want to have spent money for something worthless now.

Keep both. Your Intel will still be about 4-5 times faster than your HDD. Boot times and app opening will still be VERY fast.

 

[*LTD*]

Big deal.

Further, no one knows WHY it was done . . . and it seems there are plenty that are willing to jump to conclusions without finding out, and before any answers have been provided.

 

[heisetax]

Verizon?

It's the same chip as the previous gen that was running a 3gb so hardware was unchanged. They seem to have crippled it through firmware or software.

Does this mean that Apple is practicing crippling there hardware like Verizon does with there cell phones, (smart phones included.) Maybe this SATA buss slowing is just a sign of more than we first see.

So this may be a double or triple SHAME on Apple's part.

 

[bytethese]

Nice timing...

Wow, I am actually on my way to the Apple store to pick up my new 13" MBP. I plan on popping in the WD Black 320GB drive I bought in the 13" and putting the drive from the 13" in my old 15" MBP for my wife. I was hoping with a 7200rpm spin that the drive would take advantage of being 3.0Gb/s in the new 13" MBP.

Does anyone know if better quality drives can take advantage of 3.0Gb/s or will only SSD's will notice a difference? I'm planning on running VM's for grad school work on this puppy and thought since that seems like a bunch of I/O 3.0Gb/s would help.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Unprocessed1]

Big deal.

Further, no one knows WHY it was done . . . and it seems there are plenty that are willing to jump to conclusions without finding out, and before any answers have been provided.

Yeah, let's give Apple a chance to respond. Lets just hope their explaniation is that it was a mistake on their part.

 

[tezro]

I didn't go through all pages, but from what I read a benchmark was done without simply checking is in the System Profiler.

On my Mac Mini it says the following:

NVidia MCP79 AHCI:

Vendor: NVidia
Product: MCP79 AHCI
Speed: 3 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.20 Supported

Why not check what it is on the affected MacBooks?

 

[Unprocessed1]

Wow, I am actually on my way to the Apple store to pick up my new 13" MBP. I plan on popping in the WD Black 320GB drive I bought in the 13" and putting the drive from the 13" in my old 15" MBP for my wife. I was hoping with a 7200rpm spin that the drive would take advantage of being 3.0Gb/s in the new 13" MBP.

Does anyone know if better quality drives can take advantage of 3.0Gb/s or will only SSD's will notice a difference? I'm planning on running VM's for grad school work on this puppy and thought since that seems like a bunch of I/O 3.0Gb/s would help.

Thoughts on this?

Only the higher speed SSD's like the OCZ vertez, Samsung, Intel, etc.

7,200 RPM HD's will NOT be affected.

 

[daneoni]

So who went to System Profiler on New MacBook Pros to verify this? Cause if this is the case then this is messed up!

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7804550/

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7804575/

 

[Unprocessed1]

I didn't go through all pages, but from what I read a benchmark was done without simply checking is in the System Profiler.

On my Mac Mini it says the following:

NVidia MCP79 AHCI:

Vendor: NVidia
Product: MCP79 AHCI
Speed: 3 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.20 Supported

Why not check what it is on the affected MacBooks?

Everyone has already checked and they're all 1.5...

 

[Gwardys]

its not worthless

No. Not worthless, but crippled!

Keep both. Your Intel will still be about 4-5 times faster than your HDD. Boot times and app opening will still be VERY fast.

How much of a difference is this lower speed to the faster sata interface? This is my first ssd so I am expecting something quick, but is it going to make a huge difference? Especially with my x25-m will I even come close to these speeds at all?

 

[tezro]

Wow, I am actually on my way to the Apple store to pick up my new 13" MBP. I plan on popping in the WD Black 320GB drive I bought in the 13" and putting the drive from the 13" in my old 15" MBP for my wife. I was hoping with a 7200rpm spin that the drive would take advantage of being 3.0Gb/s in the new 13" MBP.

Does anyone know if better quality drives can take advantage of 3.0Gb/s or will only SSD's will notice a difference? I'm planning on running VM's for grad school work on this puppy and thought since that seems like a bunch of I/O 3.0Gb/s would help.

