Hi Does anyone know if the new Macbook/MacBook Pros support the coming SATA II 2.5 drives at 3.0Gb/s or will it only be in the next revision..?
Also if they do which do and which don't?
thanks
Maybe, but that mostly depends on when the new models come out. I would expect some time in December or January.
Also (and I realize this may be a bit anal-retentive), but using the nomenclature SATA/150 and SATA/300 is more logical than SATA I and SATA II, simply because ATA/133 was 1.33 Gbps, SATA/150 is 1.5 Gbps, and SATA/300 is 3.0 Gbps.
Maybe, but that mostly depends on when the new models come out. I would expect some time in December or January.
Also (and I realize this may be a bit anal-retentive), but using the nomenclature SATA/150 and SATA/300 is more logical than SATA I and SATA II, simply because ATA/133 was 1.33 Gbps, SATA/150 is 1.5 Gbps, and SATA/300 is 3.0 Gbps.
OK so no current MBP has (or will have - given firmware updates etc) support for SATA/300 running at full-speed.?.
Not to be a pain in the ass, but why does it matter? A Macbook Pro (and a Macbook, and all notebooks <20in) can only use one HDD between 5400 and 7200 rpm. You're not going to break 150 MB/s (1.5 Gbps) transfer speeds for several reasons:
1) Single 2.5 inch 7200 rpm HDDs are gonna be hard-pressed to read/write fast enough to make SATA/300 necessary. I doubt the fastest drive available for the MBP can saturate a SATA/150 connection.
2) To be able to read or write at 150 MB/s, you'd have to be doing some hard core stuff (even if your HDD could handle it. Copying from your FW 800 is going to be the bottleneck as max FW speed is 100 MB/s (which isn't a real-world speed either). Maybe if you were utilizing both a USB2 and a Firewire drive while transferring something via LAN.
My 160 GBx2 7200rpm RAID 0 in my Mac Pro probably wouldn't break 100 MB/s very easily in real world applications (but could in benchmarks easily). This is because I would likely have to copy from another RAID to have something that can be read that fast.
In short, unless I'm very much mistaken, SATA/300 isn't necessary in a laptop for the speed. It may have other features, but the speed isn't an issue.
Zach, capturing live uncompressed 1080i HD will require this kind of transfer speeds. and that's not necessarily for hi-end use only - ppl are looking to do this with canon's US$900 hv20. for your reference the previous thread on 'a truly robust MBP' had a discussion about this type of set up for indy film-makers.
Clearly I missed that thread about the hv20 with the MBP. Now I feel kind of stupid...
don't take it so hard! Sybaritic's posts in particular are particularly worth reading. though we veered away from the original topic to focus on i/o options that would really boost the MBP for indy film-making.
Not to be a pain in the ass, but why does it matter? A Macbook Pro (and a Macbook, and all notebooks <20in) can only use one HDD between 5400 and 7200 rpm. You're not going to break 150 MB/s (1.5 Gbps) transfer speeds for several reasons:
1) Single 2.5 inch 7200 rpm HDDs are gonna be hard-pressed to read/write fast enough to make SATA/300 necessary. I doubt the fastest drive available for the MBP can saturate a SATA/150 connection.
2) To be able to read or write at 150 MB/s, you'd have to be doing some hard core stuff (even if your HDD could handle it. Copying from your FW 800 is going to be the bottleneck as max FW speed is 100 MB/s (which isn't a real-world speed either). Maybe if you were utilizing both a USB2 and a Firewire drive while transferring something via LAN.
My 160 GBx2 7200rpm RAID 0 in my Mac Pro probably wouldn't break 100 MB/s very easily in real world applications (but could in benchmarks easily). This is because I would likely have to copy from another RAID to have something that can be read that fast.
In short, unless I'm very much mistaken, SATA/300 isn't necessary in a laptop for the speed. It may have other features, but the speed isn't an issue.
