tgdaily.com — USB 3.0 may promise data transfer speeds of up to 5 Gb/s or 625 MB/s but such levels will not be possible, at least not in initial devices. When USB 3.0 hardware will become available in late 2009 or early 2010, users will have to settle for one fourth of the theoretical maximum bandwidth, TG Daily learned.
Jan 7, 2009 View in Crawl 4
antdudeJan 7, 2009
Don't always trust the marketing. ;)
Closed AccountJan 8, 2009
You mean like how you actually are getting 2 gigs, but you need to use space for the file system?
merigoJan 8, 2009
I just threw up a bit in my mouth.
swordedgeJan 8, 2009
2.2.Ghz dual core with 2 Gig ram... The computer is faster then the drive. And it isn't just me that experienced this. Are you a USB fan boy?
autotomJan 8, 2009
no you ignorant nobhead, i'm stating a fact. you clearly don't have any knowledge on the subject as it has virtually nothing to do with your cpu speed or amount of ram.if the USB bus is an old outdated one it's going to be slow, also on windows usb peripherals are optimized for unexpected removal and not optimized for performance. also, firewire devices are generally made of higher quality parts. Due to the smaller requirements of USB it is seen as a cost-saving option and is the reason usb defeated firewire.
shannongbJan 8, 2009
I forgot about that *blushes*
bosskeyJan 9, 2009
>... in other news your usb 2.0 flash drive doesnt make use of 480mb/s either....Yeah, but you can't always talk about it like it's a 1:1 shortfall among protocols. For example FireWire 400 transfers much closer to its potential 400 megabits/sec than USB 2.0 does to its potential 480 megabits/sec, which means the underperformance with USB is greater. I don't know what the shortfall is with SATA, but I'm under the impression that USB is the protocol with the greatest "disappointment factor" in terms of speed.
bosskeyJan 9, 2009
And even digital video cameras are moving away from FireWire, to USB or just recording on a solid state card.
synchrotechJul 8, 2009
Any wonder the latest incarnation of the prosaic USB standard featuring an awkward and outdated master-slave topology, underperforming NRZI encoding, and clumsy CPU cycle stealing bus mastering doesn't live up to the hype?From all the benchmarks we've ever run, USB 2.0 is solidly outperformed by Ultra Wide SCSI, an early 1990's technology. Let's see; anemic power, frightfully short cable runs, over a decade old performance capabilities. What was USB's advantages other than ubiquity again?We realize many have bought into the Intel fanboi TV spot [1], but maybe people should be tossing rotten fruits and vegetables at Ajay Bhatt.[1] Truth is, Intel was only one many firms with patents contributed to the original USB pool. Intel later bought many of them after the fact. So the whole "rock star inventor" thing is a little suspect no? In fact, Wikipedia cites him as one of the co-inventors. <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#History">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus# ...</a>
rdsatheneJul 8, 2009
Another epic fail from the same people who thought it was better to do UART on the CPU than its own dedicated ASIC. Makes sense, it drives demand for newer and newer versions of their register starved flagship product line.