backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Jun 18 at 6:05 PM

Apple MacBook Pro owners reporting lackluster speeds possibly capped by Apple

Some Apple 13" MacBook Pro owners have been left confused due to slower SATA connection speeds than expected through their laptops.

The MacBook Pro laptops in question are supposed to see speeds of 3Gbps, but some owners have been capped at just 1.5Gbps.

"I just checked my system information and the SATA connection is reporting 1.5 Gigabit as the speed," a post on the Apple support forums reads.  "I discovered this when I benchmarked my Vertex 60GB SSD and noticed that the speeds were a lot slower than before (I used to have a 15" umbp).  This is a huge disappointment and very surprising."

It's unknown if this current problem is an accident, or if Apple is intentionally shipping laptops with these storage speeds intentionally.  Some users on the Apple support forums think it's an honest mistake, while others are suffering disbelief that Apple would intentionally cap the SATA drive speeds.

Traditional mechanical HDDs don’t seem to be affected much by the 1.5Gbps connection, but some owners of high-end SSDs are pretty irate about lower than expected read speeds with the latest 13” MacBook Pros. 

The thread posted at Mac Rumors is more than 30 pages in length with numerous pages of clutter, though there is some interesting reading material available.  DailyTech sent over an e-mail to the Apple support team, but will likely be told no comment until an official statement -- if Apple wants to release one -- is made.

If you own a 13" MacBook Pro and have found your SATA interface is downgraded from the expected 3Gbps down to 1.5Gbps, DailyTech would like to hear from you.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Before dooming it all...
By Clauzii on 6/14/2009 7:38:39 PM , Rating: 3
...maybe there will be some sensible response from Apple one of the days.

Also I'm thinking, the chipset is from nvidia? Couldn't it be the (newer) driver or the chipset itself?




RE: Before dooming it all...
By psychobriggsy on 6/14/2009 7:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same chipset as in the other MacBook Pros and MacBooks, the SATA is integrated into the 9400M, there is no reason for it to not be SATA II, apart from a driver issue or NVIDIA messing up on a batch of chipsets and requiring them to run in SATA1 mode. I think we've got to give Apple a chance to respond here.

Regardless, unless you've got an SSD you won't notice this in day to day operation. There's no eSATA port that you're going to attach an eSATA RAID array to either...


RE: Before dooming it all...
By MonkeyPaw on 6/14/2009 8:30:10 PM , Rating: 5
It really makes no sense for it to run at SATA1 speed. It's not like Apple had to make new drivers, as this is the same chipset they've used for a while now. I don't think nVidia could screw this up, unless for some freakish reason SATA2 makes the chipset too hot to cool in a 13" notebook (I highly doubt it). Perhaps Apple is pulling another, "we know what you need, and you don't need this feature in this product."

If it's a simple mistake, then shame on them. If Apple didn't have such a smug attitude about their products working better than "PCs" right out-of-the-box, I would cut them more slack. At least Apple gets to deal with the pretentious and demanding customers that they created.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By DEredita on 6/14/2009 8:57:45 PM , Rating: 5
I just asked them on Apple's Chat with their tech/sales support, and they told me "we're not allowed to disclose that information."


RE: Before dooming it all...
By erikejw on 6/15/2009 7:11:20 AM , Rating: 4
It is not capped, it is a feature.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By ice456789 on 6/15/2009 8:27:43 AM , Rating: 5
iBottleneck.

Don't remember hearing them announce that at the WWDC.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Jaybus on 6/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Before dooming it all...
By EricMartello on 6/16/2009 5:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
That has to be the dumbest reason ever supplied to support 1.5 Gbps being used over 3.0. Power utilization? No. The power consumption difference between 1.5 and 3.0 Gbps is between nil and non-existent.

In fact, there is NO GOOD REASON that 3.0 Gbps should not be enabled. Even with mechanical hard drives, the 3.0 Gbps helps by allowing for twice as much bandwidth for burst transfers.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Natfly on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Before dooming it all...
By GodisanAtheist on 6/15/2009 12:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well at least it won't be more than $29 dollars to get it working in that case...


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Oregonian2 on 6/15/2009 1:50:34 AM , Rating: 1
Could be anything from just a firmware thing to maybe having some noise problems in the diff pair layouts where the lower speed helps improve things -- or some such.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Oregonian2 on 6/16/2009 7:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Guess someone didn't like my signal integrity expertise (I'm an experienced EE).

