What is Digg?193 Comments
- digggggggggg, on 12/16/2007, -5/+119USB 2.0 (480Mbps) > FireWire400 (400Mbps)
However, I _swear_ that firewire is a lot faster for some reason. This is probably because USB's theoretical max throughput is assuming that one bit gets passed every clock cycle (480MHz), but ignoring significant overhead like control packets. I would not be surprised at all if the new firewire is actually faster than USB 3.0. - splatterboy, on 12/16/2007, -1/+73Firewire is a better technology than whatever USB happens to be around at the time. The spec says USB 2 is faster by a small amount but if you try to actually transfer large files FW is faster - noticeably. FW can run power over the bus and network as well. USB does none of that. Look at what it was originally designed for -small unpowered burst type devices - keyboards and floppy drives. Firewire was an AV standard designed to run at a higher spec. The Intel-Microsoft braintrust stuck us with USB simply to be anti Mac. Talk about monopolies stifling competition and innovation
- smurf22, on 12/16/2007, -0/+61Although I do like usb, it only gets burst of high speed. While firewire is a constant speed, which is better for large files. But if its picture or music usb will suffice I guess.
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -1/+57USB 2's THEORETICAL peak is 480 mbps and it NEVER actually reaches it. Most people get like 250, 300 max.
Firewire has always been MUCH closer to it's theoretical speed than it's competitor. - Mipit, on 12/16/2007, -8/+57Thats a lot of porn.
- Dotcommer, on 12/16/2007, -2/+51No, Firewire is still faster than USB currently. USB is faster on paper, but not in actual use.
- weizilla, on 12/16/2007, -0/+45USB also uses more CPU than firewire so that could also explain why it seems firewire is always faster
- andnever, on 12/16/2007, -0/+45Although high-speed USB 2.0 runs at a higher signaling rate (480 Mbit/s) than FireWire 400, typical PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of 35 MB/s, with 30 MB/s being more typical (the theoretical limit for a USB 2 high-speed bulk transfer is 53.125 MB/s). This is likely due to USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol, whereas FireWire automates the same tasks in the interface hardware. For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations.[12]
With FireWire 800, FireWire, which was already slightly faster,[13] is now substantially faster than Hi-Speed USB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire#Comparison_t ... - BrainRecall, on 12/16/2007, -0/+40USB is dragged down by large amounts of protocol overhead (acknowledgments on EVERY packet, for example, instead of group acknowledgments that Firewire supports). Also, lots of the processing is offloaded to the CPU to make for cheaper hardware.
- z0mbie2099, on 12/16/2007, -44/+78USB 3.0 (4.8Gps) > FireWire 2008 (3.2Gps)
- das7282, on 12/16/2007, -2/+35Most highend cameras still use Firewire.
- zachriggle, on 12/16/2007, -0/+30Yes, the theoretical cap is higher. However, USB3 will have to change from half-duplex, and reduce CPU overhead before it's considered even halfway worthwhile. One of the big advantages FW has over USB is that a device can request, and get, a specific bandwidth. So, for example, a video camera can say, "I need to have 19mbits/sec." And if it can, then it'll get that -- and nothing on the bus will be able to take it away until it releases it.
When doing real-time applications such as video, this is pretty important. - aegis9975, on 12/16/2007, -2/+23USB is better because its more ubiquitous, however peak speeds are poor for comparison. Firewire has much faster sustained data rates, especially with multiple devices (Firewire is full-duplex). Also, Firewire can send more power to the devices then USB (which can't even run a 3.5" external), as well as the fact that it has less parasitic on the system's resources. The reason it failed is due to the expensive licensing fees Apple charged to begin with, ultimately the fact is regardless of firewire's clear technical advantages, the ubiquitous nature of USB makes it more relevant.
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -0/+21Firewire is faster because USB doesn't sustain near its theoretical max, it's really only good for short burst transfers, not long sustained ones. Firewire is much more efficient for big file transfers, and it'll be no surprise if FW3200 > USB 3.0 for the same reason. Firewire also sends more power, which is nice, so you don't have to use those crazy Y-connectors for USB to send enough power to a mobile external hard drive.
