http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 1:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 1:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 1:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 3:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
or like a few years ago adopting as standard on their computers some weird BS that few other people used at the time....USB1?

@ Nohone

hay mate, all I can see here is that someone is hoping for this standard to be adopted by a particular computer company..
The only fanboi I can see in this discussion is you...]]>Oct 31st 2009 7:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
This article fails to mention Firewire 1600 and 3200 as a contender. I for one have always used FireWire versus the slow USB 2.0 standard, I mean you can either go with 480Mbps transfer or 800Mbps tranfers, I think it's obvious which is the right choice, and with Firewire 1600 and 3200 featuring 1.6Gbps and 3.2Gbps transfers,respectively, the decision is clear for me again.

Look around at professional equipment that uses external storage devices and they aren't usually using USB, especially in Video Editting, they either have a server they stay connected to with some sort of storage array, or they have a drive connected via Firewire.

]]>Oct 31st 2009 9:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
It is true that firewire has been used in the past for video and audio, though the recent push has been for eSATA, since it pretty much eliminates the added enclosure controller lag. Also, the reason firewire was used instead of USB was because firewire (400) had higher sustained speeds, and virtually no drop outs, while USB had higher burst speeds and was notoriously finicky. Now that USB has a very significant speed advantage (50% over the unreleased Firewire 3200), it's unlikely that the sustained speed will be lower. I have no idea about the dropouts, but if those are improved as well (my guess is yes), the new firewires offer absolutely no benefits over the new USB.

The choice is clear.]]>Oct 31st 2009 10:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
It is true that firewire has been used in the past for video and audio, though the recent push has been for eSATA, since it pretty much eliminates the added enclosure controller lag."

And idiotically includes no provision for power delivery. That right there, in a relatively recent connector, is unforgivable.

"the new firewires offer absolutely no benefits over the new USB."

You fail to mention the shitload of processor overhead that USB has historically imposed, compared to Firewire's minimal overhead.]]>Oct 31st 2009 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
Things like installing wireless-data cards, or interface cards for new standards as they emerge.

It's incredible how Apple finds ways to cripple every one of its products with some glaring design blunders, when they come so close to making all-around winners.]]>Oct 31st 2009 3:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/]]>Nov 1st 2009 2:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/(This is just what I remember reading, so I'm not sure… I'm happy either way!)]]>Nov 1st 2009 6:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/The major Mac for 2004 used IDE and PC-133 RAM, the RAM alone is twice or more as expensive as DDR3...
Then again Macs are the most technological advanced things ever because they support 64 bit!! Even if Windows has had it since 2001!]]>Nov 30th 2009 10:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Yeah, but the average desktop doesn't have a usb 3.0 port so we're still screwed :/]]>Oct 31st 2009 1:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 7:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
>Perhaps even better news is that an ASUS US36 controller card with USB 3.0 and SATA 6G support is a mere $30

Its a pcie card with 2 usb3.0 and 2 sata 6g slots. And only 3 dollars so the average computer CAN have usb 3.0 ports]]>Oct 31st 2009 2:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
This needs to be EVERYWHERE as soon as possible!]]>Oct 31st 2009 1:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 5:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/

But I'm still disappointed to see that the max speed was only around 150MB/s. Sure, it seems a lot right now, but a few years from now when we'll have external SSDs that go 300MB/s you'll want more.

Hopefully it's just not yet developed to its maximum potential...]]>Oct 31st 2009 6:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/I dont think my mouse, keyboard, printer, webcam,... will need that kind of speed. USB 3.0 will only be needed for high bandwidth applications...external hds, hd webcams, and other crap i cant think of right now. 2 USB 3.0 ports should be enough for 95 percent of the population.]]>Oct 31st 2009 9:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/ 2 USB 3.0 ports should be enough for 95 percent of the population.


And we'll only need 512 KB of ram...]]>Oct 31st 2009 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
If you are talking about the stupid DOS thing, I believe it was 640KB]]>Nov 2nd 2009 3:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 1:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Nov 2nd 2009 11:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/USB 3.0 is supposed to hit upwards or over 3.0Gbps.

So it should be MUCH faster than Firewire 800.

eSATA also provides around 3.0Gbps transfer rates. I use it with one of my externals and my laptop. Very fast and very nice.]]>Oct 31st 2009 2:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
I do not know details about USB 3.0, but at least in USB 2.0 v. FW400/800, the only noticeable difference is that USB's CPU utilization is higher than that of FW.

Also in my observations Windows works with USB better than FW. On Macs my experience was reversed: FW rules over USB. But my Mac (I was testing on iBook G4 @ 1GHz) was having generally lower throughput compared to my Windows workstation. And it also depends on the USB controllers...

You should simply test what works best for you. Unless you transfer terabytes, the bus you use will play little role.]]>Oct 31st 2009 7:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 10:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
Really? How are you powering that drive with your laptop, since eSATA idiotically fails to provide for power delivery?]]>Oct 31st 2009 3:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Not that they weren't idiotic to make an external interface and neglect the need for power initially.
]]>Nov 1st 2009 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 10:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 1:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 2:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
Do you know what does use the SATA spec to achieve high speeds? eSATA.]]>Oct 31st 2009 5:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 10:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 12:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
So this is pretty similar to SATA, but without the crummy old ATA interface and with a lot more flexibility. It does have more command processing overhead for hard drives than eSATA for hard drives does, but it makes up for it with a lot more flexibility than eSATA has.]]>Oct 31st 2009 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 3:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 5:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 4:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/Oct 31st 2009 6:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/
There's a typo there. The correct model number for that card is ASUS U3S6.]]>Oct 31st 2009 6:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/31/usb-3-0-and-sata-6g-put-to-good-use-benchmarks/And it also doesn't integrate the power cord, so you still have to connect a separate power line for 3,5" HDDs and pray to not fry your hub on power hungry 2,5" disks :(]]>Oct 31st 2009 7:47AM