P.S. - Could even effect things like passing FCC emissions testing. No telling.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By psychobriggsy on 6/15/2009 7:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
"It really makes no sense for it to run at SATA1 speed. "

Which was my point, but it's been modded down.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By dragonbif on 6/15/2009 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
I bet someone is putting the little jumper on the drives to make it 1.5 hehe. Most SATA 3.0 drive do not have jumpers but some do so you can make it a 1.5.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Gul Westfale on 6/14/2009 8:40:13 PM , Rating: 5
this is what will happen:

- apple denies 3gbps capability is built0in
- 6 months later they say it is there, but is not supported by the driver
- another three months later they say they have developed a new 3gbps driver, but it will cost users $4.99


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Natfly on 6/14/2009 10:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
its more likely that it'll be completely ignored and unconfirmed from apple until they have a fix ready.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By LeStuka on 6/15/2009 12:39:45 AM , Rating: 5
Yep, just like they're doing with the iPod Touch Gen2.
It's bluetooth capable, but it'll cost you extra to get it turned on.

It's 3.0 gbps capable - turning it on will be $10, thanks.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By BigToque on 6/15/2009 1:21:29 AM , Rating: 1
This is definitely a post worthy of a 6...


RE: Before dooming it all...
By brshoemak on 6/15/2009 8:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, this is most definitely worthy of a 6, if not a 7 - please create 7's just for this post


RE: Before dooming it all...
By eddieroolz on 6/16/2009 6:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I thought, except that the cost is probably more in the form of a new OS, whatever they call it next.

I'm thinking Mac OS X Arctic Tundra Leopard for $129.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Belard on 6/14/2009 7:53:44 PM , Rating: 4
It wouldn't make sense. SATA 3.0Gb drives have been on the market for what.. 2+ years now? All chipsets should support it now. It doesn't use any more power than a 1.5. Also... with more and more notebooks using SSD, they should/would have known it would piss off customers.

Reasons for an SSD Drive:
1 - Speed
2 - Noise
3 - heat
4 - No moving heads / platters or parts
5 - so that when being moved, it doesn't have the possible damaging effects of an old HD.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By DEredita on 6/14/2009 7:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Reasons for not getting an SSD drive:
- Price
- Storage Capacities

If I recall correctly, aren't SSD drives a bit more complicated to set up, as they are not just format and go?


RE: Before dooming it all...
By teldar on 6/14/2009 9:45:22 PM , Rating: 4
Same as any other hard drive. If you can't put it in and format it, you should never have opened your case in the first place.

Reasons for not getting a Mac. Price and inability to work with all the hardware out there.

If someone is paying the price for a mac, I would be amazed that they don't want the best thing available. If they are NOT interested in the best thing available regardless of price, it just says to me that they want a Mac because it's expensive. And therefore a status symbol (in some deranged way)


RE: Before dooming it all...
By DEredita on 6/14/2009 10:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite that simple...

As I see it:

SSD = All out speed but limited storage capacity
320GB 7200rpm = Quick and large storage compacity
500GB 5400rpm = Huge storage capacity

Depends on what the buyer needs. But, I will agree with you if they are buying a base 160GB 5400rpm hard drive, with no plans of even upgrading the hard drive to something larger or faster.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By teohhanhui on 6/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Before dooming it all...
By shadowofthesun on 6/15/2009 2:52:38 AM , Rating: 3
In a 2.5" laptop enclosure, 500 GB is pretty massive, even by today's standards.

Just 6-12 months ago you'd be looking at 320-400GB as the maximum for a 2.5" drive.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Belard on 6/18/2009 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
And the cool this is... those 500GB 2.5" drives are about $100! The last 2.5" drive I bought (for replacement) was about $65~70 for a 160GB drive over a year ago.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By DEredita on 6/14/2009 10:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I thought you needed to set partition alignment on SSD drives, which is slightly different than your standard HD.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By PlasmaBomb on 6/15/2009 6:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
Just stick with quick formats...


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Donovan on 6/15/2009 2:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Vista aligns partitions optimally by default while XP requires manual partitioning. Supposedly OS-X also aligns partitions optimally by default:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...