Thoughts on this?

Even your 7200rpm drive won't ever get near the 3.0Gb/s limit. As said, only the really fast SSD's will.
I don't have data on 7200rpm drives, but I doubt even those will go way over 50MB/s.

You're safe.

 

[acfusion29]

People just want EVERYTHING. It's ****ing annoying, seriously.

You guys wanted a card reader, you got one. You guys wanted firewire (in the 13" MBP), you got one. You have to make sacrifices sometimes because not everything is always going to fit.

Now be happy that you got what you wanted, I bet half of you won't even notice a difference between 3.0 and 1.5.

 

[mikethebigo]

One fair thing to point out is that if this is the biggest problem people can find with the new uMBPs, then Apple did a damn fine job otherwise.

From what I can tell, 1. it probably is fixable with firmware and 2. even if it wasn't, it won't make any difference anyway.

 

[Poirot818]

People just want EVERYTHING. It's ****ing annoying, seriously.

You guys wanted a card reader, you got one. You guys wanted firewire (in the 13" MBP), you got one. You have to make sacrifices sometimes because not everything is always going to fit.

Now be happy that you got what you wanted, I bet half of you won't even notice a difference between 3.0 and 1.5.

What exactly did we get for the sacrifice?

Also, it's the same chipset as before. You know, the one that was 3 Gbit/s.

 

[Fatdog]

Temporary Bug?

Does anyone think that maybe Apple is using a new revision of the Nvidia chipset? Revisions are especially the same as the old chip, but that have minor changes (revisions) to upgrades the chip. Usually it's done for better yields in manufacturing or for decreased power consumption. Could it be that Apple is using a new revision in the 13" and 15" MBPs and that Apple just hasn't upgraded the drivers?

I'm just throwing that out there because the two products with the most dramatic upgrade at WWDC are the two products that have this problem. I don't believe that Apple would segment the product line based on something like SATA... That's just insane. This is probably just a temporary problem or oversight by Apple.

 

[acfusion29]

What exactly did we get for the sacrifice?

SD card reader and firewire.

 

[Cabbit]

Even your 7200rpm drive won't ever get near the 3.0Gb/s limit. As said, only the really fast SSD's will.
I don't have data on 7200rpm drives, but I doubt even those will go way over 50MB/s.

You're safe.

Fastest the get is 120 MB/s ish, Fastest SSD's come closer to 350 MB/s.
SATA 150 is 1.5 Gb/s, SATA 300 is 3.0 Gb/s. Most likely cause of slowdown is that SATA 150 does not have NCQ.

 

[Hattig]

sorry for the noob question, but is it cheaper for apple to go back to 1,5 ? i guess....

It's part of the 9400M chipset. There's no reason to downgrade unless it really aids power consumption. That, or NVIDIA had a cockup in a batch of chipsets.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

No. Not worthless, but crippled!



How much of a difference is this lower speed to the faster sata interface? This is my first ssd so I am expecting something quick, but is it going to make a huge difference? Especially with my x25-m will I even come close to these speeds at all?

You will.

I have the x25-m and a penryn macbook pro 2.5 (with twice the 6 mb l2 cache, cuz that makes a difference).

I had it as my boot drive internally, and for that it worked great, even though i'm only working with a SATA II interface.

I recently had to have it replaced because it died on me one day , and I just recieved the replacement. I was booting off my internal 5400 rpm drive and cloned it over to the x25-m over usb. Now i'm booting off the x25-m via a usb external enclosure and for booting/apps its STILL faster than the mechanical drive, though large transfers will be hindered by the slower interface.

 

[Gwardys]

People just want EVERYTHING. It's ****ing annoying, seriously.

You guys wanted a card reader, you got one. You guys wanted firewire (in the 13" MBP), you got one. You have to make sacrifices sometimes because not everything is always going to fit.

Now be happy that you got what you wanted, I bet half of you won't even notice a difference between 3.0 and 1.5.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I purchased this NEW laptop with the expectation that it would have everything a laptop from almost two years ago would have. All of those laptops have this as a standard why was this one dropped?