- Neiby, on 12/16/2007, -1/+22You're exactly right. USB relies on the CPU way too much. This decreases the actual usable throughput of a USB connection. Firewire does not have this limitation, so you actually get the advertised transfer speed. If you need speed without all the CPU overhead, Firewire beats the ***** out of USB.
- mlostracco, on 12/16/2007, -0/+19It's still very, very important for video. USB 2 can't cut it for sustained throughput...even plain ol' FireWire 400 can handle uncompressed HD video.
- UnknownVariable, on 12/16/2007, -1/+18You're on digg. A (primarily) tech news site. Wtf are you thinking?
- lazyfisherman, on 12/16/2007, -1/+16Does anyone use USB for digital video? For years, I've thought of Firewire as "the standard" and a more reliable way to transfer and digitize video. Great to hear about the faster speeds, at least the connection will definitely not be the bottleneck..
- Neiby, on 12/16/2007, -1/+15Who uses Firewire instead of USB? Anyone doing pro audio work. USB puts too much of a drag on your CPU. Firewire does not. No one in their right mind uses USB devices with pro audio.
- dbalaski, on 12/16/2007, -0/+13I do !
It's far nicer for my external drives on my computers (both PC and Mac) -- uses very little processor and seems to be faster when dealing with large files. - digggggggggg, on 12/16/2007, -0/+13You can do networking, connect high resolution DV camcorders, and daisy chain firewire, because it uses a peer-to-peer interface. You can't do any of this with USB because it's a host/client system.
For instance, if you're doing video editing, you can daisy chain several firewire HDs together (this is why they usually have two ports) with your camcorder at the end. No need for hubs. This is what makes firewire indispensable in video editing. - cg0def, on 12/16/2007, -0/+12USB 3 uses both an optical and coper cable in order to be backwards compatible. However the problem with USB is the HUGE overhead that the protocol has and this particular problem only gets worst as the speed increases. Even with usb 2.0 you get way less than the theoretical max band. Now multiply that overhead by 10 and you get a huge waste of bandwidth. Then there is the problem with the new REALLY expensive cable that it will use. Optical cables alone a quite pricey. Add to that the cost of the shielded copper cable and you get one of the most expensive ways of connecting devices. Yeah it's fast but that's not the only issue what consumers and manufacturers will consider.
On the other hand you have firewire which is a beautifully designed protocol. Not only does it allow for greater wattage to be send over the wires and thus allowing for devices to be powered through the connection cable but it also has very low overhead and quite high reliability. Yes you can power devices via usb 2.0 as well but there are a lot of devices that require more power than what usb send.
So bitch all you want but the evolution of firewire is great news. I only wish that more x86 manufacturer will recognize the potential of the small investment that is required in order to license the technology from Apple. - theokandroid, on 12/16/2007, -0/+11Firewire Hard Drives are still the ultimate choice for Video Cameras as well as Hard Drive. Among video editors Firewire is the only way to go.
- AQUANETA, on 12/16/2007, -1/+12Sony.
- Commodus, on 12/16/2007, -1/+12Quite possibly -- certainly it could make a huge difference for sharing data at the short range, like between a Mac Pro and an Xserve or between two Mac Pros when migrating data.
It's utter overkill for networking the MacBook Pro, however, since the notebook drive is going to be a real barrier. For an external RAID array, on the other hand... - BossKey, on 12/16/2007, -1/+12If you use FireWire on a regular basis, using USB _is_ torture.
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -0/+10But FireWire can do it faster, so shut the ***** up.
- wibambau, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9I agree totally.. with hard drives firewire is definitely and consistently faster.
What is regrettable though is that outside of the Mac realm, even the faster Firewire800 doesn't seem to have caught on. - BossKey, on 12/16/2007, -1/+10I can tell you that my daily backups over FireWire 800 probably complete in a fraction of the time of the poor suckers backing up over USB 2.0.
- IllBeBack, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9You guys are correct. FireWire uses DMA (direct memory access) whereas USB does not and relies on the CPU, so FireWire 400 is indeed always faster than USB 2.0.
