Apple issues fix for slow SATA speeds on new MacBook Pros

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
In one of its quicker turnarounds, Apple has released a firmware update for its mid-2009 MacBook Pro lineup that addresses Serial ATA speeds that were unintentionally cut in half.



MacBook Pro EFI Firmware Update 1.7 (3.4MB) mends a problem with the just-refreshed notebook line which effectively downgraded their SATA II drive interfaces to the original SATA specification.



The difference didn't affect the performance of traditional platter-based hard drives, which are rarely fast enough to tax the 1.5 gigabits per second the original SATA spec allows, but has been a thorn in the side for those hoping to use solid-state drives, or SSDs. Recent buyers in Apple's support discussions and elsewhere have noticed that faster aftermarket SSDs installed in their systems have been artificially capped at the older standard's speed. Earlier unibody MacBook Pros already support the full 3 gigabits per second maximum of SATA II, revealing the limit to be a bug rather than a conscious choice.



Installing the firmware requires a 13-, 15- or 17-inch MacBook Pro running at least Mac OS X 10.5.7. As the extra speed can only be seen by drives that Apple itself doesn't use, the Mac maker warns that it can't provide official support for disks that take advantage of the EFI patch.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    duecesdueces Posts: 89member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    Installing the firmware requires a 13-, 15- or 17-inch MacBook Pro running at least Mac OS X 10.5.7. As the extra speed can only be seen by drives that Apple itself doesn't use, the Mac maker warns that it can't provide official support for disks that take advantage of the EFI patch.



    Apple doesn't use SSD's that saturate 1.5? I think you better check your facts.
  • Reply 2 of 60
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Wow, what a quick response to all the bellyaching earlier today in the 1 million iPhone thread
  • Reply 3 of 60
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    That was snappy!





    Steve's back one day and the whips are a cracking!
  • Reply 4 of 60
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dueces View Post


    Apple doesn't use SSD's that saturate 1.5? I think you better check your facts.



    Apple's note on the issue:

    http://support.apple.com/downloads/M...re_Update_1_7_



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple


    MacBook Pro EFI Firmware Update 1.7 addresses an issue reported by a small number of customers using drives based on the SATA 3Gbps specification with the June 2009 MacBook Pro. While this update allows drives to use transfer rates greater than 1.5Gbps, Apple has not qualified or offered these drives for Mac notebooks and their use is unsupported.



  • Reply 5 of 60
    duecesdueces Posts: 89member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    Apple's note on the issue:

    http://support.apple.com/downloads/M...re_Update_1_7_



    I already read that.



    Now look at actual benchmarks from previous gen macbook pro's with CTO SSD directly from Apple.
  • Reply 6 of 60
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dueces View Post


    I already read that.



    Now look at actual benchmarks from previous gen macbook pro's with CTO SSD directly from Apple.



    link please.
  • Reply 7 of 60
    kingkueikingkuei Posts: 137member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dueces View Post


    Apple doesn't use SSD's that saturate 1.5? I think you better check your facts.



    I believe the problem is not that the Samsung drives that Apple uses aren't SATA-II (3.0Gbps) capable, but that the use of any SSD drive other than what Apple provides via its CTO options were not able to exceed the SATA-I drive limits, at least on this latest refresh of Unibody MacBooks.



    That effectively limited the choice of SSD drives to just Apple's Samsung OEM SSDs if you wanted to have the full 3.0Gbps throughput. If you wanted to switch to a drive like the Intel X25-M or X25-E or one of the newer OCZ Vertex drives, you were out of luck as the interface was getting capped at 1.5Gbps, whereas this problem did not exist with the late-2008 Unibody MacBooks.



    Someone feel free to correct me if my understanding of this was not accurate.
  • Reply 8 of 60
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,415member
    Thank Gawd.



    Now I don't have the read the hysterical rantings from the overly vocal Mac users. Us old hands figured an update was forthcoming as there's little reason to cut the SATA bandwidth in half.
  • Reply 9 of 60
    iphone1982iphone1982 Posts: 109member
    If the SSD speed can't take advantage of the full 3gb, why pay the 600 extra for an SSD Drive when you buy a 15" MBP if you're only getting SATA I speeds?