Zach thanks for reviving this thread, am I under some illusion that when using a laptop one of the major hits for speed is the SATA/150 bus vis-a-vis SATA/300 bus in desktops. I wasn't referring to usb/firewire 400 or 800 but whether the internal bandwidth could, albeit in theory, upgraded.
To put it another way... Running your MacPro on a 2.5" Sata 150 (laptop HD)... do you expect a speed hit on not....? TIA.
;-).
forget about copying form x drive to y drive... think loading an application from an internal hard drive etc etc.....
Basically there SATA 300 2.5" drives are just about here...... Will it require a new macbook(pro) to take advantage of the speed bump.... If there is one. that is my question.
Zach thanks for reviving this thread, am I under some illusion that when using a laptop one of the major hits for speed is the SATA/150 bus vis-a-vis SATA/300 bus in desktops. I wasn't referring to usb/firewire 400 or 800 but whether the internal bandwidth could, albeit in theory, upgraded.
To put it another way... Running your MacPro on a 2.5" Sata 150 (laptop HD)... do you expect a speed hit on not....? TIA.
;-).
forget about copying form x drive to y drive... think loading an application from an internal hard drive etc etc.....
Basically there SATA 300 2.5" drives are just about here...... Will it require a new macbook(pro) to take advantage of the speed bump.... If there is one. that is my question.
My MacPro doesn't saturate the SATA bus. Only on my largest HDD (400 GB @ 7200 rpm) do I risk saturating a 150 MB bus, and even then, probably not.
My point is threefold:
1) There aren't fast enough laptop drives to saturate SATA 150. And if there is one, it'd get only slight advantage from a SATA 300 bus. Obviously, I'm ignoring some franken-laptop that uses a server/professional class 2.5 inch drive at 10-15 thousand RPMs, because that'd cause the laptop to catch fire.
2) Even if there were a HDD that needed a SATA 300 bus, you'd have a hard time filling it with data. Unless it's like straight streaming of data utilising a lot of SIMD and SSE instructions, the processor probably couldn't handle that much data. Maybe it could, but probably not.
3) You can't really write data into the laptop all that fast. Even with FW 800, that's still the bottleneck. If you were doing a direct write into the laptop HDD, you couldn't saturate SATA150. The other thread is talking about an HDMI input, which the MBP doesn't have currently. Obviously that'd affect things if it had one.
Comments
Hi Does anyone know if the new Macbook/MacBook Pros support the coming SATA II 2.5 drives at 3.0Gb/s or will it only be in the next revision..?
Also if they do which do and which don't?
thanks
Maybe, but that mostly depends on when the new models come out. I would expect some time in December or January.
Also (and I realize this may be a bit anal-retentive), but using the nomenclature SATA/150 and SATA/300 is more logical than SATA I and SATA II, simply because ATA/133 was 1.33 Gbps, SATA/150 is 1.5 Gbps, and SATA/300 is 3.0 Gbps.
Maybe, but that mostly depends on when the new models come out. I would expect some time in December or January.
Also (and I realize this may be a bit anal-retentive), but using the nomenclature SATA/150 and SATA/300 is more logical than SATA I and SATA II, simply because ATA/133 was 1.33 Gbps, SATA/150 is 1.5 Gbps, and SATA/300 is 3.0 Gbps.
OK so no current MBP has (or will have - given firmware updates etc) support for SATA/300 running at full-speed.?.
This post has caught my attention..
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...highlight=AHCI
1) Single 2.5 inch 7200 rpm HDDs are gonna be hard-pressed to read/write fast enough to make SATA/300 necessary. I doubt the fastest drive available for the MBP can saturate a SATA/150 connection.
2) To be able to read or write at 150 MB/s, you'd have to be doing some hard core stuff (even if your HDD could handle it. Copying from your FW 800 is going to be the bottleneck as max FW speed is 100 MB/s (which isn't a real-world speed either). Maybe if you were utilizing both a USB2 and a Firewire drive while transferring something via LAN.
