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

[jeme]

I talked to tech support today - they said it is what it is and is 1.5GB, and if there is an update they would not know about a future update until it comes out.

So I asked can you tell me if the configure to order machinges with the apple supplies 128GB SSD are 3.0 SATA - the answer - no they cannot tell me that!!

So basically they are clueless!

Here is an option I am considering - I have a feeling that the apple customer machines with the 128GB SSD's are 3.0GB - so I could return my current machine and order the 128GB SSD maching then remove that SSD (sell it to recoup some of the $400) and put my 160GB X25 in.

I would only do this is the custom machines are in fact 3.0GB

 

[Philflow]

No difference in boot time (this is dominated by random reads which do not max out the sata I speed).

Benchmarks for the OCZ Vertex showed that every file above 64Kb is capped. Surely during booting one of the files read is larger than 64Kb.

I am willing to believe the difference is small, but I find it hard to believe it's 0,0%.

I have a feeling that the apple customer machines with the 128GB SSD's are 3.0GB

I strongly doubt that.

 

[jeme]

I have the new MBP 13 inch unit and to answer you question in sisoft under windows 7 the nVidia MCP79 Host Bridge revision is L2.

Please let me know how else I can help!

 

[jeme]

Well is the apple supplied machines are not 3.0 Sata why would then cap the ability of the sata drive - almost makes no sense?

 

[Frosties]

I have a feeling that the apple customer machines with the 128GB SSD's are 3.0GB - so I could return my current machine and order the 128GB SSD maching then remove that SSD (sell it to recoup some of the $400) and put my 160GB X25 in.

I would only do this is the custom machines are in fact 3.0GB

If Apple are that childish then they could have coded that only their type of drives is supported in the firmware. This is such a mess and so unbelievable.

 

[jeme]

Superdrive is SATA 1500, could that be holding the HD back?

 

[iomatic]

Depends which MacBook model you have

Got the new 13" MBP.

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.

This is the only relevant information so far. REAL WORLD information—What does it mean in real life? And can we have more observations and data?

I have the second version MBA and will report when I get back.

Finally, if people are really upset, then you should file a bug report. Messing about here and in other forums does nothing; as soon as I reported a Bluetooth bug, it was fixed in 10.5.7, a month or two later (As a developer).

 

[Philflow]

This is the only relevant information so far. REAL WORLD information—What does it mean in real life? And can we have more observations and data?

Actually he did not supply any real world data.

95% of this thread is guessing or educated guessing. I've seen one person claiming he did real world testing, but I'm not too sure of the accuracy of his tests.

The other data supplied indicate that every file above 64KB takes a hit.

 

[terriyaki]

Could this be a drive jumper issue?

I know my Seagate Momentus 7200.3 had a jumper on it to configure it between 1.5 and 3.0. Maybe some of the drives were accidentally left at 1.5 during the manufacturing process?

 

[Frosties]

"One year later. Light-years ahead" from the WWDC is applescript for going back in time as that is what the downgrade of the interface is. Going back in time. We already have time-machine for files why not hardware?

 

[Shao]

Actually he did not supply any real world data.

95% of this thread is guessing or educated guessing. I've seen one person claiming he did real world testing, but I'm not too sure of the accuracy of his tests.

The other data supplied indicate that every file above 64KB takes a hit.

Well...I guess from my data....it shows the new MBP" is capped, when under windows 7 compare to the older MB 13"

I used the same windows 7 disc to install.....I thought that was already pretty convincing that they did cap it at Sata 1.5...

 

[bcaslis]

Benchmarks for the OCZ Vertex showed that every file above 64Kb is capped. Surely during booting one of the files read is larger than 64Kb.

I am willing to believe the difference is small, but I find it hard to believe it's 0,0%.



I strongly doubt that.

Sorry, don't believe me if you want. But the issue is not sequential read speed, it's random read speed. This doesn't go fast enough even on an Intel X25 to make a difference. Believe benchmarks over real world data if you want but I have it in my hands. You said you wanted someone to measure it. I did. The difference is too small to measure without a stopwatch (i.e. less than a second). In normal usage, the difference is also too small to see.

