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" Mbp Only 1.5gb Sata ? - SOLVED!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter MacModMachine
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll ask this again because it bears repeating.
Where are you guys going to get data to write to your super-fancy SSD at 200MB/sec, even if the system could support it?
There's no other external or internal interface on the machine that can feed the disk data at anywhere approaching that speed.
USB? Not even close. Firewire? Not by a long shot. Gigabit ethernet? Not by half.
There's no eSATA port, so no extending the SATA bus outside of the machine. No disk-to-disk transfer, seeing how there's only room for one disk.
So, does anyone care to explain to me ONE realistic scenario where you'd even notice this on a real workload? Crying over the output from artificial benchmarks that you can never replicate with real data is one thing, but doesn't mean squat in the real world.
I knew the Apple Elite tend to be impervious to reason, but refusing to order a system or taking it back because of something you can't actually achieve in the real world? Dramatic much?
Where are you guys going to get data to write to your super-fancy SSD at 200MB/sec, even if the system could support it?
There's no other external or internal interface on the machine that can feed the disk data at anywhere approaching that speed.
USB? Not even close. Firewire? Not by a long shot. Gigabit ethernet? Not by half.
There's no eSATA port, so no extending the SATA bus outside of the machine. No disk-to-disk transfer, seeing how there's only room for one disk.
So, does anyone care to explain to me ONE realistic scenario where you'd even notice this on a real workload? Crying over the output from artificial benchmarks that you can never replicate with real data is one thing, but doesn't mean squat in the real world.
I knew the Apple Elite tend to be impervious to reason, but refusing to order a system or taking it back because of something you can't actually achieve in the real world? Dramatic much?
Yeah, but only because it's trendy.
It was only a few years ago that they were so environmentally unfriendly that Greenpeace singled them out... environmentalists were picketing Apple, this annoyed the hell out of Jobs who told them to "go save some whales". Apple would gladly pour mercury down children's throats if there was money in it for them.
Sigh.
Google is your friend. This was the top hit on your quote with Steve Job's name. Research is your other friend.
How about transferring files over GbE, 2 USB transfers, a Firewire 800 transfer and burning a DVD at the same time? I'm just coming up with excuses but yeah, your totally right.
I'll ask this again because it bears repeating.
Where are you guys going to get data to write to your super-fancy SSD at 200MB/sec, even if the system could support it?
There's no other external or internal interface on the machine that can feed the disk data at anywhere approaching that speed.
USB? Not even close. Firewire? Not by a long shot. Gigabit ethernet? Not by half.
There's no eSATA port, so no extending the SATA bus outside of the machine. No disk-to-disk transfer, seeing how there's only room for one disk.
So, does anyone care to explain to me ONE realistic scenario where you'd even notice this on a real workload? Crying over the output from artificial benchmarks that you can never replicate with real data is one thing, but doesn't mean squat in the real world.
I knew the Apple Elite tend to be impervious to reason, but refusing to order a system or taking it back because of something you can't actually achieve in the real world? Dramatic much?
wow...ever hear or reading and writing a firewire 800 drive and copying files with gigabit....
which i do regularly....alot of people can use that bandwidth.
loading virtual machines from external drives and running stuff over gigabit.
i find i max out the intel drive quite easily.
Oh snaps, you got me.
So for all of you complaining, if you happen to be transferring files from your gigabit LAN at wireline speed, have a full time machine backup writing to your FW800 disk, copying MP3s off of your USB flash drive, AND are trying to burn a DVD of Steve's last keynote, THEN just maybe your superfastfancy SSD could get choked off by the SATA150 interface.
Since I'm sure all of you do that all the time, being the "pros" that you are, I see you are now all totally justified. Please carry on in returning your machines. The rest of us need a good inventory of discounted refurbs.
