And here i thought samsung made the ones with the least power consumption
yea...i used to own the p128 which was very power efficient...swapped it out for 2 of these intel's with the same consumption...little less
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
yea...i used to own the p128 which was very power efficient...swapped it out for 2 of these intel's with the same consumption...little less
Sorry, but you're just wrong here. For random router to router or router to switch internet traffic measured over a 5 minute interval, you won't get much more than 960megs (i.e. about 110 megabytes of actual data, assuming packet overhead of ~10%) on a GE link. The reason for this loss is that at this sort of traffic level, you get microbursts causing stochastic queuing peculiarities.
If you're talking about a controlled single stream server to server data transfer over tcp, you can sustain about 990mbits.
And yes, I've measured both scenarios.
-munchie
Just got my 2.53 13 umbp bto today with the 256 ssd and I was shocked to see that its sata I 1.5mbps. I had no idea of this issue and in googling it I found this thread. VERY DISAPPOINTED to say the least. Ive been waiting on the 13(well 12 really) since my 12 powerbook and have been using this big 15 ever since waiting patiently for the update. Now that its here I feel gyped. $800 bucks down the drain is what Im thinking to myself right now. I was a long time lurker here a while back and I had a few posts, Im sad that I didnt see this issue sooner. I mean yea its fast but I want this thing to last 5 years and not be worthless because the next gen ssd's will be choked out with a sata I. I havent done the research on it yet but CAN I even return this thing because its a build to order? Might have to cut my throat and put it on sleezebay for a 500 loss. What a let down.
If it is like in Germany where you live you can return nearly everything you buy (except CD's and stuff) within two weeks and get the full price back. Granted the packaging isn't broken i guess.
But... but... munchkins! (Just wanted to type your nick out
)Btw, I'm not the poster you replied to but, MB = megabyte while Mb = megabit.
1.5mbps!
thats SLOWWWW
lol....i know what you mean.
thats unfortunate....limited bus wont matter a whole lot anyway
anothermacadict...are you able to take a screen shot for us please?
that will be really great!
Ok, guys and gals,
my MacBookPro 13" MB990/DA just arrived...and yes its SATA1 as well.
Quickly upgraded it to my AdataSeries300 SSD, added 4GB Ram, reset Pram NVram, reboot, and i have to say its quick as hell.
Regardless i contacted Apple Tech -Support, this time with my serial, escalated the sata-thinggy and was told by the chief-tech-supportress that they will take care of the situation...especially for me!!!
They say they do not have an explanation at the moment, but will see to it asap.
This leaves me with a case number, the email of the supports-chief...and two weeks return time...
Greetz
my MacBookPro 13" MB990/DA just arrived...and yes its SATA1 as well.
Quickly upgraded it to my AdataSeries300 SSD, added 4GB Ram, reset Pram NVram, reboot, and i have to say its quick as hell.
Regardless i contacted Apple Tech -Support, this time with my serial, escalated the sata-thinggy and was told by the chief-tech-supportress that they will take care of the situation...especially for me!!!
They say they do not have an explanation at the moment, but will see to it asap.
This leaves me with a case number, the email of the supports-chief...and two weeks return time...
Greetz
sigh. yeah, yeah, yeah - 960mbit then.
Here's a carrot for your efforts
-munchie
Actually, I was more of referring you to the person you quoted. He said, "60 megabyte/s" and not 60 megabits/s, so that would be 480mbits/s over ethernet. But I might have been mistaken with what you're trying to say so...
Correct again as long as we are talking about the exact same architecture. Different chipsets have different power requirements for the same bandwidth.
We are talking absolutely negligible benefits though. The SATA link is idling most of the time so giving it such a performance hit in the name of power savings makes no sense at all. Unless of course you are using your disk 100% of the time for some reason, in which case this buys you at most 5 mins extra out of the 7 hours.
Anyway, this absolutely makes no sense and I have never seen anything like it before. Either they want to screw customers on purpose or there is a problem with the hardware/firmware.
Has anyone trying clearing the CMOS after installing a SATA-II disk?
i think the actual power used in the sata link is far less than that. i am guessing they are using milliamps and millivolts to transfer signals from disk to bridge.
if there is any power savings to be had they would come by undervolting the chipset itself which as a result requires underclocking it as well.
some food for thought: i doubt the chipset actually runs within spec if they did that. Perhaps there are more problems waiting to emerge?
Yes you mistook what he was trying to say
He obviously knew what he was talking about, and was just responding to someone that said you can only get 60MB/s over a gigabit network with real world usage - which is rubbish.
Here's what I think:
ALL New 13" MBP's have the 1.5 GB/s hard drive transfer rate
ALL New 15" MBP's with a mechanical hard drive, have the 1.5 GB/s transfer rate
ALL New 15" MBP's with a solid state disk, have the 3.0 GB/s transfer rate
ALL New 17" MBP's have the 3.0 Gb/S hard drive transfer rate
ALL New 13" MBP's have the 1.5 GB/s hard drive transfer rate
ALL New 15" MBP's with a mechanical hard drive, have the 1.5 GB/s transfer rate
ALL New 15" MBP's with a solid state disk, have the 3.0 GB/s transfer rate
ALL New 17" MBP's have the 3.0 Gb/S hard drive transfer rate
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you have to have a BIOS in the first place to clear its memory?
I wouldn't bet on this. If the 13" SSD doesn't get SATA2 (which the last version had), chances are the 15" won't either.
it should be 3.0
the old(late08) n new macbook and macbook pro use nv9400m as the chipset.
Its a single chip with north n south bridges build together.
is it make sense to hv to made to hv 1.5 rather than 3.0 in order to save money?
i think it will be resolve by firmware update
the old(late08) n new macbook and macbook pro use nv9400m as the chipset.
Its a single chip with north n south bridges build together.
is it make sense to hv to made to hv 1.5 rather than 3.0 in order to save money?
i think it will be resolve by firmware update
I agree. There's also the fact that Apple uses SSDs that don't come close to saturating SATA 1.5 Gb/s even in the best circumstances, so there's no reason to use SATA 3 Gb/s short of upgradeability.