Do the 2010 MacBook Pro's have 6 GB SATA?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by steffi, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. steffi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
  3. harmonica01 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    #3
    confirmed on my i7 no sata 6gb yet
     
  4. apw100 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #4
    There is absolutely no need for 6 Gb/s SATA(at least not in a MBP) since there are no hard drives that come even remotely close to filling the bandwidth that 3Gb/s SATA II provides.
    The only real use for 6 Gb/s SATA would be in some high end RAID setup that I can't even fathom... :p
     
  5. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    Not true. There's a few users on these boards running these in their MacBook Pros already. They fully saturate the bandwidth of SATA II during sequential reads and come close during sequential writes.
     
  6. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #6
    SATA II is enough for hard drives but many SSDs are achieving the limits of SATA II, so to get more out of SSDs, you need SATA III.

    SATA III isn't very common yet, only some desktops has it and that costs nice extra too
     
  7. Speedtoy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #7

    Ok..riddle me this.

    What application works like that for a meaningful period of time where no CPU is required to do anything with the data..outside of a synthetic benchmark?
     
  8. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #8
    Well, 90% of beachballs happen when CPU has to wait for HD...

    Majority of people don't need i5, but they still want one
     
  9. Speedtoy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #9

    Hate to break the bad news, but CPUs wait for HDD IO 99.999% (or more) of the time.


    Im bettin the beachball thing...aint waiting for drive IO.


    Im not a software expert, and with that analysis, Id bet you aren't either.



    But I am a qualified enterprise storage performance expert, and speeds & feeds on the outside of the box only impress people that dont know how things really work.

    As earlier stated, interface speeds only start to matter in larger shared infrastructures where intelligent IO not present in desktop/consumer designs makes it more advantageous. Any amount of random IO destroys the idea of a spinning media drive saturating SATA-2 speeds in a real world workload.

    Apply a little queuing theory, then plug in what you can find about bus interrupt, drive rotational and track-to-track latency numbers within SATA, and you'll find a lot of empty bandwidth in the path.

    It can take a significant number of FCAL/SAS HDD's to saturate a 4Gpbs FCAL loop with reasonably normal real-world IO data rates and patterns out 'in the world' as well.

    But it all comes down to defining the unique dataset, and the unique workload to be applied against it. Is it realistic..benchmark, or synthetic to prove a point?


    I'd bet, that if someone had a specific dataset, with a specific workload, that had specific IO requirements, wouldn't be relying on internal storage to get the job done anyhow...also earlier stated.
     
  10. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #10
    I agree that sequential reads are a pretty silly way to measure SSD performance, but your assertion that no drives available today max out the SATA II bandwidth is unequivocally wrong. I was just pointing that out.

    That said, I don't care at all that we don't have SATA III in these new MBPs. It is definitely not something I would personally benefit from having in my usage.
     
  11. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #11
    The 15" have now intel chipsets and Intel SATA controllers. It is still SATA 2 but faster than the old nvidia controllers.
    Only the highest End SSDs benefit from SATA 3 and even than not by much as only STR increases and how do you want to achieve it with no input output link that is fast enough other than copying to and from ram.
     
  12. Mr Dobey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    #12
    SATA III is needed

    Read this entire article and realize why SATA III is needed on a real world consumer basis.
     
  13. nwcs macrumors 65816

    nwcs

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Location:
    Tennessee
    #13
    I read the whole article. I still don't see why it's needed right now. Certainly it'll eventually come but I agree with the other guy that in real world applications of today (and for quite a while) it's more of a theoretical advantage and marketing point than anything else.
     

Share This Page