Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Which connector is your new unibody Macbook pro

  • Sata I - 1.5Gbit

    Votes: 218 69.6%

  • Sata II - 3.0Gbit

    Votes: 95 30.4%
  • Total voters
    313
icetyu said:
How do you know by using 1.5 gb SATA increases battery life, if your stock drive only uses less than half of its bandwidth?
Click to expand...
Bandwidth used is irrelevant. The 3.0 SATA chipset itself uses more power than the 1.5 SATA chipsets. There have been several reviews that discuss this, including on Toms Hardware.

Tornitron said:
Quote from Wiki - "Today's[update] mechanical hard disk drives can transfer data at up to 127 MB/s,[7] which is within the capabilities of the older PATA/133 specification. However, high-performance flash drives can transfer data at up to 201 MB/s.[8] SATA 1.5 Gbit/s does not provide sufficient throughput for these drives."

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

I wouldn't have posted if it wasn't for your obnoxious attitude. Congratulations on making an absolute fool of yourself.
Click to expand...
LMAO you've made one critical mistake - those numbers you quote from the Wikipedia article are for *desktop* drives. Do your homework next time and maybe you won't come across so ignorant. Now who's the fool? :cool:

The fact remains: 1.5 Gbit SATA is *better* in notebooks than 3.0 Gbit SATA.
 
Wotan31 said:
LMAO you've made one critical mistake - those numbers you quote from the Wikipedia article are for *desktop* drives. Do your homework next time and maybe you won't come across so ignorant. Now who's the fool? :cool:

The fact remains: 1.5 Gbit SATA is *better* in notebooks than 3.0 Gbit SATA.
Click to expand...

SSDs are only available in 2.5" and 1.8" form factors... aka - laptops.
 
emt1 said:
SSDs are only available in 2.5" and 1.8" form factors... aka - laptops.
Click to expand...

Except for the part where you can still mount it in a desktop anyway with a cradle...

Also, because there's no moving parts, you could really just put it on the floor of the case. As long as your SATA and molex reached.
 
Anuba said:
But MacBook Pro isn't outside the geek world, it's very much a part of the geek world. MBPs are premium computers that cost a lot of money -- you'd have to be a geek or Paris Hilton to cough up $2000-3000 for a laptop. And a disproportionately large portion of the Mac user base are creative professionals who are often anal about performance for work related reasons, not geek reasons, and they're already paying truckloads to shave off a few minutes of rendering time here or there. What is the performance gain from upgrading from 2.93 Ghz to 3.06 GHz? Virtually none. The difference is probably smaller than the difference between 1.5 and 3.0 Gbit SATA when using a fast SSD drive. But people pay for that upgrade anyway.
Click to expand...

2000-3000 meaning 1199? and the difference between processing power and disk speed is something you can't really compare so easily. the performance gain of a 3.06 when the processor is in the 190% usage range will be much more efficient and powerful than a 2.93 in the same scenario.
 
Wotan31 said:
Bandwidth used is irrelevant. The 3.0 SATA chipset itself uses more power than the 1.5 SATA chipsets. There have been several reviews that discuss this, including on Toms Hardware.


LMAO you've made one critical mistake - those numbers you quote from the Wikipedia article are for *desktop* drives. Do your homework next time and maybe you won't come across so ignorant. Now who's the fool? :cool:

The fact remains: 1.5 Gbit SATA is *better* in notebooks than 3.0 Gbit SATA.
Click to expand...


I've made no mistake, notebook and desktop SSDs are the same animal. SSD performance is capped by 1.5 Git/s SATA in any application.

Give it a rest.
 
I love humanity. Even when not face to face, we are prone to confrontation. LOL!
 
Are there any options to use an SSD at it's full capability externally then for these MacBook users? Or would they be limited?
 
SnowLeopard2008 said:
Say you have 1 billion people using computers in the world (that probably isn't the correct number). What's the percentage of people that actually use this? Don't reply saying businesses, government, etc. I'm talking consumer world.

I don't know about you, but I care about how long this thing will be on until the battery dies over a indistinguishable improvement in speed that majority of people don't even know or care about.
Click to expand...

So by going down to 1.5 gb your computer actually has an increased battery life? Where did you get the facts? Maybe Apple should release a firmware that caps all the previous Macbooks so that we can all have few more minutes of battery life.
 
Just hit the Apple store in downtown San Francisco. 15" 2.66 and both 13" models all show 1.5GB SATA. 13' UBM 2.0 shows 3GB.
 
emt1 said:
Limited by the horridly slow USB 2.0.
Click to expand...

As an aside - isn't that one big problem looming for Macs - laptops and anything other than the Mac Pro? It's like a fast connection into the hub of the computer could make a big difference - e.g. a way to fast connect into a laptop or desktop Mac, so you could have external GPU cards in a box link to the Mac for extra computational power for example. Or having a decent way to have a fast external link to a SSD it seems (FW800 seems ok for HD speeds). Does USB3 go beyond HD speeds, but be below SSD speeds?

Any word on 17" MBPs? Any would the chipset because of what it is, or could it minimise the extra power usage by running at 1.5?
 
icetyu said:
So by going down to 1.5 gb your computer actually has an increased battery life? Where did you get the facts?
Click to expand...

The facts are simple electrical engineering. As clock speed of the bus rises (a necessity to transfer more data on a serial bus), power consumption rises. The same chip (which this appears to be) running at half the speed will use less power, every single time.
 
jav6454 said:
Dude, get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

My facts are quite straight. Pay attention.

knownikko said:
The same chip (which this appears to be) running at half the speed will use less power, every single time.
Click to expand...

You're quoting TDP, which has absolutely nothing to do with real-time power consumption. Look at the actual juice being consumed by those identical chips while running at 1.8 and 2.13GHz, and I guarantee you the 1.8GHz chip will be using less power every single time.
 
jav6454 said:
Not exactly. See the CPU of the MacBook Air. One clocked at 1.8 GHz and the other at 2.13 GHz and both consume the exact same 17 W.

Clock speed doesn't dictate how much power you draw. 1.5Gb/s can easily draw the same amount of power as 3Gb/s. It's just the controller has been switched to cap transfers at 1.5Gb/s.

Dude, get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Thank you.
 
I'm not super techie or anything (I'm 16), but if clock speed does not effect power consumption, then why would the CPUs clock themselves down when idling?

As an example, when you take out the (removable) battery from the "Classic" MBPs, the CPU is locked at 1GHz to prevent drawing more power than the A/C adapter can provide...
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2332?viewlocale=en_US
 
knownikko said:
I'd happily trade SATA 3.0 for 10% more battery life (just made up numbers, but certainly feasible).

IMO so would ~95% of the people buying these machines had they any idea what they were harping on.

From Apple's perspective (hypothetical, since not a damn thing about this has been confirmed or proven to be the vast conspiracy people are suggesting in here), they made a change that didn't affect a single possible shipping configuration in the least (not a single drive they offer will saturate a 1.5Gbps SATA bus), yet presumably offers an increase in power efficiency, which every customer can notice and appreciate.

Some of you are WAY too caught up in image and numbers.
Click to expand...
This post, it bears repeating now.

Until we have facts, maybe everyone should just have a glass of ****?

:D
 
this is really really really upsetting. i turned in my 13" unibody macbook and was wanting a 13" mbp or a 15" previous gen at discounted price.

lame.

wow...so with this crap - can the 13" ACTUALLY read the full 8 gig of ram? or is apple blowing hot air on this one too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back