    I don't get it.
  • Reply 10 of 60
    davidtdavidt Posts: 112member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Thank Gawd.



    Now I don't have the read the hysterical rantings from the overly vocal Mac users. Us old hands figured an update was forthcoming as there's little reason to cut the SATA bandwidth in half.





    Yes, thank god this is over. I too was hoping and expecting that it was but a little firmware update issue.



    However I did get vocal when it became evident that MBPs bought with SSD from apple had healthy 3,0 satas, and thus suspicion was raised - and not refuted by apple staff I spoke to - that the downgrade was actually intentional on apple's part in an attempt to force us to buy only SSD that apple was selling. This would not have been good and clarity was desirable. Now we have clarity, we have a solution, I have just ordered my MBP and this issue is laid to rest.



    take care

    -D
  • Reply 11 of 60
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,796member
    Man...



    So Apple fixes the 13" MB and gives it FW and lowers the price...



    The MacBook Air is faster and cheaper....



    They fix the SATA issue on the MBP's....



    I guess the only thing left to bitch about are glossy screens!
  • Reply 12 of 60
    duecesdueces Posts: 89member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post


    I believe the problem is not that the Samsung drives that Apple uses aren't SATA-II (3.0Gbps) capable, but that the use of any SSD drive other than what Apple provides via its CTO options were not able to exceed the SATA-I drive limits, at least on this latest refresh of Unibody MacBooks.



    That effectively limited the choice of SSD drives to just Apple's Samsung OEM SSDs if you wanted to have the full 3.0Gbps throughput. If you wanted to switch to a drive like the Intel X25-M or X25-E or one of the newer OCZ Vertex drives, you were out of luck as the interface was getting capped at 1.5Gbps, whereas this problem did not exist with the late-2008 Unibody MacBooks.



    Someone feel free to correct me if my understanding of this was not accurate.



    Thats the problem, even Apple's OEM SSD's were capped at 1.5mps on the newest macbooks, not so on the last generation (Pre-June refresh).
  • Reply 13 of 60
    duecesdueces Posts: 89member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    link please.



    www.google.com
  • Reply 14 of 60
    y2kyly2kyl Posts: 1member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post


    I believe the problem is not that the Samsung drives that Apple uses aren't SATA-II (3.0Gbps) capable, but that the use of any SSD drive other than what Apple provides via its CTO options were not able to exceed the SATA-I drive limits, at least on this latest refresh of Unibody MacBooks.



    That effectively limited the choice of SSD drives to just Apple's Samsung OEM SSDs if you wanted to have the full 3.0Gbps throughput. If you wanted to switch to a drive like the Intel X25-M or X25-E or one of the newer OCZ Vertex drives, you were out of luck as the interface was getting capped at 1.5Gbps, whereas this problem did not exist with the late-2008 Unibody MacBooks.



    Someone feel free to correct me if my understanding of this was not accurate.



    Think Apple is still using prev gen Samsung/Toshiba SSDs which read/write < 100MB/s for its BTO upgrades; thus SATA would not be a bottleneck. The Apple tax in this case refers to both price and performance...
  • Reply 15 of 60
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dueces View Post


    www.google.com



    If you're going to cite something don't make other people look for your link.
  • Reply 16 of 60
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post


    I guess the only thing left to bitch about are glossy screens!



    glossy screens don't bother me, but the removal of express card does
  • Reply 17 of 60
    ipodrulzipodrulz Posts: 38member
    I'm sure more than half the people whining about the limit weren't going to go out and buy an SSD anyway...



    They probably thought, "Oh no! Something is to the largest number possible.. we have got to complain!". Wait till those people figure out all the iPhone processors are underclocked*



    *That was not a complain. I know the reasons the speeds are what they are.
  • Reply 18 of 60
    fixmdudefixmdude Posts: 93member
    Does anyone have benchmarks to compare an upgraded drive such as the WD5000BEVT

    before and after loading this update? Thanks.
  • Reply 19 of 60
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post


    I believe the problem is not that the Samsung drives that Apple uses aren't SATA-II (3.0Gbps) capable, but that the use of any SSD drive other than what Apple provides via its CTO options were not able to exceed the SATA-I drive limits, at least on this latest refresh of Unibody MacBooks.