According to Intel their SSDs do not care about alignment,
though I'm not aware of any tests to confirm this:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16979/2


RE: Before dooming it all...
By erple2 on 6/17/2009 2:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
There are games that you can play with poor quality SSD drives where setting the partition alignment to some value gives you an improvement in performance. However 10% faster over a totally crappy number is still just a crappy number.

Modern, or at least high-quality SSD drives don't and shouldn't care about where your partition alignment lies.

It seems to be tied to the controller that your SSD drive uses. Unfortunately, Apple does NOT use the highest quality/speed SSD drives currently available.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By ThatNewGuy on 6/14/2009 11:16:02 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And therefore a status symbol (in some deranged way)


Apple hurts us because it loves us.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By PlasmaBomb on 6/15/2009 6:17:27 AM , Rating: 1
Sadist fruit looking for masochist fruit lover...


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Woobagong on 6/15/2009 4:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
Add lifetime to that, the technology not mature enough to be a replacement for hdd's. I like the idea though, but I will wait for another year or two.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Belard on 6/18/2009 6:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree 100%

I mean, if a person has the $$$, get the SSD. I would buy an SSD if I could afford to.

What I'd love to get is a SSD for the desktop, especially with Win7. But at $1500~2000 for the PCIe SSD card - that doesn't BOOT yet (why not?). That thing transfers data about about 700+ MBps.

(not to you) My list was for reason to by an SSD. I'd like to see its wear & tear issues issues improved by 2-4x.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By DEredita on 6/14/2009 8:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully, it's just a driver issue, and it gets fixed in a near future Software Update. I do like the new 13" Macbook Pro for it's size and weight. Also, the price seems to be fair to me, as I would never want to drop $2000+ on a laptop.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By scrapsma54 on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Before dooming it all...
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/14/2009 10:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't make sense though because this is their top-of-the-line notebook. If this was the Air or just the regular MacBook, then yeah, I might think they did it on purpose. But why would the intentionally limit their top product? It just seems dumb even for Apple. I say driver issue.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By scrapsma54 on 6/15/2009 12:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
If it were a driver error, there would be a lot more wrong with it, not just bandwidth. Remember the airport capabilities on some macs that they never revealed to their customers? Then for $10 you didn't have to buy a new mac for that airport feature.

Same tactic, newer times.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/15/2009 7:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it were a driver error, there would be a lot more wrong with it, not just bandwidth.

How did you determine that, exactly? Just like any other kind of problem, driver issues have various levels of severity. This could very easily be a bios or driver problem.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By scrapsma54 on 6/15/2009 2:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
Let me elaborate a little more. A driver error is more likely to pass their Quality checks than an intentional Band cap or a HDD that was originally just a sata1 drive? Supposedly, Quality checks are through and through, according to how apple puts its image out.

Lets look at another trend apple has. iPods; originally The first nano that could play video was manufactured for $50, but sold for $140.
Double price, and then some?

Look at some other trends apple is displaying, A new and half priced iPhone is released every 6 months. This is what is making a lot of their service locked customers mad, the cheapest service contract lasts 2 years and many of their users are stuck for 2 years, unless they decided to not be service locked, to the same phone.

Sure this is nothing new, but I'm sure anyone who paid $300 for a first gen smart phone would be mad to see that the same phone with better features is now going for $99. This is not fair and the same trend is seen with iPods. So
for $300 dollars they could have given their relatives an iPhone also.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By Veerappan on 6/15/2009 4:36:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Look at some other trends apple is displaying, A new and half priced iPhone is released every 6 months.


Untrue. The first iPhone was released in July of 2007, the 3G came out summer of 08, and now the newest model is being released June 2009. Almost exactly a year between each revision, not 6 months.

quote:

Sure this is nothing new, but I'm sure anyone who paid $300 for a first gen smart phone would be mad to see that the same phone with better features is now going for $99. This is not fair and the same trend is seen with iPods. So for $300 dollars they could have given their relatives an iPhone also.


I'm definitely not mad that my $400 phone (original 8GB after the original price drop in 9/2007) is now selling (in 3G form) for $99. Why? Because when they dropped the price of the iPhone to $200 last year, AT&T also raised the contract rates to the point that the original iPhone is still CHEAPER to own than the 3G. The price of the phone went down because AT&T was subsidizing the cost of the phone and making it up through the contract rates.

