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
MBP & Gravel Roads
I have to disagree, in real-world operations SSD will make a HUGE difference. When you went from a single HD to RAID 0 best you could expect in a 30% on average increase in throughput. So, if you were getting 100Mb/s peeks (most people are only seeing 70-90Mb) with a conventional HD, a move to one of the current SSDs like the Intel or Samsung will put you at 200Mbit/s THAT IS A FULL 100% increase in throughput, at minimum . ANYONE, who as upgraded from a old 4200RPM HD to a newer 5400 high plater density or 7200RPM HD knows its like getting a new computer. Removing the HD speed bottleneck provides far more usefulness for real-world everyday operations then increasing RAM or then in CPU speed, (i.e. upgrading from 2ghz to 2.24). Consider this analogy, apparently it's being reported that in the great state of Michigan ~cough~ more then 20 of the states 83 counties have reverted to graveling what were once, paved roads (due to cost no doubt). In one county alone, 10 miles of primary (paved) road will revert back to gravel. When I hear, that Apple has reverted the MBP SATA buss from 3Mbit/s to 1.5Mbit/s I can't help but think of Michigan's gravel roads. And when I think about making a large purchase, upgrading to a MBP as I've been doing.... I don't want to be thinking "gravel roads" do you?
I have to disagree, in real-world operations SSD will make a HUGE difference. When you went from a single HD to RAID 0 best you could expect in a 30% on average increase in throughput. So, if you were getting 100Mb/s peeks (most people are only seeing 70-90Mb) with a conventional HD, a move to one of the current SSDs like the Intel or Samsung will put you at 200Mbit/s THAT IS A FULL 100% increase in throughput, at minimum . ANYONE, who as upgraded from a old 4200RPM HD to a newer 5400 high plater density or 7200RPM HD knows its like getting a new computer. Removing the HD speed bottleneck provides far more usefulness for real-world everyday operations then increasing RAM or then in CPU speed, (i.e. upgrading from 2ghz to 2.24). Consider this analogy, apparently it's being reported that in the great state of Michigan ~cough~ more then 20 of the states 83 counties have reverted to graveling what were once, paved roads (due to cost no doubt). In one county alone, 10 miles of primary (paved) road will revert back to gravel. When I hear, that Apple has reverted the MBP SATA buss from 3Mbit/s to 1.5Mbit/s I can't help but think of Michigan's gravel roads. And when I think about making a large purchase, upgrading to a MBP as I've been doing.... I don't want to be thinking "gravel roads" do you?
As far as SSD, there was an interesting article I read just in the last week or two that speculated that the SATA3 standard (6Gb) had been moved up because the industry realized that it would not be too long before SSDs exceeded the capabilities of SATA2 (3Gb). In fact, here is such a article on SATA, SATA2, and SATA3:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/new...elp-60gbps-sata3-to-reach-speed-potential.ars
This article states that SATA3 devices might start shipping by the end of 2009.
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/new...elp-60gbps-sata3-to-reach-speed-potential.ars
This article states that SATA3 devices might start shipping by the end of 2009.
However, the only two affected are the 13" MacBook Pro and 15" MacBook Pro and it just so happens these were the only two that saw architectural changes. The 13" MacBook Air and 17" MacBook Pro were just regular speedbumps. So it may not be the SD card reader but it does seem to have something to do with the models that feature them as they have new logic boards.
Just for info only 15 inch MacBook Pro 2.93/ 3gb Sata with 2 Intel X 25M 80 gb drives running Raid O with 8gb of ram X-bench score is 249. I good friend of mine I just helped her with the brand new 13 inch 2.53 I believe with 4gb of Ram and had her install a Intel SSD X25M 160 gb drive alone and her X-bench score is 192 I believe not sure she posted this here in this thread or not . To long a thread to keep track. But the bottom line even with a single SSD you will most likely maintain the write speeds of the 5400 or 7200 drives but the reads will be about double or more, so you are getting a very nice performance bump with just a single SSD Plus it runs quiet and cool. My next move would be E class drives but i have a long wait until those drives hit a mark well under 625 each and I need two of them. So looking at her numbers I am not totally convinced the 1.5 sata restriction is truly making a large impact given her numbers are getting pretty close to mine and mine is 3gb sata but with Raid O which changes the ball game a lot. What you need here right now is someone with the same machine as her with a 5400 and a 7200 run the X-bench score and see how close it comes to 192. That should help you decide if the SSD is worth the money. Bit surprised though there is even a restriction or setup that way. But end of day not sure it is killing ya with the 13inch
Attachments
You are largely correct, but you are underestimating the speed of a good RAID. I was updating to a twin, 10K RPM, Western Digital Raptor drive set and I was seeing burst, sequential write performance well in excess of 200MB/s on some benchmarks which even exceeds most SSDs. Reads weren't as good, but still over 150MB/s sustained (which is notably below the fastest SSDs). In any case, the biggest difference you're going to see between a good RAID 0 and a single SSD is in random access and seek times which admittedly can result in improved performance when using the SSD.
