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 434889
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Lightspeak
by kaiwai on Sat 31st Jul 2010 12:12 UTC 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[3]: Lightspeak
by kaiwai on Sun 1st Aug 2010 07:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Lightspeak"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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


But like I said, it is entirely useless if it is only a burst transfer with realistic rates being only around 15MBps, and USB3 isn't going to be much better either. Making something simple maybe great in terms of publishing data rates and lowering production cost but it is annoying when I've yet to see devices even get close to those data rates.

For Firewire to compete it would need to lower the cost and it can't because if they lowered the cost it would remove all the advantages that come with firewire in the first place. It is fast, reliable and low latency because it does all its stuff in hardware, it has strict standards and guidelines - so in other words you can't have cheap, poor quality implementations because the standard is that demanding. I would sooner the Firewire 'alliance' market the virtues of it and get more hardware, even if it means some sort of arrangement to lower the barrier to entry until critical mass is reached.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: Lightspeak
by kaiwai on Sun 1st Aug 2010 21:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Lightspeak"
kaiwai 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.


I wonder whether the hard disk is limited because of something to do with Mac OS X and how it handles USB and/or FAT file system - funny enough when I convert it over to HFS+ the throughput improves but it still isn't close to that of the Windows world so are there issues relating to how things are handled on Mac OS X? is there a weigh up between conserving power and throughput given that power management is baked right into the I/O Kit where power management is automatic rather than the driver developer manually regulating power management.

Reply Parent Score: 2