Linked by David Adams on Sat 31st Jul 2010 06:31 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems AMD plans to start shipping the USB 3-equipped chipset in the fourth quarter of 2010, beating Intel to the post. Intel hasn't announced its official plans for integrated USB 3 support yet, but various sources say it's not expected until we're well into 2011.
Thread beginning with comment 434876
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lightspeak
by Kivada on Sat 31st Jul 2010 08:27 UTC
Kivada
Member since:
2010-07-07

Can haz powered Lightspeak nao?

Seriously, USB is a pretty lame interconnects, even in it's latest iteration, how it won out over Firewire is beyond me, and spare me the "Apple's greedy $1 licensing" spiel. If you think USB is better then you have never used Firewire and no not why it is THE standard for audio and video work since USB's latency is just too high as well as it's low sustainable transfer rate.

With the current version of FW being able to handle 3.2 Gbps and with the next version (IEEE P1394d) doubling that to 6.4Gbps it should be no contest considering that FW is actually able to get close to it's rated speed while I've never seen USB ever get within miles of it's rated speed.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lightspeak
by Lennie on Sat 31st Jul 2010 09:15 in reply to "Lightspeak"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Maybe FW is more complicated to implement and thus more expensive or there are very few manufacturers of chips which keep the prices high.

This is what is said on Wikipedia:

"However, the royalty which Apple and other patent holders initially demanded from users of FireWire (US$0.25 per end-user system) and the more expensive hardware needed to implement it (US$1–$2), both of which have since been dropped[citation needed], have prevented FireWire from displacing USB in low-end mass-market computer peripherals, where product cost is a major constraint."

I do know that in IT/electronics everything wants to gravitate towars a mono-culture/monopoly. And if USB has a very large part of the market (because of a slightly lower price), it will mean bulk prices go down for those chips.

Maybe we'll never know.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Lightspeak
by Kivada on Sat 31st Jul 2010 09:29 in reply to "RE: Lightspeak"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Yah, we get what they pay for, which is disconcerting as most companies these days only look at next quarter profits without having any kind of long term goal, which as we have seen time and time again has caused nothing but bad things, not just in IT.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Lightspeak
by kaiwai on Sat 31st Jul 2010 12:12 in reply to "Lightspeak"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Not only the low latency is good but the sustained throughput when compared to USB2 is awesome. People look at 480mbps for USB2 and fail to understand it is the burst rate rather than the actual throughput. I've yet to see my hard disk get above 100mbps (15MBps) when transferring files to my external hard disk and yet I'd have no problems with a sustained throughput on my old firewire hard disk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Lightspeak
by bannor99 on Sat 31st Jul 2010 18:24 in reply to "RE: Lightspeak"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

On the PC platform, USB2 performs well enough for simple file storage / transfer, which is what most home users made us of.
My Gigabyte mainboard and a Dell laptop both have FireWire 400 built-in so I bought an external enclosure
and cables. End result is that the difference in performance isn't worth it for the cost premium.

For what I paid for the enclosure and cables plus another $20, I recently bought a USB3 enclosure, an add-in card for my desktop and 2 USB3 cables - the performance improvement over anything apart from eSATA is astonishing.
Unless FireWire bumps the speed way above the current 800 that readily available and makes is cost competitive with USB3, there's no way they'll make any inroads against USB

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Lightspeak
by aaronb on Sun 1st Aug 2010 19:31 in reply to "RE: Lightspeak"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

I consistency get around 29MBs with external hard drivers (Both read and write).

Flash drives seem to get around 29MBs read and 15MBs write.

One short coming of USB seems to be when all CPU's are fully loaded, throughput decreases.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Lightspeak
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 31st Jul 2010 19:47 in reply to "Lightspeak"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If you think USB is better then you have never used Firewire


And if you think Firewire's impressive, you've never used eSATA or any moden SCSI implementation. Both make Firewire look like a pathetic slowpoke.

Only two things have kept Firewire alive this long. The first was Apple's "Not Invented Here" stubborn refusal to support USB 2, until years after everyone else supported it. And the second was DV cams with FW support.

With the current version of FW being able to handle 3.2 Gbps and with the next version (IEEE P1394d) doubling that to 6.4Gbps it should be no contest


LOL! There are barely any devices that support FW 800, let alone the 1600 and 3200 variants (even though the standard was ratified back in 2007). With that track record, would expect shipping 6.4Gbps Firewire devices sometime around 2015.

considering that FW is actually able to get close to it's rated speed while I've never seen USB ever get within miles of it's rated speed.


Of course, the difference is that the people behind USB don't have their heads firmly inserted in their asses. Case in point: FW 800's lack of backwards-compatibility with FW 400. I would love to have been in that planning meeting.

"Hey guys, I got a brilliant idea! Let's introduce a newer, faster version of the standard... and get this, lets make the cables incompatible! That way, we'll fragment an already-tiny niche, and even our existing installed base will have to jump through hoops to use the new version!"

Reply Parent Score: 4