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.
The benefits of SSDs in laptops are not primarily sequential reads/writes, (you'll max out the ethernet and Firewire 800 interfaces just fine on SATA150, possibly even both simultaneously) but the shock proof nature and the vastly faster random read/writes are the true advantages.
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.
A couple of days ago, I read essentially the same thing according to some tests, but I'll be danged if I can remember where.
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
I found the same thing to be true, which is why I was arguing that it wasn't limited by the controller.
Likely it was looking for an Apple ROM in the drives, and when it didn't find one, defaulted to 1.5. I'm not sure if it was intentional on Apple's part, or a bug.
Computer manufacturers almost always have ROMs in the drives in their machines customized. They do that for performance reasons, and for laptops, efficiency (battery performance). If a non custom ROM is found, the OS might treat it somewhat differently.
Apple is stricter than other companies, as they are always concerned with stability.
You seem to be the only one in here who thinks Apple's SSDs can saturate a SATA I bus, so the onus is on you to provide the link to the actual benchmarks you were thinking of. Until then I (and probably a few others) will continue to think that you are full of shit.
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.
I need to see more benchmark I been through Xbench. I don't think Apple sells any HDD that are over 1.5GBps or 192MBps. The 128GB SSD in the 2.13GHz MacBook Air it states that it is a 3Gbps SATA but the SSD on Samsung's site says its a 1.5Gbps SATA Interface. The results from the benchmarks it looks like SATA 1.5Gbps. I see what Apple is doing by using 1.5Gbps HDDs & SSD on a 3Gbps Interface will drop it down to 1.5Gbps therefore won't consume more power for nothing. The ONLY way it seems is to buy a 3rd Party HDD or SSD. Apple so far to me seem to be 1.5Gbps but I guess everybody gripe that they wanted the option if they do want to go 3Gbps SATA II HDD or SSD. \
Apple doesn't use SSD's that saturate 1.5? I think you better check your facts.
There are a lot of SSDs which saturate 1.5. In fact, for data that's already in cache, some hard disks are pretty close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
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.
I've been using Macs since about 1985 and there has been endless whining over 'missing' features, things Apple does 'wrong' and so on.
I suspect that many of them are from people who don't even own Apple products. Or kids who would never be buying the latest version, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
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?
Do a google search - there are a lot of comparisons.
In short, SSDs are more physically robust and use less energy (although it won't amount to more than a few extra minutes unless you're watching movies from HD). SSDs will also have shorter boot times and application launch times. The real difference, though, isn't the sustained transfer rate. Few people are going to get that much benefit from that in a laptop. Where you WILL see the benefit is in random access. Access times on a SSD are 0.1 msec compared to 12-15 msec on a 7200 rpm drive. When you're bouncing around a lot from one thing to another, the SSD will feel a lot snappier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
What battery life surplus is there using the latest ssd vs he'd in a unibody notebook? First and second generation.
Only a few minutes in the tests I've seen. The hard disk isn't that big an energy user-- unless you're continually accessing it. Even then, you'd be lucky to see a 5-10% gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LE Studios
I need to see more benchmark I been through Xbench. I don't think Apple sells any HDD that are over 1.5GBps or 192MBps. The 128GB SSD in the 2.13GHz MacBook Air it states that it is a 3Gbps SATA but the SSD on Samsung's site says its a 1.5Gbps SATA Interface. The results from the benchmarks it looks like SATA 1.5Gbps. I see what Apple is doing by using 1.5Gbps HDDs & SSD on a 3Gbps Interface will drop it down to 1.5Gbps therefore won't consume more power for nothing. The ONLY way it seems is to buy a 3rd Party HDD or SSD. Apple so far to me seem to be 1.5Gbps but I guess everybody gripe that they wanted the option if they do want to go 3Gbps SATA II HDD or SSD. \
First, don't use xbench as a benchmark - it's not very good.
Second, the energy savings from 1.5 to 3 Gbps SATA is insignificant - if it's real at all. I doubt that there's even a theoretical difference (use, the higher clock speed might use more energy, but you'll be transferring data for a shorter time, so 3 Gbps might even use LESS energy). In any event, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to have 2 different SATA settings depending on which hard drive was used. Forget it.