    That effectively limited the choice of SSD drives to just Apple's Samsung OEM SSDs if you wanted to have the full 3.0Gbps throughput. If you wanted to switch to a drive like the Intel X25-M or X25-E or one of the newer OCZ Vertex drives, you were out of luck as the interface was getting capped at 1.5Gbps, whereas this problem did not exist with the late-2008 Unibody MacBooks.



    Someone feel free to correct me if my understanding of this was not accurate.



    This story and your comment partially answer a question I have. I'm planning to get a new 15" MBP 2.8 shortly after Snow comes pre-installed. Clearly, if HDD's can't tax the 1.5 Sata level and SSD's can, they have some advantages. But I'm wondering how telling they are.



    So my question was comparing Apple's SSD's with their 7200 rpm 500 GB drive in terms of various aspects of performance. This will be my next main machine for likely 5 years or so, and I want it to be as fast as possible within my budget, with plenty of onboard storage. I've compared the price of upgrading from 5400 to 7200 and thus getting the space I really need compared to spending far more on a much smaller SSD - and if the perf diff from 5400 to 7200 is noticeable, it seems like kind of a sweet spot for me.



    Especially as I think in about 2 or maybe 3 years 512MB SSD's should be readily available and more affordable (probably better too) than 256's today - so a few years down the road I'm eyeballing going from 4 to 8 GB RAM (maybe sooner on the RAM), and one of those future SSD babies to juice me up for the second half of my planned use.



    Reviews usually stick to Apple default configs, so this is a question I've never heard answered.



    So if anyone can enlighten me, how much faster on which tasks ARE today's Apple-supplied SSD's compared to 7200 HDD? And 7200 to 5400?
  • Reply 20 of 60
    winterspanwinterspan Posts: 605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post


    ...

    That effectively limited the choice of SSD drives to just Apple's Samsung OEM SSDs if you wanted to have the full 3.0Gbps throughput. If you wanted to switch to a drive like the Intel X25-M or X25-E or one of the newer OCZ Vertex drives, you were out of luck as the interface was getting capped at 1.5Gbps, whereas this problem did not exist with the late-2008 Unibody MacBooks.

    Someone feel free to correct me if my understanding of this was not accurate.



    I'm not sure about whether the older Samsung drives Apple sells are SATA/3.0 or not, but everything else you said is correct.



    And contrary to what people believe, There are dozens of SSDs that can push at least sequential read rates over 150MB/sec. And the Intel X25m and OCZ Vertex test I saw had the MB Pro SATA/1.5 actually capping them to <120MB/sec.



    Nearly all of the SDDs using Samsungs new controller, Indilinx's controller, Intel's controller, and even dual JMicron controllers had read speeds over 150Mb/sec. That is the vast majority of current-generation (non-enterprise) SSD drives on the market that this issue was affecting.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by y2kyl View Post


    Think Apple is still using prev gen Samsung/Toshiba SSDs which read/write < 100MB/s for its BTO upgrades; thus SATA would not be a bottleneck. The Apple tax in this case refers to both price and performance...



    Yep they are. Back when the only thing on the market was the crappy Jmicron drives that suffered horrible random-write performance and stuttering, those Samsung drives were great overall.



    But now with the release of drives based on other non-Jmicron controllers (Intel, Indilinx), those drives are very slow. Particularly since Samsung now has newer controllers and drives that are far faster which I'm sure Apple could get ahold of. Instead they are clearing out Samsung and Toshiba's old stock and selling them for a premium to Apple users. Sad really.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ipodrulz View Post


    I'm sure more than half the people whining about the limit weren't going to go out and buy an SSD anyway...



    So what? Although I am not one of them, I'm sure there are many people who were worried about this issue because they are going to be using their new MB Pros 3-5 years from now when smoking fast SSDs will be the norm, and don't want to be left out with a crippled system. That should have worried everyone considering the machine.
Sign In or Register to comment.