My 160 GBx2 7200rpm RAID 0 in my Mac Pro probably wouldn't break 100 MB/s very easily in real world applications (but could in benchmarks easily). This is because I would likely have to copy from another RAID to have something that can be read that fast.
In short, unless I'm very much mistaken, SATA/300 isn't necessary in a laptop for the speed. It may have other features, but the speed isn't an issue.
Clearly I missed that thread about the hv20 with the MBP. Now I feel kind of stupid...
don't take it so hard!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ght=robust+MBP
Not to be a pain in the ass, but why does it matter? A Macbook Pro (and a Macbook, and all notebooks <20in) can only use one HDD between 5400 and 7200 rpm. You're not going to break 150 MB/s (1.5 Gbps) transfer speeds for several reasons:
1) Single 2.5 inch 7200 rpm HDDs are gonna be hard-pressed to read/write fast enough to make SATA/300 necessary. I doubt the fastest drive available for the MBP can saturate a SATA/150 connection.
2) To be able to read or write at 150 MB/s, you'd have to be doing some hard core stuff (even if your HDD could handle it. Copying from your FW 800 is going to be the bottleneck as max FW speed is 100 MB/s (which isn't a real-world speed either). Maybe if you were utilizing both a USB2 and a Firewire drive while transferring something via LAN.
My 160 GBx2 7200rpm RAID 0 in my Mac Pro probably wouldn't break 100 MB/s very easily in real world applications (but could in benchmarks easily). This is because I would likely have to copy from another RAID to have something that can be read that fast.
In short, unless I'm very much mistaken, SATA/300 isn't necessary in a laptop for the speed. It may have other features, but the speed isn't an issue.
Zach thanks for reviving this thread, am I under some illusion that when using a laptop one of the major hits for speed is the SATA/150 bus vis-a-vis SATA/300 bus in desktops. I wasn't referring to usb/firewire 400 or 800 but whether the internal bandwidth could, albeit in theory, upgraded.
To put it another way... Running your MacPro on a 2.5" Sata 150 (laptop HD)... do you expect a speed hit on not....? TIA.
;-).
forget about copying form x drive to y drive... think loading an application from an internal hard drive etc etc.....
Basically there SATA 300 2.5" drives are just about here...... Will it require a new macbook(pro) to take advantage of the speed bump.... If there is one. that is my question.
Zach thanks for reviving this thread, am I under some illusion that when using a laptop one of the major hits for speed is the SATA/150 bus vis-a-vis SATA/300 bus in desktops. I wasn't referring to usb/firewire 400 or 800 but whether the internal bandwidth could, albeit in theory, upgraded.
To put it another way... Running your MacPro on a 2.5" Sata 150 (laptop HD)... do you expect a speed hit on not....? TIA.
;-).
forget about copying form x drive to y drive... think loading an application from an internal hard drive etc etc.....
Basically there SATA 300 2.5" drives are just about here...... Will it require a new macbook(pro) to take advantage of the speed bump.... If there is one. that is my question.
My MacPro doesn't saturate the SATA bus. Only on my largest HDD (400 GB @ 7200 rpm) do I risk saturating a 150 MB bus, and even then, probably not.
My point is threefold:
1) There aren't fast enough laptop drives to saturate SATA 150. And if there is one, it'd get only slight advantage from a SATA 300 bus. Obviously, I'm ignoring some franken-laptop that uses a server/professional class 2.5 inch drive at 10-15 thousand RPMs, because that'd cause the laptop to catch fire.
2) Even if there were a HDD that needed a SATA 300 bus, you'd have a hard time filling it with data. Unless it's like straight streaming of data utilising a lot of SIMD and SSE instructions, the processor probably couldn't handle that much data. Maybe it could, but probably not.
3) You can't really write data into the laptop all that fast. Even with FW 800, that's still the bottleneck. If you were doing a direct write into the laptop HDD, you couldn't saturate SATA150. The other thread is talking about an HDMI input, which the MBP doesn't have currently. Obviously that'd affect things if it had one.