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.
Because it's not the sequential speeds that make SSD a great purchase it's the extremely low latency and the MUCH faster random reads/writes (on a good SSD like the Intel) that obliterate the fastest drives.
Random read/writes are well below the speeds of the SATA bus but they are crucial for a system that is snappy and multitasks well.
In fact read the sequential numbers from a SSD vendor and then go right to the meat and potatoes and find their random numbers. They are all maketing the "sizzle" with high sequential numbers but unless your day is comprised of doing large file copy again and again and again I'd advise to you towards the features that will deliver better real world results for daily computing.
In short, SSDs are more physically robust and use less energy (although it won't amount to more than a few extra minutes unless you're watching movies from HD). SSDs will also have shorter boot times and application launch times. The real difference, though, isn't the sustained transfer rate. Few people are going to get that much benefit from that in a laptop. Where you WILL see the benefit is in random access. Access times on a SSD are 0.1 msec compared to 12-15 msec on a 7200 rpm drive. When you're bouncing around a lot from one thing to another, the SSD will feel a lot snappier.
.
Thanks --- for making my decision harder!
I am a "bouncer arounder" of the first order, but I'm also a data packrat who wants all my key stuff - tons of large RAW and tiff files with emailable jpeg backups (I do fine art photography), 10K + of music and video files, etc., with my notebook wherever I am - without dragging around another drive.
Still, since my notebook's a 12" 1.33 iBook G4 Tiger and my old Photoshop warhorse an AMD Athlon XP with 1.5 G Ram, a new main machine (15" MBP) that's about 6 revs and three OS's newer than either will hopefully be thrilling enough with the replaceable 500 GB 7200 to start.....
Because it's not the sequential speeds that make SSD a great purchase it's the extremely low latency and the MUCH faster random reads/writes (on a good SSD like the Intel) that obliterate the fastest drives.
Random read/writes are well below the speeds of the SATA bus but they are crucial for a system that is snappy and multitasks well.
In fact read the sequential numbers from a SSD vendor and then go right to the meat and potatoes and find their random numbers. They are all maketing the "sizzle" with high sequential numbers but unless your day is comprised of doing large file copy again and again and again I'd advise to you towards the features that will deliver better real world results for daily computing.
Though let me not downplay sequential speeds either but day to day computing favors
random.
I think that we're going to see SSD speeds limited by the SATA bus even when the new 6Gbps SATA bus hits next year. There's a consortium working on making SSD more interoperable at www.onfi.org and their roadmap already contains SSD speeds of 400MBps and I'm assuming this is from a single drive!
Though let me not downplay sequential speeds either but day to day computing favors
random.
I think that we're going to see SSD speeds limited by the SATA bus even when the new 6Gbps SATA bus hits next year. There's a consortium working on making SSD more interoperable at www.onfi.org and their roadmap already contains SSD speeds of 400MBps and I'm assuming this is from a single drive!
Price!
The fast drives are still very expensive, and the cheaper drives aren't very good at all.
I'm still telling people to wait until next year sometime. We should see a good decline in the better drives by then, and hopefully, the poor drives (and controllers) will be driven out of the market. It's difficult for the consumer to know which is which.
The fast drives are still very expensive, and the cheaper drives aren't very good at all.
I'm still telling people to wait until next year sometime. We should see a good decline in the better drives by then, and hopefully, the poor drives (and controllers) will be driven out of the market. It's difficult for the consumer to know which is which.
I read that SSD should evolve at a rate that's slightly faster than Moore's Law which is good. I also read that they will hit a wall at 20nm. The next SSD should be at 34nm from a few vendors like Intel/Nec so I figure they'll end up at something like 28nm for the 2011 batch and then 20nm in 2013?
Comments
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.
The benefits of SSDs in laptops are not primarily sequential reads/writes, (you'll max out the ethernet and Firewire 800 interfaces just fine on SATA150, possibly even both simultaneously) but the shock proof nature and the vastly faster random read/writes are the true advantages.
