USB 3.0 in the flesh

Get ready, speed freaks. USB 3.0, the oft-rumored, much-discussed, rarely seen new standard heading our way has been spotted, sliced, chopped, and diced at CES 2008. Actually, we just got a chance to check the connectors and compare with the old 2.0 standard (which the reps tell us is backward compatible, of course). With speeds of 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s), and a powering system which intelligently cuts the juice when you're not using a device, we have a feeling you'll want. Too bad we all have to wait till 2010... the year we make contact... with USB 3.0.

Gallery: USB 3.0 in the flesh

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[gregp @ Mar 7th 2008 2:26PM]

Geez, enhance those photos or use a flash!

[Mayank Agarwal @ Jan 10th 2008 1:51AM]

Or...you can use Firewire 800 now.

[Hashbrown_Hunter @ Jan 10th 2008 2:52AM]

Very true...

[Rik @ Jan 10th 2008 4:01AM]

No

[JohnTitor @ Jan 10th 2008 4:29AM]

or they could release Firewire S3200

[ariez84 @ Jan 10th 2008 5:35AM]

The only thing firewire can connect to is a female firewire.

[Joshua @ Jan 12th 2008 12:37AM]

Yes, Firewire S3200 is in the works. Should have far less to overcome technically than USB 3. Main problem is that it has to overcome the market factor.

[Azayzel @ Jan 10th 2008 9:19PM]

I agree. Firewire 400 is still faster than USB 2.0, regardless of what it is "capable" of. We performed a rather lengthy study comparing the two at my university and USB 2.0 didn't come close to the speeds of Firewire (this before FW800 came out). Couple that with being able to daisy-chain multiple devices and anyone can see FW kicks USB's butt in the storage department.

Don't get me wrong, USB is great for other things where speed isn't too much of an issue, like connecting devices, but when it comes to raw speed... Can't wait to see how USB 3.0 actually performs!

[DP @ Jan 10th 2008 1:59AM]

2010...

>_>

[[e-mail] @ Jan 10th 2008 2:03AM]

dont mean to be harsh but have you heard of photoshop / cameras with flash?

[Lyberty @ Jan 10th 2008 2:04AM]

quote:"With speeds of 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s)..."

Oh Lord God in Heaven, not this B.S. again...

It's "with transfer speeds of _UP TO_ 600 million Bytes per second..."

If you use phrasing other than this, you're
* in marketing, or
* a liar, or
* you don't know what you're talking about, or
* all of the above.

-Lyberty

p.s. Have they worked out the "which *%&*# side is 'up' on this *$&#'ing USB Port?!?" problem yet?

[lyberty @ Jan 10th 2008 2:15AM]

correction: remove the word "transfer" from my comment (got excited and threw it in by mistake)

[Wwhat @ Jan 10th 2008 7:19AM]

Haha, well everything must have a bug, be glad that with USB it's something as irrelevant as the which-side-is-up issue.

[computer.dude.28 @ Jan 10th 2008 8:55AM]

I think they should print UP in BIG LETTERS on the USB.

[zoara @ Jan 10th 2008 10:44AM]

Um, yes, they have. See the very first picture in the gallery - the new plugs are keyed (the curved but pfaces downwards, by the look of it). About time too - the non-keyed plugs and sockets of current USB are really irritating.

[Bunklung @ Jan 10th 2008 6:13PM]

The good news is that most USB male ends have a USB logo on them, so you know which way to plug in if you are familiar with the other end, the computer.

I think that most laptop female ports connect with the USB male end with logo face up.

[mmendoza27 @ Jan 10th 2008 2:14AM]

2010? Gosh, that means that I would need to wait until 2011 or 2012 for my MacBook Pro to have USB 3.0.... by then we'll have quad-cores, 22nm processors with blu-ray, high-res screens, and up to 8 GB of RAM...

I wanted my next MBP in 2009.... when Nehalem comes out.

[Reader @ Jan 10th 2008 2:18AM]

8gb of ram? Don't be so modest.

USB 3.0 makes me hot.