- TheGuruStud, on 12/16/2007, -0/+9except that 1394a is twice as fast as USB 2.o in sustained transfer rate.
- BossKey, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8USB can transfer "anything?"
FireWire can transfer Internet Protocol, so it can be used to create a very fast local network. I've use FireWire 800 to network two computers where the Ethernet ports were too slow for the huge files I was moving.
Can you do IP over USB? - xalif, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8Actually, Kier - IllBeBack is right. The possessive form of 'it' does not have an apostrophe. Before you start criticizing other people, you may want to research the language a bit more (Try googling for "its vs it's" or something like that).
"It's Mike's car" is fine. (It is Mike's car)
"It's house" should in fact be "Its house". - GregR, on 12/16/2007, -1/+9So, you don't know what you are missing out on.
- waitsfieldjon, on 12/16/2007, -3/+11I wonder if Apple will continue to support Networking over Firewire when and if S3200 is incorporated in any line of their Machines. Question really is, will it be cheaper in a P2P connection when compared to Fiber Channel.
- colincornaby, on 12/16/2007, -4/+12Well it was created by Apple...
- earthtoandy, on 12/16/2007, -0/+8USB is completely unsuitable for video. Dropped frames left and right. Its just too slow, requires too much CPU, etc. Firewire is the standard in video without a doubt.
- babrent, on 12/16/2007, -2/+9USB 3.0 (4.8Gps) < FireWire 2008 (3.2Gps)
< firewire will still be faster. wait and see. I bet I'm right - smurf22, on 12/16/2007, -0/+7It is for me (I do some video work for my school) so It sucks when I have to sit there for 2 hours waiting for a video to copy over using usb, but when I use firewire I can get it done in about a hour and thirty minutes. Firewire is better for hard drives etc because of constant speed, usb is more commercial because its cheaper, and most people wont notice the difference in copying files.
- ngnboone, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6Don't use the word "propaganda" so much that it loses it's meaning. FEMA holding a fake news conference is propaganda- Apple advertising their product is marketing
- inactive, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6Just cause they want it to be
http://ohgizmo.com/2007/09/19/usb-30-promises-5-gb ... - Charlotte_Web, on 12/16/2007, -0/+6Man, it's about time they upped the speed of FireWire.
USB 2.0 has done a lot of damage to FireWire. Plus, I think the FireWire group has really dropped the ball on pushing it. I just bought a brand new mid- to high-end motherboard, and it still only comes with 1394a on it (400 Mbps), despite the fact that 1394b (800 Mbps) has been out for four years now. 1394a should be ancient history by now, but it's not.
There are some marketing hurdles that the 1394 group needs to overcome. - inactive, on 12/16/2007, -9/+15Why is this in the Apple section? FireWire isn't only used on Macs you know....
- timestar, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Bytes/bits = quantity of data
Bytes per second / bits per second = speed
Metres = distance
Metres per second = speed - Breepee, on 12/16/2007, -1/+6If you pull out the cable fast enough you can trap 3.2GB per meter of porn in the cable. You can then take it everywhere you want and if you want to see, just reconnect the cable and it'll flow out.
- tubeblender, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Then go to where the non-tech news is... and stay away from ***** you have no clue about.
- knightboat, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5I can't believe we're seriously having USB vs Firewire fanboy spats.
Next we'll need a list of 3rd party vendors supporting each side as well as a price vs performance comparison. - krische, on 12/16/2007, -0/+5Apple is one of the lead developers of it.
- felderado, on 12/16/2007, -0/+4USB can never reach it's "theorhetical maximum speed" though. You'll never have 4.8Gbps transfer rate. Instead you'll maybe get 1.0Gbps transfer rate and 3.8Gbps overhead. *sigh*, stupid USB.... such a poor standard.
- AdmiralKarelia, on 12/16/2007, -1/+5True story. FireWire 400 was eons ahead of it's original competitor, USB 1.0/1.1, and even when USB 2.0 came along with it's theoretically higher speeds, it still was faster. Then, just to rub it in, FireWire 800 was released. I don't know a single professional video editor that does NOT use FW800.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is