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.
A couple of days ago, I read essentially the same thing according to some tests, but I'll be danged if I can remember where.
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
I found the same thing to be true, which is why I was arguing that it wasn't limited by the controller.
Likely it was looking for an Apple ROM in the drives, and when it didn't find one, defaulted to 1.5. I'm not sure if it was intentional on Apple's part, or a bug.
Computer manufacturers almost always have ROMs in the drives in their machines customized. They do that for performance reasons, and for laptops, efficiency (battery performance). If a non custom ROM is found, the OS might treat it somewhat differently.
Apple is stricter than other companies, as they are always concerned with stability.
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!
xMac!!
(couldn't resist
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!
there's still blu-ray...
even though 91% of people who own HD TVs say they have no intention of buying blu-ray, I guess Steve was right again.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...2009_06_18.pdf
www.google.com
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.
I need to see more benchmark I been through Xbench. I don't think Apple sells any HDD that are over 1.5GBps or 192MBps. The 128GB SSD in the 2.13GHz MacBook Air it states that it is a 3Gbps SATA but the SSD on Samsung's site says its a 1.5Gbps SATA Interface. The results from the benchmarks it looks like SATA 1.5Gbps. I see what Apple is doing by using 1.5Gbps HDDs & SSD on a 3Gbps Interface will drop it down to 1.5Gbps therefore won't consume more power for nothing. The ONLY way it seems is to buy a 3rd Party HDD or SSD. Apple so far to me seem to be 1.5Gbps but I guess everybody gripe that they wanted the option if they do want to go 3Gbps SATA II HDD or SSD.
Apple doesn't use SSD's that saturate 1.5? I think you better check your facts.
There are a lot of SSDs which saturate 1.5. In fact, for data that's already in cache, some hard disks are pretty close.
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.
I've been using Macs since about 1985 and there has been endless whining over 'missing' features, things Apple does 'wrong' and so on.
I suspect that many of them are from people who don't even own Apple products. Or kids who would never be buying the latest version, anyway.
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?
Do a google search - there are a lot of comparisons.
In short, SSDs are more physically robust and use less energy (although it won't amount to more than a few extra minutes unless you're watching movies from HD). SSDs will also have shorter boot times and application launch times. The real difference, though, isn't the sustained transfer rate. Few people are going to get that much benefit from that in a laptop. Where you WILL see the benefit is in random access. Access times on a SSD are 0.1 msec compared to 12-15 msec on a 7200 rpm drive. When you're bouncing around a lot from one thing to another, the SSD will feel a lot snappier.
What battery life surplus is there using the latest ssd vs he'd in a unibody notebook? First and second generation.
Only a few minutes in the tests I've seen. The hard disk isn't that big an energy user-- unless you're continually accessing it. Even then, you'd be lucky to see a 5-10% gain.
I need to see more benchmark I been through Xbench. I don't think Apple sells any HDD that are over 1.5GBps or 192MBps. The 128GB SSD in the 2.13GHz MacBook Air it states that it is a 3Gbps SATA but the SSD on Samsung's site says its a 1.5Gbps SATA Interface. The results from the benchmarks it looks like SATA 1.5Gbps. I see what Apple is doing by using 1.5Gbps HDDs & SSD on a 3Gbps Interface will drop it down to 1.5Gbps therefore won't consume more power for nothing. The ONLY way it seems is to buy a 3rd Party HDD or SSD. Apple so far to me seem to be 1.5Gbps but I guess everybody gripe that they wanted the option if they do want to go 3Gbps SATA II HDD or SSD.
First, don't use xbench as a benchmark - it's not very good.
Second, the energy savings from 1.5 to 3 Gbps SATA is insignificant - if it's real at all. I doubt that there's even a theoretical difference (use, the higher clock speed might use more energy, but you'll be transferring data for a shorter time, so 3 Gbps might even use LESS energy). In any event, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to have 2 different SATA settings depending on which hard drive was used. Forget it.
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! And Expresscard
I fixed it for you.
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.