[rv @ Jan 10th 2008 12:16PM]

You also forgot the fusion core battery and flux capacitor for the new version of time machine.

[Paul @ Jan 11th 2008 8:11AM]

8gb of RAM is possible like awhile ago, and quad core?
the new apple desktop has 8cores...
get up with the times

[akin @ Jan 10th 2008 2:15AM]

Why 2010? If they are ready why not sell it now? Do they have to finish the 2.0 stocks first?

[michas_pi @ Jan 10th 2008 2:36AM]

And FireWire 800 will _still_ have higher real-world throughput.

Also, still the same fucking plug design? Goddamn it.

[Poom @ Jan 10th 2008 5:05AM]

Errrr... Have you heard of backward compatibility?

[michas_pi @ Jan 10th 2008 5:15AM]

@Poom: I know that it's backwards compatible, but look at FireWire 400 and 800. Same interface but different speeds and different connectors.

[ariez84 @ Jan 10th 2008 5:37AM]

Awesome comment, especially since you have no real basis for it, since USB 3.0 isnt even out yet.

[michas_pi @ Jan 10th 2008 5:56AM]

@ariez84: *shrugs* A guy can dream, can't he?

[Wwhat @ Jan 10th 2008 7:28AM]

Hmm, well pre-3 USB at least does have the issue of using interrupts and a lot of CPU, but that's not strictly the fault of the ports but more one of implementation, theoretically they could make a USB interface chip with some intelligence that offloads a lot of the handshaking and maintenance and such, or even perhaps one that uses DMA.
But then it would be less suited for some things, like firewire is great for a lot of stuff but does not 100% overlaps USB due to the protocol differences.
But they have ages the time to think about that part, and I don't think they can use the same protocols as standard USB and even dream of going 10x as fast, so I can't imagine they won't come up with something new and improved.

[michas_pi @ Jan 10th 2008 7:49AM]

@Wwhat: "USB interface chip with some intelligence" sounds a lot like FireWire to me :-)

[Wwhat @ Jan 10th 2008 2:44AM]

Where's the optical? I though USB3 had an optical option/component.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/09/19/usb_3_1.jpg
Was that fake?

[Za @ Jan 10th 2008 2:49AM]

That looks creepy.

[michas_pi @ Jan 10th 2008 5:17AM]

Those lights are not for data transfer but to see if you are plugging it in in the correct orientation.

[Wwhat @ Jan 10th 2008 7:13AM]

Nope initial reports definitely said it would be optical, USB3
And this is what wikipedia mentions: USB 3.0 (Future version): On September 18, 2007, Pat Gelsinger demonstrated USB 3.0 at the fall Intel Developer Forum. USB 3.0 is targeted at ten times the current bandwidth, roughly 4.8 Gbit/s, utilizing a parallel optical cable.

So it's a bit strange this presentation mentions STP (Shielded Twisted Pair) and not optical, perhaps they changed their minds.

And usb.org has this cryptic remark:
"Targeting over 10x performance increase, the technology will draw from the same architecture of wired USB."

Draw from wired USB? What is that suppose to mean?

[Wwhat @ Jan 10th 2008 7:13AM]

Nope initial reports definitely said it would be optical, USB3
And this is what wikipedia mentions: USB 3.0 (Future version): On September 18, 2007, Pat Gelsinger demonstrated USB 3.0 at the fall Intel Developer Forum. USB 3.0 is targeted at ten times the current bandwidth, roughly 4.8 Gbit/s, utilizing a parallel optical cable.

So it's a bit strange this presentation mentions STP (Shielded Twisted Pair) and not optical, perhaps they changed their minds.

And usb.org has this cryptic remark:
"Targeting over 10x performance increase, the technology will draw from the same architecture of wired USB."

Draw from wired USB? What is that suppose to mean?

[Wwhat @ Jan 10th 2008 7:14AM]

Sigh, this double post bug is getting on my nerves :/

[Sirocco @ Jan 10th 2008 2:56AM]

You just gave me 2.0. Now, you want it back?

