Upcoming FireWire spec revs things up to 3.2Gbps

USB 3.0 really threw down this September with a theoretical max throughput of 4Gbps, but it looks like FireWire isn't going down without a fight. The latest and greatest FireWire version, dubbed "S3200" by those creatives up in marketing, uses the same ports and cables as FireWire 800, but boosts speeds to 3.2Gbps, which should make it pretty competitive with USB in the real world -- though actual real-life speeds will probably depend on who's adding up the bits. According to the 1394 Trade Association: "The S3200 standard will sustain the position of IEEE 1394 as the absolute performance leader," but we hear they're biased. They are claiming that where current FireWire 800 hard drives can move 90MB per second, S3200 should be able to do 400MB. Speed concerns aside, the power delivery, peer to peer architecture, and handy networking capabilities of 1394 mean that FireWire should hopefully be around for a long time to come.

[Via Slashdot]

[Bad Beaver @ Dec 15th 2007 10:11AM]

Nice.

[Chuckles McGee @ Dec 15th 2007 11:39AM]

Hey, as long as they're both getting a lot faster, I can't complain!

[eufouria @ Dec 15th 2007 10:16AM]

Put that on my MP3 player. STAT!

[Meredith Baxter Berney @ Dec 15th 2007 1:19PM]

My first iPod is firewire.

[Jon Doe @ Dec 15th 2007 4:01PM]

Yah and your latest iPod isn't. What's your point?

[michael kingery @ Dec 15th 2007 10:16AM]

better logo, better port design, better power, better throughput...

if only it was as popular as usb :(

[Homeboy @ Dec 15th 2007 10:26AM]

Firewire is popular and many geeks prefer it over USB because it's faster and doesn't rely on the computer CPU to handle the tranfer.

The big problem with Firewire is royalty fees, they are quite high which is why many manufacturers don't bother with it.

[Salsa Shark @ Dec 15th 2007 10:46AM]

If the mini firewire cables were even a fraction as reliable as mini USB cables, then maybe you'd be on to something. Nothing worse than trying to dump footage of a videocamera only to find out the cable went bad yet again...who came up with that ridiculously fragile pin design?

[Josh @ Dec 15th 2007 1:45PM]

I have never had a firewire cable fail on me.

I still can't believe apple switched from firewire to USB only for the iPod, USB just takes all to long to transfer anything, really bothers me when i am moving 4gb of photos to my computer...

[theberries @ Dec 15th 2007 10:24AM]

So, maybe I have this wrong but:

Find me a bus that can write at 400mb/s to a hard drive and you might have something. I know this SATA drive in my macbook read/writes at a max of 150mb/s. At least that's what the bus allows.

I know, from personal experience, that it's often the transmission medium that slows things down. In this case, I suppose it's the bus in consumer grade computers such as this macbook. This new firewire speed won't help me a bit.

Now, if you had a commercial grade product, say a Netapp 3060 with a 4gbit backplane, 4gbit Network connection, and 13 15k drives, you might get 200mb/s.

But, I suppose something is better than nothing. At least you're ruling out one point of slow-down.

[Nick Gold @ Dec 15th 2007 10:45AM]

You're off-base methinks. SATA II is 3Gbit/s, so if you have a RAID of several drives, having Firewire "S3200" would be pretty useful -- more akin to eSATA in speed, and pretty close to 4Gbit fibre channel. This kind of thing is pretty pointless for consumers, and pretty useful for video folks. A single stream of uncompressed HD video (4:2:2 10-bit 720p60 or 1080i60) is about 160MB/s (that's bytes, not bits.) This S3200 standard would allow you to pull two of those streams at once off an external RAID device, which, for instance, would allow you to do a realtime cross-dissolve on uncompressed HD in Final Cut Pro without having to render the effect just to see what it looks like. Some devices and connection interfaces already allow for this, such as this guy: http://www.dulcesystems.com/html/pro_dq.html

[Ignacio @ Dec 15th 2007 11:45AM]

"So, maybe I have this wrong but:

Find me a bus that can write at 400mb/s to a hard drive and you might have something. I know this SATA drive in my macbook read/writes at a max of 150mb/s. At least that's what the bus allows."

You've got it wrong. It's 150MB/s (Mega *Bytes* per second), not 150mb/s (mega bits) - big difference ;-)

[dagamer34 @ Dec 15th 2007 11:51AM]

You forget that Firewire devices can be daisy-chained to each other, but ultimately have to pass through one bus to your computer. Only a certain amount of bandwidth is available through that pipe.

[AlexL @ Dec 15th 2007 9:31PM]

Theberries is clearly aware of the difference between bits and bytes, he just didn't use the correct capitalization to distinguish the two. Notice he pointed out that no hard drive is capable of writing at 400MB/s (which is true), because 400MB/s is equal to 3.2gbps. This is a legitimate concern. Even though the SATA II bus is capable of 3gbps and S3200 is capable of 3.2gbps, the hard drive itself cannot reach those speeds. But that doesn't mean S3200 FireWire isn't useful, though, with SSDs becoming more affordable and replacing hard drives and the ability to chain FireWire devices together, this bandwidth certainly will come in handy.