I knew the Apple Elite tend to be impervious to reason, but refusing to order a system or taking it back because of something you can't actually achieve in the real world? Dramatic much?
very well said
A couple of comments as one of the latest "victims" in this change:
1.) I really shocked to find this on the 2.8GHz 15". I can't think of any reason for Apple to do this. I really don't think it's for the battery. Think about it, if a normal hard drive can't go this fast anyway what power is being saved? It's still a SATA 2 physical interface, it uses the same power.
2.) I'm not convinced it's software. I think it's hardware or firmware. Both 10.5.7 and 10.6 are showing the same results.
3.) OK, let's be clear with one of the fast SSDs out there (Intel X25M), I'm really hard pressed to feel any difference. I can do a couple things to feel a speed difference outside of a benchmark tool but the difference feels very minor. For example bootup time is just as fast (actually a tiny bit faster).
I'm just mystified by it all though. It's the same chip and interface as a 3.0 Gbit interface. I don't see any cost or power savings by using 1.5Gbit. I'm really confused by this.
1.) I really shocked to find this on the 2.8GHz 15". I can't think of any reason for Apple to do this. I really don't think it's for the battery. Think about it, if a normal hard drive can't go this fast anyway what power is being saved? It's still a SATA 2 physical interface, it uses the same power.
2.) I'm not convinced it's software. I think it's hardware or firmware. Both 10.5.7 and 10.6 are showing the same results.
3.) OK, let's be clear with one of the fast SSDs out there (Intel X25M), I'm really hard pressed to feel any difference. I can do a couple things to feel a speed difference outside of a benchmark tool but the difference feels very minor. For example bootup time is just as fast (actually a tiny bit faster).
I'm just mystified by it all though. It's the same chip and interface as a 3.0 Gbit interface. I don't see any cost or power savings by using 1.5Gbit. I'm really confused by this.
Oh snaps, you got me.
So for all of you complaining, if you happen to be transferring files from your gigabit LAN at wireline speed, have a full time machine backup writing to your FW800 disk, copying MP3s off of your USB flash drive, AND are trying to burn a DVD of Steve's last keynote, THEN just maybe your superfastfancy SSD could get choked off by the SATA150 interface.
Since I'm sure all of you do that all the time, being the "pros" that you are, I see you are now all totally justified. Please carry on in returning your machines. The rest of us need a good inventory of discounted refurbs.
actually alot of people use gigabit and it will almost max out sata I alone.
and its the fact that apple does not tell you this, for alot of people it matters big time due to the fact that your held back on a brand new machine.
any person with a ssd will be held back, the ssd will max out sata I loading programs.
Assuming ZERO bus overhead, and devices which can achieve the theoretical maximum of either interface, you're talking 225MB/sec.
Of course, in the real world under optimal conditions, you're never going to see much more than 60MB/sec over gigabit ethernet. Same for FW800. So that rings in at about 120MB/sec
No, you can't.
Those virtual machines all share the same gigabit interface, which as I said above, is like 60MB/sec max in the real world.
No, you don't.
Regarding the poll. At the moment 2 people have marked that they have Sata 2. I find it hard to believe and very unlikely that those are 13" MBP.
No it won't. See above.
No, you're not. Doesn't matter one bit if the speed limit on a road is 500MPH if the fastest car can only go 200.
Extremely unlikely. "loading programs" means opening and reading lots of small files usually. SSD won't get anywhere near theoretical max transfer rate under situations like that.
well actually im using a cisco 5505 with a gigabit blade which can do 75-80mb using gigabit,
so let me explain this more simple for you.
if i load a program on the x25m on sata 1 such as photoshop cs4 it takes 8 seconds,
if i load the same program on my 15" mbp 2.4 with sata 2...it takes 3 seconds.
wonder why...
BECAUSE SATA II MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE...
any program will make out the reads of the x25m to the available connector.
Which even if true changes nothing.
I'm sure you did this in a very scientific test using otherwise identical hardware and software...
Sure, if you say so.
Which even if true changes nothing.
I'm sure you did this in a very scientific test using otherwise identical hardware and software...