My original iPhone also gets better battery life than the 3G model as well, which doesn't hurt either. I wouldn't mind real GPS, but the cell tower triangulation that I have is good enough in most cases for me.


RE: Before dooming it all...
By scrapsma54 on 6/16/2009 12:57:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm definitely not mad that my $400 phone (original 8GB after the original price drop in 9/2007) is now selling (in 3G form) for $99. Why? Because when they dropped the price of the iPhone to $200 last year, AT&T also raised the contract rates to the point that the original iPhone is still CHEAPER to own than the 3G. The price of the phone went down because AT&T was subsidizing the cost of the phone and making it up through the contract rates.


Ok so thats on less thing I have against macintosh.

However Apple still has some explaining to do, and it better not sound like a BS parade, which Steve Jobs and Balmer tend to do.


By DEredita on 6/14/2009 7:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was fairly happy with the specs on the new 13" Macbook Pros (2.53GHz w/ 4GB ram, and 500GB hard drive). Then, I saw this post, and looked at a few Apple forums and now seeing hundreds of people all upset about them downgrading the Sata to 1.5 Gb/s from today's 3.0Gb/s standard spec, which everyone adopted ages ago.

I am now going to hold on to my money, and see how this plays out. $1500 is getting you a laptop with crippled GPU, and now they're throwing in crippled SATA too. No thanks.




By MonkeyPaw on 6/14/2009 8:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
How much GPU do you really need in a Mac, especially one with a 13" screen?


By zaxxon on 6/14/2009 11:27:39 PM , Rating: 3
Unless the rock you seem to live under has no Windows, is there the remote chance that you could have seen news about Snow Leopard? The OS that will leverage unified shaders to do other calculations than graphics, llike movie file encoding acceleration? They made a big stink about it... yeah, exactly a week ago at WWDC?


By zaxxon on 6/15/2009 9:18:50 AM , Rating: 3
Ah, you must be referring to the small fraction of the customer base that is doing... photo manipulation. and video editing. right. a tiny fraction indeed!

GPGPU is not limited to seti@home and folding stuff, but as GCD and openCL are an integrated part of the OS and transparent to the user, every program can profit from it. I believe we see an explosion in available processing power with this.

I bet you are one of the same group that complained that apple used the crappy intel integrated graphics, then said that apple sucks because they still use (nvidia) integrated graphics, and now the chipset graphics is TOO powerful and that apple sucks because they shove so much raw power down their unsuspecting customer's throats.

They don't force you to buy a mobile GPU.
1. it's integrated chipset graphics
2. even the 15" can be had without an 9600 now
3. you can always buy a lowest-value ATOM netbook if you want to follow the 'buy cheaply, buy twice' mantra.


By DEredita on 6/16/2009 8:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
You ever watch a lot of videos or anything slightly graphical on a 2.16 GHz Macbook w/ 2GB+ ram, and Intel GMA950 graphics? The fans need to spin at 100% and the machine works like hell to play it. Also, even something as simple as Bejeweled Blitz on Facebook, there is slight, yet noticeable slowdown. The Macbook's fans also scream when playing back 720P/1080P video files, and there is noticeable frame drops and choppy playback at times.
The 9400M is the absolute BARE MINIMUM in a premium notebook.


By erple2 on 6/17/2009 2:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your arguments fall a little bit flat - Flash still has no usable GPU acceleration from what I understand (that bejeweled Blitz runs on flash).

The 9400M is actually a pretty solid low-end semi-discrete graphics chipset. It does all of the 1080p decodes for certain codecs on chip (particularly the H.264 encoded stuff). It also has some (albeit limited) 3D capability (but substantially more than the intel offerings from the last Macbook) for the 3 games available for Mac OSX. If OpenCL (really the translation layer from OpenCL to CUDA) is capable of accelerating more things that ordinary users use, then it'll be good. The 9400M is still fairly substantially speedier than the Core2Duo at certain tasks.


Oh, Apple.
By ThatNewGuy on 6/14/2009 7:34:18 PM , Rating: 5
Reason #3824 not to buy a Mac.




