Wow..I didn't realize that so many people cared about SSD this early in its over priced life? The SSD people are the only ones who should be sad by this.
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
Yup. https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7804701/
He really needs to start flying carriers with wi-fi
ah damnit, in my haste i clicked on the HDD...ugh
well i might go back again and check it out, but it was strange the only 15" mbp in there that had it, that isnt a SSD though isnt it?
Thanks for posting those results, it's certainly another hard verification that the NEW MacBook Pros have a slower SATA.
However, Xbench isn't a particularly good benchmark utility and we still don't know what difference this change will make in real world operations.
In any case, my GUESS is that Apple has a problem in their new MacBook Pro motherboard design and that they are limiting the SATA to 1.5Gb to workaround this issue. Of course, it could get fixed in a firmware or software update (as a software workaround) but we obviously won't know this until Apple ships an update that enables 3.0Gb SATA. You can be absolutely certain, however, that Apple will never admit to any kind of hardware problem.
can anyone post your uMBP firmware and Boot ROM version?
mine is 1.47f2 and it has the 1.5gb cap.
if this firmware version is same as the previous uMB/uMBP which means it's hardware issue.... and we might never get 3.0G back
Boot ROM Version: MBP55.00AC.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.47f2
Mine:
Boot ROM Version: MBP55.00AC.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.47f2
Same as yours.
can anyone post your uMBP firmware and Boot ROM version?
mine is 1.47f2 and it has the 1.5gb cap.
if this firmware version is same as the previous uMB/uMBP which means it's hardware issue.... and we might never get 3.0G back
Boot ROM Version: MBP55.00AC.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.47f2
Just out of curiosity, how does one check?
Edit: Ok, it's in the System Profiler.
When prices come down on SSDs, I want the end-user option of having 3.0 to take full advantage. How can Apple call this a Pro machine when the uMB and MB white have 3.0 (whether or not they utilize it)?
Yes, my xbench numbers for the 15" 2.8GHz with X25M are almost the same as yours:
Results 224.37
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.7 (9J3032)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro5,3
Drive Type INTEL SSDSA2MH160G1GC
CPU Test 190.40
GCD Loop 326.81 17.23 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 158.98 3.78 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 135.04 4.46 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 235.12 40.94 Mops/sec
Thread Test 323.22
Computation 435.19 8.82 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 257.08 11.06 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 189.48
System 224.19
Allocate 277.33 1.02 Malloc/sec
Fill 190.73 9273.89 MB/sec
Copy 220.62 4556.87 MB/sec
Stream 164.08
Copy 153.34 3167.08 MB/sec
Scale 159.90 3303.41 MB/sec
Add 172.39 3672.23 MB/sec
Triad 172.35 3686.96 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test 229.34
Line 211.36 14.07 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 279.43 83.43 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 228.26 18.61 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 218.42 5.51 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 220.65 13.80 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 181.32
Spinning Squares 181.32 230.01 frames/sec
User Interface Test 386.06
Elements 386.06 1.77 Krefresh/sec
Disk Test 195.74
Sequential 127.36
Uncached Write 115.77 71.08 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 110.68 62.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 105.10 30.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 236.94 119.09 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 422.64
Uncached Write 562.96 59.60 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 192.02 61.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 1249.62 8.86 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 595.32 110.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]
looks apple did put a different Boot Rom and SMC.
If it's a pc we can flash the BIOS back anytime.
anyone has 15' uMBP can share your info?
So… does this mean I'll luck out with the Intel SSD installed (getting soon) in my new 13"? Are we basically getting conflicting reports?
Thoughts on what to do with old stock drive (get a case-- got a ton of external already); keep it for resale, throw it in the sea?
The only interesting finding would be if you see different ROMs on the *SAME* model and generation of MacBook Pro. I'm sure the previous generation is using different ROMs.can anyone post your uMBP firmware and Boot ROM version?
mine is 1.47f2 and it has the 1.5gb cap.
if this firmware version is same as the previous uMB/uMBP which means it's hardware issue.... and we might never get 3.0G back
Boot ROM Version: MBP55.00AC.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.47f2
Well, yes there is a dramatic difference when you swap the drive. However, what we don't know is what the test would show (how fast it would be) if
hadn't made the speed change. I don't know how you could test that unless we find that someone with a build to order with SSD gets delivered with 3.0 instead of 1.5 (and then swaps their SSD for one of the ones tested in this thread).
Wait...hold everything. I just reran the Disk Test after a reboot since I remembered that I did that for the 2.66Mhz test. Now instead of seeing a dramatic decrease I actually got an increase. Proof once again the xBench is hard to quantify and users make mistakes .
Still...things are cut in half.
.Still...things are cut in half.
Wait...hold everything. I just reran the Disk Test after a reboot since I remembered that I did that for the 2.66Mhz test. Now instead of seeing a dramatic decrease I actually got an increase. Proof once again the xBench is hard to quantify and users make mistakes
Still...things are cut in half.
This is interesting... your write scores increases significantly higher after the reboot, but your read scores should be much higher, and are clearly being slowed down, there is a pretty drastic difference there.
Wait...hold everything. I just reran the Disk Test after a reboot since I remembered that I did that for the 2.66Mhz test. Now instead of seeing a dramatic decrease I actually got an increase. Proof once again the xBench is hard to quantify and users make mistakes
Still...things are cut in half.
so your result means SATA1 is faster than SATA2?
But only for large, block-transfer reads. Other forms of transfer seem to be pretty much a "wash" (with even some wins for the new system).
Frankly, without some public statement from Apple (which isn't likely to happen) or a REALLY GOOD confirmation that some of the new 13" or 15" MacBooks Pros are running at 3.0Gb I'd say that we have beaten an already dead horse even more dead.
It would be nice if someone could produce a real-world result that showed a significant performance difference between the 1.5Gb and 3.0Gb interfaces. Of course, to do that you'll most likely need one of the better (faster) SSDs and run that same SSD in both units.