[ryan block @ Jan 10th 2008 3:03AM]

That's Veronica's hand holding that USB 3.0

[max andrews @ Jan 10th 2008 5:49AM]

in that case, it's the best photograph on the entire internet.
/sarcasm

[Jkswiss @ Jan 10th 2008 3:16AM]

When are they going to change it so that you can plug in a usb plug without trying twice? I wish they would make it shaped like a parallelogram so you have an immediate visual cue as to which way to put it in.

[god @ Feb 6th 2008 9:34PM]

it is a parellellagram dummy

[crescentdavid @ Jan 10th 2008 3:27AM]

Why is this speed this so difficult for firewire afficiandos to grok? From arstechnica:

"Maximum theoretical data throughput will definitely be a point of contention between the two standards. Intel has stated that it expects USB 3.0 to be 10 times as fast as USB 2.0, which would give it a 4.8Gbps transfer rate. In contrast, the current iteration of S3200 will top out at 3.2Gbps. It's impossible to predict how much the throughput difference between the two standards will impact real-world device performance, but it's definitely a marketing edge that USB 3.0 proponents will lean on.

Of course, FireWire—up to and including S3200—has always offered certain advantages that USB lacks. Not only is it markedly less CPU-intensive due to its peer-to-peer nature (USB is master/slave), but FireWire is capable of delivering more power over a single cable. FireWire also allows for cable runs of up to 100 meters; USB 2 allows for a mere fraction of this, though USB 3.0 should increase cable lengths considerably."

As almost always, there's differentiation and choices based on a variety of factors. No need for anyone to bang the drum of "one size must fit all." Choice really is a good thing ... especially for consumers.

[Maxx @ Jan 10th 2008 3:34AM]

For the Love of God ! Turn on the freakin Flash !
I have endured days apon days of dark pictures......
Hell children know how to turn the freaking flash on....

[Maxx @ Jan 10th 2008 3:35AM]

Hey Morons ! Hows about before CES is over you borrow a flash from someone and take the last 3 days of pictures over again.

[Neoprimal @ Jan 10th 2008 4:15AM]

How many times are you going to mention Flash? I can see it fine...I'm thinking quite a few others can as well. Maybe it's time to get a new pair of glasses or contacts?

[Firebird @ Jan 10th 2008 4:02AM]

Oh chill out with the "OMG FLASH" comments. I can see the thing fine, and if you can't I would have to suggest either adjusting the gamma/brightness on your monitor or getting your eyes checked out. Next you'll be expecting them to bring in a lighting team so that you can drool and/or masturbate to perfectly lit and photographed pictures of tiny little plugs or hello kitty gadgets and maybe even a taser-holster mp3 player or two. Oh and they'd have to be like 32 megapixel images too I guess. When did everything suddenly become so damn serious?

[Rik @ Jan 10th 2008 4:05AM]

Very very true... and I'm also glad they're really doing their homework. Not like those overpriced Wireless-N Draft 2.56 rev B devices you see arround :-P (Wifi is really shooting itself in it's foot there, come on guys, agree on a standard!)

Also very nice to see they are paying attention to the power part. Off course USB was never meant as a power carrier but hey, it's foolish to neglect common practice I think.

[Joe @ Jan 10th 2008 4:23AM]

USB 1.1 for life.

[Yours Smugly @ Jan 10th 2008 4:33AM]

"Also called SuperSpeed USB." Gee, why not HD USB? Everything is HD nowadays...

[lionelbob @ Jan 10th 2008 5:54AM]

Everything's HD except DVD

[luzzio @ Jan 10th 2008 5:56AM]

I'm hoping (and quite sure) they'd make some improvements and tweaks to it by 2010. Looks kinda big.

[aeioux schemata @ Jan 10th 2008 8:27AM]

Excuse the capitals, I hope the manufacturers/designers read this in time :

**** WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE THE USB3.0 CONNECTOR SYMMETRICAL PLEASE ****

I don't know how many times I have endlessly turned over a USB connector, tried again, turned it over, tried again, turned it over....