USB3 significantly faster than FW800

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3858/t...k-3tb-review/5



Mac FW800: 75MB/sec. Win USB3: 150MB/sec.



Also, the Mac USB2 implementation is roughly half the speed of Windows. 17MB/sec vs 33MB/sec sequential read.



Your thoughts?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post


    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3858/t...k-3tb-review/5



    Mac FW800: 75MB/sec. Win USB3: 150MB/sec.



    Also, the Mac USB2 implementation is roughly half the speed of Windows. 17MB/sec vs 33MB/sec sequential read.



    Your thoughts?



    I want USB 3 followed shortly by Light Peak.



    Current ports are just falling behind now in speed which hampers SSD speeds and HDD speeds alike.
  • Reply 2 of 9
    It is the performance of the hard disk data transfer via USB / Firewire. I don't see how we can draw generic conclusions based on that. Anandtech also states they use a specialized motherboard that gives more USB 3 bandwidth than normal motherboards.



    Quote:

    There is one more stipulation that I must bring up. Most mainstream motherboards with an Intel chipset don’t give USB 3 controllers enough bandwidth to deliver these sorts of results. I was using a Gigabyte X58A-UD5, but many other boards dangle the USB 3 controller off of a single PCIe x1 lane running at 250MB/s (125MB/s each direction). In these cases you’ll still get better than USB 2.0 performance but you won’t see the same numbers I got here.



    On a intresting note, as per the article, if you transfer a large amount of data, the hard disk heats up to 65-69 degrees centigrade. They actually had to cool it off and then restart it after a while. The data transfer rates came down by more than 50% when temperatures rose.



    p.s.> firewire 3200 is supposed to be the one to compete with usb 3, right? I say get lightpeak integrated and be done with it at the earliest.
  • Reply 3 of 9
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,209moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I want USB 3 followed shortly by Light Peak.



    Intel look like they will try and get it the other way round for some reason. They are holding back USB 3 support for 2 years but bringing in Light Peak next year. It should have the ability to support powering devices and multiple protocols on one connection. Apple could replace all of the ports on a laptop with 2-4 light peak ports and support any protocol required. i know adaptors are cumbersome at times and expensive when Apple are involved but I personally want to see a single high-speed standard take over the multitude of ports there are now.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    Intel's level of support is irrelevant. USB 3.0 is on the market and the ports will be built into many computers sold next year.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    What FuturePastNow said. Many mobos have had proper USB3 implementations since late 2009.



    I think the number of devices using FW800 was eclipsed as soon as two USB3 devices shipped.



    Now I can see why. USB3 devices are not only faster but have mainstream, not Mac user, prices.



    Economy of scale.
  • Reply 6 of 9
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,209moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    Intel's level of support is irrelevant. USB 3.0 is on the market and the ports will be built into many computers sold next year.



    Given their marketshare, I'd say that they certainly have the power to delay its widespread uptake and in many ways, I would agree with that move because Intel sees Light Peak as being the only connection we will ever need - in other words, no more peripheral upgrades - so why not skip USB 3 and move to the fastest we can get?



    The technology supposedly scales to 100Gbps - over 10x faster than the fastest SATA connection.



    An ideal might be a combined USB 3 and Light Peak plug. This way it's backwards compatible with all USB products but entirely future proof.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    Now that would kick ass.



    still, the present is now, and it looks to me like money-grubbing intel wants to sell even more mobos once they deign to support USB3. The same intel who changes CPU sockets arbitrarily for the same reason.
  • Reply 8 of 9
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    SUSTAINED transfer rate is the key, not burst transfer rate!!! That is why FireWire is much better than USB, besides other features like Target Disk Mode, etc.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    Those sequential reads were not bursts.



    Also, the Mac, with USB2, scored half the bandwidth (17MB) of a PC (33MB/s), also with USB2. Both are Intel-based mobos.
Sign In or Register to comment.