[Ghen @ Dec 16th 2007 8:10AM]

Everyone please, think ahead. By the time the spec gets finalized and in your computer we'll all be working with SSD externals. And half a year or a year later SSD drives will be in the terabyte capacity range, perfect for a high end video editor.

bus speeds for hard drives are going to make the first jump in years since the raptor's release!

[Adrian Williams @ Dec 15th 2007 10:45AM]

Just let it die already

[jere @ Dec 15th 2007 2:41PM]

When I got my new macbook, it let me transfer all the files from my old ibook onto it using firewire. It took like ten minutes or something. Firewire is so much faster than usb.

[ethana2 @ Dec 15th 2007 9:20PM]

I'ma get me a frigging PCIe cable. I'm sick of all this.

If your protocol has royalties, I wish it death.
If your protocol doesn't scale frequencies infinitely, death is imminent.
If your protocol can't go wireless without modification, it is stunted.
If it can't do parallel frequency offset connection multiplexing, it's slow.
If it can't scale pins, it's stuck.

Give me a protocol drafted by the denizens of kernel trap, and I'm much more likely to be a happy man.

[Kelmon @ Dec 17th 2007 3:15AM]

I really hope that doesn't happen. If USB becomes better then I'd be happy to support it but at the moment it's real-world speed lags behind even the older FireWire 400, let alone FireWire 800. I see no point supporting an inferior product so I will continue to buy FireWire products until there is something better (eSATA, perhaps but the cost of entry is still a bit high).

[ekwmin @ Dec 17th 2007 3:45PM]

It's funny how some people assume that something isn't useful just because they don't find it useful or they don't know anything about it. In case of the latter the solution is pretty simple, just seat back, read what others are saying, and learn. maybe even ask few useful questions. I'm sure the community will gladly assist.

[syadasti @ Dec 15th 2007 10:47AM]

Wow next generation USB or Firewire, thats amazingly fast if they didn't already have 3Gb/s eSATA for over three years now...

[syadasti @ Dec 15th 2007 10:55AM]

Not to mention next generation will be 6Gb/s

[Jon Doe @ Dec 15th 2007 4:30PM]

Yah because when I walk out and buy a new external hard drive ESATA is in every drive I look at and is cheap as hell. Its a golden era for external drive users....oh wait. My bad. ESATA isn't in shit without needing an external adapter. FireWire 800 isn't much better but at least for a Macbook Pro users I don't need to drag a damn external card with me to use my SATA FW800 cage.

[syadasti @ Dec 15th 2007 4:57PM]

Bzzt wrong there are 313 esata products - enclosures, mainstream external HDDs, motherboards, etc etc available from newegg.com right now:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=esata&x=0&y=0

All of them have offered more bandwidth for almost 4 years now compared to any type of firewire (ie since eSATA was release).

[Sam Winter @ Jan 1st 2008 6:47PM]

Your comment is extremely shortsighted.
Obviously eSATA is great for external HDDs, but I haven't seen many (read: 0) camcorders, digital cameras, MP3 players/DAPs/PMPs, scanners, printers, etc that use eSATA.

Firewire has many more applications than just external hdds. The next generation of consumer electronics devices are going to need a faster interface than firewire400/USB2 and this looks to be the best option. Already there are consumer level HD camcorders that take ages to transfer footage over USB2/Firewire400.

I really hope that this version of firewire finally takes over stupid USB, because it is such a superior format in almost every way possible. I can't BELIEVE that people buy 500 and 750GB external drives that use USB2!!! HAHAHA. That would take FOREVER to just fill the thing up.

[Rudiger @ Dec 15th 2007 11:07AM]

Question:

What are the expected latency figures for FireWire and USB (both old and new specs)?

It's not just about bandwidth; latency is important for a lot of applications. Music-making, anyone?

[GregA @ Dec 15th 2007 12:31PM]

Every computer I have purchased for several years now has had both USB and 1394 support, so it doesnt really matter...

For music recording the industry seems to be moving away from computer based recording devices and going back to stand alone (or computer controlled) devices, then you just transfer (in near real time) the samples from your recording surface to your computer for mixing... Or whatever it is you do... Mostly because that technique makes products that don't generate the clicks and pops caused by latency that you are worried about. See the Tascam x-48 or DM4800 for two examples of professional level recording equipment that avoid the whole issue.

Faster firewire is for faster video download and hard disk speeds. Even 48 channels of 96khz audio is not that much compared to modern computer hardware...

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Dec 15th 2007 1:29PM]

Latencies on FireWire theoretically are worse, because FireWire supports bus mastering and any device on bus can at any time interrupt traffic with its own needs.

Practically, due to architecture of USB, its latencies are very high (go into milliseconds).

On FireWire, everything happen on an event. On USB bus, PC has to query manually its state periodically (normally 512 times per second). That often drag all things down.

From my experience, FireWire has lower latencies and lower CPU load. But USB is slightly faster on bulk data transfers (e.g. external hard drives). For real-time stuff FireWire is also better since it (bus) supports bandwidth allocation. But such solutions cost a fortune. People instead prefer dumbly to raise throughput instead...