RE: Oh, Apple.
By SiliconAddict on 6/14/2009 8:08:32 PM , Rating: 1
*shrugs* I just needed one: World's shittiest warranty turn around time and zero method of extending your warranty above 3 years. with Apple being so damn close to the thermal envelope of the hardware because god forebid the fan turn on there is no way I would ever own another Mac without a solid warranty behind it....but again it comes back to turn around time. Shit is an understatement. Dell will send someone out to you. Work? Home? Doesn't matter. A tech will come out and do the repair. Apple? Yah right.
Never again Apple. Never.


RE: Oh, Apple.
By MonkeyPaw on 6/14/2009 8:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
"It just works."


RE: Oh, Apple.
By Dennis Travis on 6/15/2009 2:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it just works, but slowly! :D

I have also read in the same article that the new 15" MBP is having the same issue as the 13" and reporting 1.5GB SATA. Anand has a 15" MBP he just did a report on. I hope he reports what speed his SATA is running at.


Yes, I have a new 13" and an Intel X25M SSD
By TEBnewyork on 6/14/2009 8:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
The new 13" MBP is a great machine. Love it so far. I bit the bullet and went for the Intel drive and installed it yesterday morning. The SSD makes the laptop fly.

Yes, in system profiler it shows 1.5Gb for the SATA speed

Here is the rub and what makes this so annoying:

Currently, I have no way of telling how fast this would be if there wasn't a limit. Is it limited enough that I wasted money on this particular SSD?




RE: Yes, I have a new 13" and an Intel X25M SSD
By wifiwolf on 6/14/2009 8:28:23 PM , Rating: 1
No, it's limited enough you payed too much for your Mac.
Was just kidding, I hope Apple will do something about it. They have have a stable user base and I think their not jeopardizing that.


By wifiwolf on 6/14/2009 8:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
sorry for the errors, we should have an edit even though we have a preview


By Natfly on 6/14/2009 10:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have a question for you. In the profiler does it mention if its running sata1 or sata2 or either? If it is running at sata1 spec instead of just a speed decrease then you are missing out on more than just the 3gb transfer. Sata2 had other improvements like ncq, etc.


speed capping
By nirvanaman on 6/15/2009 5:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
wonder if its capped at 150mb/s with MacOSX or Windows too? If its both then a bios update would be needed if just macosx then an apple update would suffice.




RE: speed capping
By DigitalFreak on 6/15/2009 9:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
Someone with one of these notebooks needs to install Vista/Windows 7 on it and see if it's limited there too. If not, it's definitely an OSX or Apple driver issue.


RE: speed capping
By Doormat on 6/15/2009 11:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
In the very very long MacRumors thread, someone put 7 on with ATTO (I think) and found that the speeds were still capped at 1.5Gb/s. I would assume its a firmware issue.


I love (heart) redundancy
By PhoenixKnight on 6/15/2009 10:22:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's unknown if this current problem is an accident, or if Apple is intentionally shipping laptops with these storage speeds intentionally .


This sentence is brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.




RE: I love (heart) redundancy
By foolsgambit11 on 6/15/2009 3:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you were going to say that it was totally unnecessary to subtly accuse Apple of intentionally crippling hardware. But maybe there's been enough Apple-bashing in this article's comments.

[END OF MESSAGE]

Oh. Sorry.

I thought you were going to say that it was totally unnecessary to subtly accuse Apple of intentionally crippling hardware. But maybe there's been enough Apple-bashing in this article's comments.

Hooray redundundundancy!


Jumper on the drive?
By Servant of Shodan on 6/15/2009 1:58:07 AM , Rating: 1
Just tossing this idea out: Could there be a jumper on the SSD limiting speed to 1.5Gbps? I have zero experience with SSD's, but on regular HD's, there are many times I've had to change a jumper before putting it in the system to get the 3.0Gbps speed. Could be the assembly line people forgot, or were not told to do so. Anybody want to open up their new 13" Mac book to check?




RE: Jumper on the drive?
By Pneumothorax on 6/15/2009 11:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
Your theory doesn't fly as several users with X-25's running at 3.0Gbps with the older 13" alu macbook transferred the same drive and re-installed in their brand new 13" Macbookpro's and ended up with 1.5Gbps speeds.


By thorgal73 on 6/15/2009 1:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
I certainly agree there's something fishy going on here, but has anyone bothered to look at the other mobile chipsets ? There's quite some information on the web pointing to the fact that NO chipset really does better... actually Apple/nVidia was one of the first to really offer it (only to get it slashed now).