I have a question (The thread is large so I apologise if anyone has figured this out and answered it already).
According to the Profile Screenshots posted so far for both 3 Gbit and 1.5 Gbit use the same NVIDIA MCP (MCP79) if the hardware is all the same (Is it?) why are some 1.5 and others 3.0
From my understanding of SATA interconnects it defaults to whatever is fastest has Apple used some kind of Firmware to limit it to 1.5 or are they using different silicon with the same designation?
Again sorry if this has already been answered. Also does the new 17" still use 3.0 Gbit SATA connections? - Thanks.
According to the Profile Screenshots posted so far for both 3 Gbit and 1.5 Gbit use the same NVIDIA MCP (MCP79) if the hardware is all the same (Is it?) why are some 1.5 and others 3.0
From my understanding of SATA interconnects it defaults to whatever is fastest has Apple used some kind of Firmware to limit it to 1.5 or are they using different silicon with the same designation?
Again sorry if this has already been answered. Also does the new 17" still use 3.0 Gbit SATA connections? - Thanks.
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.
Exactly my thoughts. If we do nothing Apple will do nothing. The more you let someone get away with the more they will try to get away with.
You need to look at the results for the disk test, not the overall Xbench result. The disk test shows a result of 309.
I think this test is the one he compares with. It shows a disk test result of 177.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=107802#post107802
Attachments
If the above results are from X25-M, it's likely bottlenecked (it should reach ~160 MB/s max IIRC).
I can't compare to RAID 0, so I rely on your earlier description. You said you didn't notice much improvement in launch times and everyday tasks. Compared to a hard disk, SSD makes a huge difference in exactly this area. It's obvious even to light users. I suppose it's random reads then that influence responsiveness - and therefore perceived speed - most.
I can't compare to RAID 0, so I rely on your earlier description. You said you didn't notice much improvement in launch times and everyday tasks. Compared to a hard disk, SSD makes a huge difference in exactly this area. It's obvious even to light users. I suppose it's random reads then that influence responsiveness - and therefore perceived speed - most.
I'm at the Apple Store right now and here is what I found:
White MacBook: 3.0
13" MacBook Pro: 1.5
15" MacBook Pro: 1.5
17" MacBook Pro: 3.0
MacBook Air: 3.0
White MacBook: 3.0
13" MacBook Pro: 1.5
15" MacBook Pro: 1.5
17" MacBook Pro: 3.0
MacBook Air: 3.0
There is another factor here. I was going from a fast, 3.5" desktop drive to an even faster RAID. In the case of a notebook experience you'd be going from a relatively slow 2.5" HD to a very fast SSD so you'd likely see a greater difference in user experience.
However, for the case of the 1.5Gb to 3.0Gb shift on an SSD you'd be starting with an equally fast SSD that in real world terms may or may not be affected that much by the interface. Benchmarks will show a difference, but in the real world I don't think we've seen any results which show what the difference would be. No doubt a FAST SSD on a 3Gb interface would be better -- but how much better?
can you get one of the genius people on here and have him explain what's up with this issue?
Looks like the hot set up is to get the 2.13Ghz MacBook White, still with the 3Mbit/s SATA. Max the RAM to 4GB ($50 newegg) and install a 128GB Corsair SSD # CMFSSD-128GBG2D from newegg for $349. Total under $1500 after a student discount, and I bet the performance would smoke the stock config 2.24 & 2.53 MBPs. No fire wire 800, limited res for an external display, and no cool Unibody but~. This is what I would like to see benchmarked.
You must be kidding me.
I just got the 13" MBP today and it's significantly slower than the Rev.A MBA SSD I just sold to get this. The reason I sold the MBA was cos of the poor performance, I can't put up with an even slower MB!
This is the top of the MB range right? Why have they reduced it to 1.5Gbit without telling us????
I just got the 13" MBP today and it's significantly slower than the Rev.A MBA SSD I just sold to get this. The reason I sold the MBA was cos of the poor performance, I can't put up with an even slower MB!
This is the top of the MB range right? Why have they reduced it to 1.5Gbit without telling us????
turns out (?) the guy who's customised his mbp with an ssd was right.
let's hope apple will fix this in the next 72 hours.