[Nick @ Dec 17th 2007 10:40AM]

interesting I've always heard that USB is better for short bursts of transfer and Firewire is better for big long transfers.

[Ipaq3115 @ Dec 15th 2007 11:19AM]

Can't wait to internet that fast...

[JosephMohmed @ Dec 15th 2007 12:55PM]

I know, I'm only internetting at 300Kb/s right now.

[Ipaq3115 @ Dec 15th 2007 1:00PM]

Yea...

For me that would be pretty fast I've got under 50Kb/s...

[rv @ Dec 15th 2007 6:50PM]

For me that would be pretty fast I've got under 50Kb/s

Sorry, I had to laugh...

[Ipaq3115 @ Dec 15th 2007 8:14PM]

@rv

and why did you have to laugh?

[ethana2 @ Dec 15th 2007 9:24PM]

He probably lives in japan or korea or something, where they actually have competition in the market, and competent politicians.

'It's not just something you can dump things on; it's not a big truck...'
...dump your mom. (sorry, you know what I mean..)

[Ireland @ Dec 15th 2007 12:19PM]

Is that Gigabits or Gigabytes?

[Kurtis @ Dec 15th 2007 2:35PM]

b is bit
B is byte

Gb is gigabit
GB is gigabyte

It's gigabit. In general, transfer speeds are described in bits, while storage is described in bytes.

[Darryl @ Dec 16th 2007 12:24AM]

I don't like how capitalization makes all the difference. Too easy to mess up. sometimes i dont capitalize 2 save time

[Joe @ Dec 17th 2007 9:44AM]

"sometimes i dont capitalize 2 save time"

If you don't want to capitalize because it "saves time," then you're stuck writing out the full word. Kinda like how you "US" is a country and "us" is a pronoun. Your choice, Lazy McLaziness.

[roger_huston @ Dec 15th 2007 12:29PM]

Well, if they didn't charge so much for the rights to use it, it may become more popular. Why do you think USB was invented in the first place and it is on all the PC's? Who do you think own's the rights to Firewire?

- Roger

[Eric @ Dec 15th 2007 1:37PM]

Apple is a major patent holder for Firewire...

They're also largely responsible for the mass-use of USB.

[Jon Doe @ Dec 15th 2007 4:35PM]

Eric you are a fanboi tool. Fact 1. Apple was NOT the first to use USB...contrary to what fanbois would tell you I saw USB in Compaq deskpros as early as 96-97. The first Mac to have USB was the Mac Pro G4 in '98.
By the time Apple started really adobting it, USB was already WELL established in PC desktops and laptops.
I love revisionist fans, be they fans of Apple, Microsoft, or the Iraq war. Their world's sky always has the most beautiful shade of bullshit brown.

[Quix @ Dec 15th 2007 6:05PM]

Jon Doe, *you* are a fanboi tool.

Let me repeat what Eric said:

"They're also largely responsible for the mass-use of USB."

He didn't say Apple was the *first* to use USB. Reading is fundamental.

And the first iMac, which boldly dumped older technologies and went with USB exclusively, is widely credited for the rapid acceleration of USB's acceptance in the consumer computing market.

Think, *then* rant.

[roger_huston @ Dec 15th 2007 7:39PM]

Actually, the reason Apple is credited for the quick adoption of USB is because they wanted so much money for their Firewire license that PC manufactures went elsewhere. And we all know it wasn't because it was better. USB 1.0 was only useful for your mouse and keyboard when Firewire was already useful for external drives.

Again, this was Apple trying to make others pay more than the industry wants to spend and they go elsewhere. Familiar story, but I guess Steve Jobs will continue to do the exact same thing until he gets a different result.

I guess everyone for some strange reason everyone wants to be like Qualcomm. Few companies can endure an entire industry's hatred and survive, let alone thrive. But then again, Steve loves to be hated. After all he is better than everyone else and we are all simply jealous of his vision (even if he did steal it from Xerox.).

Long Live Steve, Long Live the King!

- Roger

[Tyler @ Dec 15th 2007 12:30PM]

So if it uses the same ports and cables as Firewire 800, is it out of line to say this might work on existing MB's and MBP's in the future with an update of some sort?

[PeterF @ Dec 15th 2007 1:10PM]

yes

[JeffM @ Dec 16th 2007 12:17AM]

At these speeds? Seems unlikely- as far as compatibility that seems more probable.

The older B silicon probably wont hang with the 3.2Gbps speed...

[Sndgeek @ Dec 15th 2007 1:54PM]

@Greg A: Tascam market share > Digidesign ProTools? Proof?

[GregA @ Dec 15th 2007 2:22PM]

LOL, thank you for proving my point for me. Digidesign is probably the leader in moving away from using computers as the DAW control surface. Thanks for playing though.

[Chris @ Dec 15th 2007 9:16PM]

on the contrary, Digidesign is heavily pushing for USB/FireWire peripherals as control surfaces...and the recording is ACTUALLY still handled by the computer itself. This, my friend, is still the industry standard.

The all-in-one workstations that you are seeing pop up are to provide slightly-above-entry-level solutions for people who want to pursue music without spending tens of thousands of dollars on gear...