Because it's not the sequential speeds that make SSD a great purchase it's the extremely low latency and the MUCH faster random reads/writes (on a good SSD like the Intel) that obliterate the fastest drives.
Random read/writes are well below the speeds of the SATA bus but they are crucial for a system that is snappy and multitasks well.
In fact read the sequential numbers from a SSD vendor and then go right to the meat and potatoes and find their random numbers. They are all maketing the "sizzle" with high sequential numbers but unless your day is comprised of doing large file copy again and again and again I'd advise to you towards the features that will deliver better real world results for daily computing.
...the main thing is that peoples concerns about the drop from 3.0Gbps to 1.5Gbps have been alleviated.
If the new MacBook Pro had shipped with 3.0Gbps from day one, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Anyways...
...the main thing is that peoples concerns about the drop from 3.0Gbps to 1.5Gbps have been alleviated.
If the new MacBook Pro had shipped with 3.0Gbps from day one, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Mistakes happen. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or without error
In short, SSDs are more physically robust and use less energy (although it won't amount to more than a few extra minutes unless you're watching movies from HD). SSDs will also have shorter boot times and application launch times. The real difference, though, isn't the sustained transfer rate. Few people are going to get that much benefit from that in a laptop. Where you WILL see the benefit is in random access. Access times on a SSD are 0.1 msec compared to 12-15 msec on a 7200 rpm drive. When you're bouncing around a lot from one thing to another, the SSD will feel a lot snappier.
.
Thanks --- for making my decision harder!
I am a "bouncer arounder" of the first order, but I'm also a data packrat who wants all my key stuff - tons of large RAW and tiff files with emailable jpeg backups (I do fine art photography), 10K + of music and video files, etc., with my notebook wherever I am - without dragging around another drive.
Still, since my notebook's a 12" 1.33 iBook G4 Tiger and my old Photoshop warhorse an AMD Athlon XP with 1.5 G Ram, a new main machine (15" MBP) that's about 6 revs and three OS's newer than either will hopefully be thrilling enough with the replaceable 500 GB 7200 to start.....
Because it's not the sequential speeds that make SSD a great purchase it's the extremely low latency and the MUCH faster random reads/writes (on a good SSD like the Intel) that obliterate the fastest drives.
Random read/writes are well below the speeds of the SATA bus but they are crucial for a system that is snappy and multitasks well.
In fact read the sequential numbers from a SSD vendor and then go right to the meat and potatoes and find their random numbers. They are all maketing the "sizzle" with high sequential numbers but unless your day is comprised of doing large file copy again and again and again I'd advise to you towards the features that will deliver better real world results for daily computing.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Though let me not downplay sequential speeds either but day to day computing favors
random.
I think that we're going to see SSD speeds limited by the SATA bus even when the new 6Gbps SATA bus hits next year. There's a consortium working on making SSD more interoperable at www.onfi.org and their roadmap already contains SSD speeds of 400MBps and I'm assuming this is from a single drive!
Though let me not downplay sequential speeds either but day to day computing favors
random.
I think that we're going to see SSD speeds limited by the SATA bus even when the new 6Gbps SATA bus hits next year. There's a consortium working on making SSD more interoperable at www.onfi.org and their roadmap already contains SSD speeds of 400MBps and I'm assuming this is from a single drive!
Price!
The fast drives are still very expensive, and the cheaper drives aren't very good at all.
I'm still telling people to wait until next year sometime. We should see a good decline in the better drives by then, and hopefully, the poor drives (and controllers) will be driven out of the market. It's difficult for the consumer to know which is which.
Price!
The fast drives are still very expensive, and the cheaper drives aren't very good at all.
I'm still telling people to wait until next year sometime. We should see a good decline in the better drives by then, and hopefully, the poor drives (and controllers) will be driven out of the market. It's difficult for the consumer to know which is which.
I read that SSD should evolve at a rate that's slightly faster than Moore's Law which is good. I also read that they will hit a wall at 20nm. The next SSD should be at 34nm from a few vendors like Intel/Nec so I figure they'll end up at something like 28nm for the 2011 batch and then 20nm in 2013?