Here's the quickest link I could find :

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/mobile-chip...




This is so weird...
By Yaron on 6/16/2009 11:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
If this is not a bug / mistake / fixable issue than this is a huge stupid decision by Apple and a great disappointment, I really wanted to purchase the 13" MBP and though I will not purchase an SSD at the beginning I would surely buy one when prices come down and storage goes up in about a year or two.... :\

I can't understand this! WHY?! WHHHHYYYYY?!?!?!?!?!! Why cap SSDs performance?!?!
Why can't these guys deliver a computer without limiting it somehow?!
* ANGRY *




Battery Life
By TomZ on 6/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Battery Life
By milan03 on 6/15/2009 5:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
The exact point of SATA II is that you can pop in SSD drive that reads well over 200MBps and that DOESN"T SPIN like a regular HDD therefore preserves your battery way better than your regular hard disk.
I was going to install two of these babies n an 13" (replace optical drive), but it's totally useless now. I might go with the previous gen 15" unibody that actually supports SATA II and has firewire/Express Card.
Just muy 2c.


RE: Battery Life
By TomZ on 6/15/2009 6:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
Using an SSD doesn't change the fact that the SATA interface is still going to chew a lot of power. It might make more sense, power-wise, to still run at 1.5G even with a high-perf DDS. After all, the point of a mini-laptop is not to have the ultimate in speed. That is what desktop computers are for. Mini-laptops are about portability.


RE: Battery Life
By Noliving on 6/17/2009 9:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
Tomz, Sata 3.0 doesn't use twice as much power as 1.5, nor does sata 3.0 consume really that much more power then 1.5. The difference in power consumption between 1.5 and 3.0 is very negligible. A 13 inch laptop isn't a mini laptap.


Not worth getting upset over...
By FaaR on 6/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not worth getting upset over...
By zebrax2 on 6/14/2009 9:49:05 PM , Rating: 5
But that is not the point. You bought something with the said specification so it better come with it (whether it is useful or not).


RE: Not worth getting upset over...
By FaaR on 6/15/09, Rating: -1
By heulenwolf on 6/15/2009 11:55:23 AM , Rating: 4
Interestingly, as of today, the spec web page lists the Hard Drive speed simply as "Serial ATA" with no I or II or other interface speed indication: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs-13inch.html

I wonder if that page changed in the last couple days?


RE: Not worth getting upset over...
By Azzr34l on 6/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not worth getting upset over...
By erple2 on 6/17/2009 3:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's true and false at the same time. While the interface can certainly transmit data faster than the drive can read off the drive, that doesn't mean that having a faster interface doesnt' buy you anything.

The fastest drives today can sustain at up to around 100 MB/s. Given SATA1 (150 MB/s transfer rate), you will notice a small amount of extra time it takes to transmit that data through the SATA interface. If you take the example to the extreme, imagine having all of the data you need for a read operation in the cache of the drive. You can still now only access that data at 150 MB/s. Given that cache's can be up to around 32 MB in size, it takes 32/150 seconds (.2 seconds) to read the entire cache. With a 300 MB/s interface, that's 0.1 seconds. Sounds like not much time. As a function of the amount of time it takes to read data from the drive into the cache, then transmit that cache back to the computer, the interface is only a small amount of bottleneck.

So, doubling your interface speeds I would expect would speed up your every day access by a small amount.

With the faster and better drives out there that can sustain 25 MB/s random reads (the Intel one, but none of the ones Apple sells), reading 100k of random data (assuming your cache was "instant) would take 0.1/25 MB or 4 milliseconds to read. Now, transfer that data to the computer - that's 0.1/150 or 0.6 ms to read for a total of around 4.6 milliseconds to read. Double the bandwidth, and it takes 0.3 ms to read for a total of 4.3 ms to read the data, a difference of 0.3 ms. In the grand scheme of things, that's about a 7% increase in performance per read operation.

Now, take a slower disk that sustains about 2.5 MB/s random reads. You're then talking about a difference of 0.3 ms in a total of 40.6 ms to read. That's closer to 0.8% faster.

Clearly, the faster the drive is, the more impact the interface will have on performance.

How much difference does it really make? I suppose it depends on what you're doing.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki