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 434934
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Lightspeak
by bannor99 on Sat 31st Jul 2010 18:24 UTC 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[4]: Lightspeak
by bannor99 on Sun 1st Aug 2010 19:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Lightspeak"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

But like I said, it is entirely useless if it is only a burst transfer with realistic rates being only around 15MBps

What USB2 devices have you been using? I've been routinely transferring gigabytes of data from internal
disks to USB2 enclosures (mostly Vantec-branded) and
flash drives ( Patriot and OCZ ) and routinely get upwards of 20 MB/s for writes and 26-30 MB/s for reads.

and USB3 isn't going to be much better either.

Totally wrong - my Vantec USB3 enlosure, combined with
Asus U3S6 add-in card allow all my drives, including my SSDs (fastest of which is G.Skill (Indilinx) Falcon 64GB) to perform at native speeds. It matches eSATA - may even surpass it but I don't have anything fast enough to max out either interface.

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.

The USB interface rate is definitely misleading and I recall an engineer saying that, based on the spec, 40 MB/s would be an absolute maximum, not 60.
However, your experiences with 15 MB/s must have been a long time ago,with sub-standard equipment or very small file sizes. Many of the cheap flash drives have horrendous performance or have adequate read performance but execrable write speeds


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.

Then, I'm sorry to say that Firewire is doomed or will remain an expensive niche. It the IDE vs SCSI battle all over again. IDE was "good enough" and the price was right and started co-opting SCSI features and became SATA.
Now we have SATA and SAS which are one-way compatible
and SATA is good enough to be included in a number of servers and storage arrays.

Reply Parent Score: 2