 

[bcaslis]

Actually he did not supply any real world data.

95% of this thread is guessing or educated guessing. I've seen one person claiming he did real world testing, but I'm not too sure of the accuracy of his tests.

The other data supplied indicate that every file above 64KB takes a hit.

What a pain! What you think I'll lying? What do you want? Why don't you go out and foot the expense of doing this instead of saying someone isn't giving you enough data.

 

[HFU]

I have the new MBP 13 inch unit and to answer you question in sisoft under windows 7 the nVidia MCP79 Host Bridge revision is L2.
Please let me know how else I can help!

Hmm... interesting. We also need someone with 13" UMB or 15" pre-SD UMBP to read the Host Bridge revision for comparison.

According to iFixit from late 2008 13" UMP, the MCP79 Host Bridge seemed to be revision B2. If the new SD models use different chipset revision, then we might be onto something.

 

[aznguyen316]

Well...I guess from my data....it shows the new MBP" is capped, when under windows 7 compare to the older MB 13"

I used the same windows 7 disc to install.....I thought that was already pretty convincing that they did cap it at Sata 1.5...

proof!!

 

[aleksandra.]

Does everyone (or almost everyone) feel confident that the SATA limitations can be updated via a firmware update? I would think so since it is exactly the same hardware.....but what do I know....

It looks like a firmware issue, but unfortunately it doesn't automatically mean it can be fixed by an update. It may be, but there's no way for us to know it until it's done.

 

[assisterah]

I just talked to an Apple engineer and he told me this was not a firmware/software issue. He refused to use the word "degrade" to address this problem and used the word "efficiency improvement" as an explanation. He implied me that this was a confidential information that Apple would not want to share to anybody...
How sad is that!

 

[mikethebigo]

I just talked to an Apple engineer and he told me this was not a firmware/software issue. He refused to use the word "degrade" to address this problem and used the word "efficiency improvement" as an explanation. He implied me that this was a confidential information that Apple would not want to share to anybody...
How sad is that!

WTF? If this isn't simply a software or firmware issue, it absolutely sucks. You pay a premium for these machines for a reason, and the logo isn't it.

 

[MacModMachine]

I just talked to an Apple engineer and he told me this was not a firmware/software issue. He refused to use the word "degrade" to address this problem and used the word "efficiency improvement" as an explanation. He implied me that this was a confidential information that Apple would not want to share to anybody...
How sad is that!

he is right,

they wont even give me the info and i do applecare work for apple for clients!

 

[NC MacGuy]

I think I'll hold on to my un-downgraded MBP and wait for Apple to realize the error of their ways before I get that 13" MBP I originally wanted. Besides the FW port, the very last uni-MB's with upgraded displays look like a good deal, especially with them being discounted.

 

[MacModMachine]

it seems like this was a planned move,

with all this "Green" talk and such, a lower power approach might have been taken.

 

[aleksandra.]

Hmm... interesting. We also need someone with 13" UMB or 15" pre-SD UMBP to read the Host Bridge revision for comparison.

According to iFixit from late 2008 13" UMP, the MCP79 Host Bridge seemed to be revision B2. If the new SD models use different chipset revision, then we might be onto something.

I've logged into Windows 7 as well just now and I can tell this is no evidence of a hardware change affecting SATA bus. My MacBook Air revision B reports SATA 3.0 and MCP79 revision L2. Unless System Profiler is wrong... and Air had 1.5 all the time, but no one was able to find it out as using SATA-LIF connector makes it practically non-upgradeable (although it's a bit too much of a conspiration theory for me). Or Sandra Lite (that was what I used and I assume previous poster had as well) reads MCP79 revision incorrectly.

EDIT: 15 minutes under Windows 7 and Air is getting warm already, with just Firefox and CoreTemp running (and Sandra Lite for a moment). Why did I ever install this thing?!

 

[Poirot818]

Why isn't this on the front page yet?

I think it's a little more important than a new seed of Snow Leopard or AT&T selling out their initial batch of iPhone 3Gs pre-orders.

 

[joelones]

Why isn't this on the front page yet?

Seriously. I second that motion.

 

[MacModMachine]

Seriously. I second that motion.

+1