Mobile Chipsets Don't Take Advantage of SSDs faster than SATA150 spec ? - Page 2

10th March 2009, 02:47

First site I googled up: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...B.14106.0.html

9400M laptop and X25-M drive. Seems to look like 1.5 GB/s bottleneck if going by the read performance? I am very surprised by this, would have thought the 9400M was better...

10th March 2009, 08:39

Well, there is some debate whether there is any SSD that has sustained transfer rates above 150MB/s.
Burst speeds have certainly exceeded SATA-I.

thorgal · 15th June 2009, 12:19

I guess this thread gets a bit of a renewal now that Apple's new notebooks seem to get a new 1,5Gb SATA speed cap.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15410

jmke · 15th June 2009, 13:16

they wanted to save money by using a cheaper chipset which suffices for HDDs but is too slow to get max performance from SSD. and this in a $1100 product...

thorgal · 15th June 2009, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

they wanted to save money by using a cheaper chipset which suffices for HDDs but is too slow to get max performance from SSD. and this in a $1100 product...

There's no evidence of a different chipset than before, so what exactly is going on, nobody knows.

jmke · 15th June 2009, 14:55

Quote:

There's no evidence of a different chipset than before

so still an old chipset then with SATA 1.5gbs

jmke · 15th June 2009, 21:53

Quote:

Unfortunately, the current version of the MacBook Pro appears to only support 1.5Gbps SATA. I’m not sure whether this is an OS, drive or hardware problem, but your drive is limited to transfer rates of 150MB/s. For most laptop drives, this isn’t a problem. Your 5400RPM SATA drive just isn’t going to be moving anything at 150MB/s. The real problem lies with high performance SSDs.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3582&p=2

15th June 2009, 12:19	#13
thorgal [M] Reviewer Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,887	I guess this thread gets a bit of a renewal now that Apple's new notebooks seem to get a new 1,5Gb SATA speed cap. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15410 __________________

15th June 2009, 13:16	#14
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	they wanted to save money by using a cheaper chipset which suffices for HDDs but is too slow to get max performance from SSD. and this in a $1100 product... __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mobile Computers to Adopt USB 3.0 Faster than Desktop Systems	jmke	WebNews	0	14th June 2010 21:50
Sandy Bridge dual-core mobile CPU ~20 percent faster compared to Arrandale	jmke	WebNews	0	17th February 2010 13:40
Faster 34nm SSDs from Intel in Q2 2010	jmke	WebNews	0	4th December 2009 12:34
Intel Launches Z-P140 PATA SSDs for Mobile Devices	jmke	WebNews	0	17th December 2007 17:37
Intel Introduces '3-Series' Chipsets at Computex	jmke	WebNews	0	5th June 2007 18:40
AMD quietly adds faster Athlons, renames chipsets	jmke	WebNews	0	12th December 2006 16:01
AMD New 64-Bit Mobile Processor for High-Performance Notebook PCs	Sidney	WebNews	0	14th April 2005 09:02
AMD Rings In The Season With A New Mobile AMD Sempron™ Processor	jmke	WebNews	0	23rd November 2004 17:30
IBM, Intel Announce Mobile Workstation Pilot for Design Engineers	Sidney	WebNews	0	8th June 2004 07:43

10th March 2009, 02:47	#11
Kougar Posts: n/a	First site I googled up: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...B.14106.0.html 9400M laptop and X25-M drive. Seems to look like 1.5 GB/s bottleneck if going by the read performance? I am very surprised by this, would have thought the 9400M was better...

10th March 2009, 08:39	#12
Faiakes Posts: n/a	Well, there is some debate whether there is any SSD that has sustained transfer rates above 150MB/s. Burst speeds have certainly exceeded SATA-I.