Sure, if you say so.
your arguing that sata 1 and sata 2 with a ssd make no difference...
there are doezens of articles showing that it does...every day in the real world its maxed out.
live with it
enough said.....
knownikko you seem to be very confident that it makes no difference. Do you have any data to back that up?
To me it would seem only logical that an Intel X25M SSD will be somewhat limited, even for simple tasks like duplicating a larger file or booting the OS. Granted the difference will not always be big, but I expect some difference. After all Intel X25M only takes 0.1ms to reach full speed.
I would like to see someone testing some scenario's with a stopwatch. Should not be too hard to test
To me it would seem only logical that an Intel X25M SSD will be somewhat limited, even for simple tasks like duplicating a larger file or booting the OS. Granted the difference will not always be big, but I expect some difference. After all Intel X25M only takes 0.1ms to reach full speed.
I would like to see someone testing some scenario's with a stopwatch. Should not be too hard to test
I'm arguing on this hardware, with the available connection options and external data sources, there is next to no difference.
By all means point me to one that shows a real-world workload that can push that much data to or from an internal disk on a laptop over ethernet, usb, firewire, or some combination of the three.
Oh snaps, you got me.
So for all of you complaining, if you happen to be transferring files from your gigabit LAN at wireline speed, have a full time machine backup writing to your FW800 disk, copying MP3s off of your USB flash drive, AND are trying to burn a DVD of Steve's last keynote, THEN just maybe your superfastfancy SSD could get choked off by the SATA150 interface.
Since I'm sure all of you do that all the time, being the "pros" that you are, I see you are now all totally justified. Please carry on in returning your machines. The rest of us need a good inventory of discounted refurbs.
knownikko: I do understand where u coming from. However to me, just my personally feeling...just like u bought a USB2 drive, and only to find out that apples USB is only USB1 only...of couse usb drives are cheap...but when u actually find out ur self instead of they letting u know about it do kind of give u a shock.
It is also like saying ...well, who really need 2.53ghz cpu anyway....anything above 1.5ghz can handle all the programs..so do u really need 2.53ghz.....^_^~
People I guess buys SSD do care about performance, and to know their upgrade SSD hard drive is castrated in some way make u feels kind of bad ^_^
Which even if true changes nothing.
I'm sure you did this in a very scientific test using otherwise identical hardware and software...
Sure, if you say so.
Actually you are probably right in that most will never see any real speed difference. To me this is not about speed per se but about the future. Sata II is more future proof than Sata I. I don't want to buy new tech that is already somewhat outdated. I have an Aluminum MacBook with Applecare for 3 years. I also have 3 children so I'm sure this MB will be around my home for 3-5 years. I may never achieve Sata I speeds but I don't know what the computer world will look like in 2-3 years, at which point I may really need Sata II speeds. I have no idea if this is theoretically possible or practicle, but I also thought I couldn't wait for a 56k modem to replace my 14k modem, now I'm flying with cable. It's about the future and futrue proofing for me anyway.
You mean besides the commonsense realization that there is no available source from which to read or write data that fast to the disk in large quantities?
The only place that these fast SSDs exceed the SATA150 specification is in sequential reads and writes (ie large data transfers). If you have nothing from which to transfer large amounts of data at that speed, then what is your limitation?
Booting the OS is lots of random reads, loading small files. If you look at the performance characteristics of these drives, you'll see that this sort of workload does not ever come close to exceeding 150MB/sec. See anecdotal information above from someone who said his 1.5gbps MBP actually booted slightly _quicker_.
I will concede that one area that performance could possibly be impacted would be duplicating large files on the same disk. Possibly. This will always be a slower operation due to the bus being read from and written to at a high speed.
And that's fine by me. I base my purchases on facts, not emotions. If people want to get emotional about something that just plain won't affect them in 98% of situations, then that's their right. Please return your machine so I can buy it on the cheap refurbished.
ill do you one better and show you with my own macbook pro...so you dont make up anymore excuses