How can I check this?
Let's say I want to see the actual throughput while launching Photoshop.
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
How can I check this?
Let's say I want to see the actual throughput while launching Photoshop.
This is crappy any way you cut it. Hopefully, Apple remedies it soon. On that note I don't think knownikko is trying to say this isn't a problem. He is just trying to apply a little common sense logic to ease the pandemonium. I agree that most people even power users will see very little real world difference, but that does not mean I don't want the option. Fix it. 
Even if most people wouldn't use it, why should anyone accept intentionally crippled hardware when the previous generation wasn't?
I think this is ******** and would call apple out on principle alone.
btw, you could max out SATA I simply by opening programs. ram is faster and has lower latency than any storage medium, even SSD.. so you'll get max speed loading programs into memory as you open them.
Also could come into play moving large files from one folder to another on the same drive.
Here's a benchmark of small file transfers on my 30GB vertex (the slowest one) -
starting at 64Kb file sizes, SATA I would be limiting my read speeds.
The Intel drives that folks have and the higher capacity vertex drives are faster than my 30GB drive. SATA I interfaces will prevent SSDs like this from maximizing their transfer rates and performance potential.
I think this is ******** and would call apple out on principle alone.
btw, you could max out SATA I simply by opening programs. ram is faster and has lower latency than any storage medium, even SSD.. so you'll get max speed loading programs into memory as you open them.
Also could come into play moving large files from one folder to another on the same drive.
Here's a benchmark of small file transfers on my 30GB vertex (the slowest one) -
starting at 64Kb file sizes, SATA I would be limiting my read speeds.
The Intel drives that folks have and the higher capacity vertex drives are faster than my 30GB drive. SATA I interfaces will prevent SSDs like this from maximizing their transfer rates and performance potential.
What is the future going to bring that will allow you to get data on or off of your laptop at a greater rate? You're limited by the overall hardware. Doesn't matter what the future brings, your laptop will always be limited by the available external connections (firewire, USB, gigabit ethernet). None of those are going to get any faster until you buy a new laptop. Having SATA-II inside isn't going to change that, and the laptop will never be able to really take advantage of it, no matter what happens down the road. You're not future-proofing yourself from anything.
Well guys....there is really no need to go into do you really need Sata 1.5 or Sata 3.....
Lets just say this have more impact on people who is interested in SSD upgrades, and the people who bought the new macbook pro who have intention to have SSD installed / or already bought SSD was expecting the new macbook pro to be same as the previous model..which is Sata 3, not Sata 1.5....And Apple didn't make us be aware of that...and people who with SSD hope there is a solution to it otherwise they feel (including me) that maybe they shouldn't invested in a SSD
That is the main reason of this post....
Otherwise this is turning into an argument similar to something like....Why you need i7 cpu, Due core is already good enough for everything sort of argument ^_^~
I mean if apple let us be aware that they down grade Sata 3 to Sata 1.5..than it is fair..people who went ahead and bought it should have not complain because apple let us know what we getting..but that didn't happen.
Lets just say this have more impact on people who is interested in SSD upgrades, and the people who bought the new macbook pro who have intention to have SSD installed / or already bought SSD was expecting the new macbook pro to be same as the previous model..which is Sata 3, not Sata 1.5....And Apple didn't make us be aware of that...and people who with SSD hope there is a solution to it otherwise they feel (including me) that maybe they shouldn't invested in a SSD
That is the main reason of this post
....Otherwise this is turning into an argument similar to something like....Why you need i7 cpu, Due core is already good enough for everything sort of argument ^_^~
I mean if apple let us be aware that they down grade Sata 3 to Sata 1.5..than it is fair..people who went ahead and bought it should have not complain because apple let us know what we getting..but that didn't happen.
It's a simple question, how much influence does the limitation have on daily use? like booting, duplicating files, launching photoshop etc.
Are we talking 1% or is it more like 10%, 20% etc.
Please no speculation anymore. Pull out the stopwatch and start measuring, if you can. You'll need a laptop with SATA II to do so.
Are we talking 1% or is it more like 10%, 20% etc.
Please no speculation anymore. Pull out the stopwatch and start measuring, if you can. You'll need a laptop with SATA II to do so.
Sure, I'll concede that. To be clear though, even if we're talking about filling up 2 gigs of ram with a contiguous large file, we're talking a difference of a couple seconds.
This is a very cumbersome thing to measure even with otherwise identical hardware.
You need to make sure the machines are in the same state, with the same RAM contents, etc. Ideally you'd do the testing with the same exact disk with the same exact data in the same exact machine (with one running at 1.5Gbps).
A stopwatch won't cut it for accuracy either when you're dealing with such small timeframes.
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.
Have you used a fast SSD? No, not those cheap netbook SSD or ones that usually come preinstalled. I have the OCZ Vertex and I was floored how much faster everything starts, osx boot faster ... On top of it, SSD are dead silent.
I pay the Apple premium because I expect a better quality, integrated machine. SATA I is a real world limitation for those of us who opt for SSD. SSD are only going to become better, faster and cheaper. It's not OK that I paid this much for a premium notebook that can't take advantage of this technology when cheap netbooks can. You're right the average consumer will not notice, but the average consumer does not read MacRumors. We here expect more than a logo.
Look at the posted benchmarks. There is no fan-boy factor in the results.
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.
I understand what you mean...the reason we having a big post is because..it was not know to us as FACT, we actually only find it out after buying the machine......that why many people doesn't feel good toward apple...
If apple advertise sata 1.5..than of couse this post won't exist.
I mean if you got the origional 2.4ghz...and u want faster speed at 2.53..only to know they half the cache hence actually decrease the performance slightly..u will not be a happy dude right....and if some other people says...it is only slightly slower...won't effect u much at all.
you will still feel
right ^_^~I mean look at the graph that I did on the MB and MBP....does those figures
actually mean something to someone..possible if they do large file conversion...
in real life...and average user..properly not...
but it is like saying....well..i don't mind my office open in 3 seconds compare to 1 second..i know that is just a figure i pull out of my bum......we really just want to be more informed by apple that all...
Attachments
In real world usage, unless you are moving large files you really won't see the difference.. Booting, launching, ect are all the same.
For me, it's not that I think I will be slowed down by Sata 1.5, it's that there's a limitation there that I can't control..
If I want a faster computer, I jack up the CPU, OC it whatever, Add a SSD, and the SSDs don't really even saturate SATA 3 so that leaves room in the future to go 'faster' than I can now.
Having a bottle neck that you can't control sucks, it makes you feel as if your hardware is slow and out dated. I like the fact that I have the option to use 8GB of Ram a year down the road when prices fall, I like how DDR3 is new, and in the future these boards will be filled with CAS Latency questions and stuff.
But if there is this bottle neck, that slows down everyone who shoves a $300 piece of equipment into their computer then that's messed up..
Even the 3GHz people are being held back from having a really killer computer by this little bottle neck..
I want to have the fastest, best, macbook that my budget can allow, and having a sata limitation stops me from having this.
For me, it's not that I think I will be slowed down by Sata 1.5, it's that there's a limitation there that I can't control..
If I want a faster computer, I jack up the CPU, OC it whatever, Add a SSD, and the SSDs don't really even saturate SATA 3 so that leaves room in the future to go 'faster' than I can now.
Having a bottle neck that you can't control sucks, it makes you feel as if your hardware is slow and out dated. I like the fact that I have the option to use 8GB of Ram a year down the road when prices fall, I like how DDR3 is new, and in the future these boards will be filled with CAS Latency questions and stuff.
But if there is this bottle neck, that slows down everyone who shoves a $300 piece of equipment into their computer then that's messed up..
Even the 3GHz people are being held back from having a really killer computer by this little bottle neck..
I want to have the fastest, best, macbook that my budget can allow, and having a sata limitation stops me from having this.
In front of the computer a couple of seconds is the time you curse the computer for being slow. That is a fact.
I do Agree, that is the only reason ppl get new computer....otherwise..i'm sure it is alright to take 2 min to boot into operating system....10 seconds to open an application..... i'm sure the computer now not necessary 100% faster than the one 2 years ago......
But u want it faster and faster..that why u buy newer and newer hardwares.
I agree with most of your post, but I get to differ on this point. As a developer, I run a database, constantly compiling, serving web pages as part of my work. Things do start faster, get in and out of paged memory faster. Most computers are IO bound. Using a 7200 RPM drive over the default 5400 RPM is noticeable to me. SSD was just wow and I'm sure part of that wow was because of the blissful silence, but please don't dismiss the performance as a placebo effect.
No difference in boot time (this is dominated by random reads which do not max out the sata I speed). Copying a large file, yes it's slower. I think in general you will see it 10% to 50% slower, usually more like 10%. Yes, I've tested it because I have one.
I have this drive in my MB and it is at 3.0Gbit, just wanted to throw that out there hah
where is the link to complain to Apple? Be buy new computers to be more future proof....although I ordered a 13" w/250GB hard drive, I will go thru with the order and just get a Samsung 256GB SSD, will be faster than the HDD but not blasing. Hopefully a firmware update will fix things....
....but lets complain to Apple...
....but lets complain to Apple...
Just wanted to point out that the macrumors front page is reporting that 10.5.8 is seeding to developers now. The SATA issue is not listed under the fixes that this provides, but it may very well correct the problem and Apple just wants to keep it quiet.
When you click and highlight on Super Drive section under "NVidia MCP79 AHCI" for HL-DT-ST DVDRW GS21N", does it say 1.5Gb or 3.0Gb?
It feels like the combination of 10.5.7 (special build) and the new firmware for SD models are causing the SATA to report 1.5Gb. Someone has confirmed 10.6 (beta build) also showed 1.5Gb, this could be the same Kext carried over from 10.5.7 (special build).
Can people with previous MBA and new MBA (1.86 or 2.13 models), or 17" UMBP (MacBookPro 5,1) and updated UMBP (MacBookPro 5,2) compare the Boot ROM Version under Hardware overview section? It should be the same without the SD update. For people with 13" UMBP (MacBookPro 5,5) and 15" UMBP (MacBookPro 5,4), the Boot ROM Version would be different for the SD update.
For people with Windows 7 installed, please try http://www.sisoftware.net/ Sandra and report the NVidia MCP79 chipset revision number?