USB 3.0?

whoispetty

Member
May 30, 2008
63
0
6
Sorry if someone has already covered this, but I didn't see anything searching.

I'm curious if an external HD using USB 3.0 will be a decent replacement to...let's say a external firewire HD?

I'm in the market for a bigger and badder external HD and was just wondering about this.

I think the overall speed of USB 3.0 would be great for a drive holding samples, but what about recording to that drive?
 
USB 3 is going to murder everything else, I'm not sure how easy it is going to be to find usb 3 drives and cards just at the moment.
 
It's a good idea to actually really wait another few months before really getting into USB 3.0 stuff anyway. It's very much in it's infancy right now. You don't want to be working with stuff that isn't known to be reliable with audio.
 
i'm not sure that USB 3 is going to "murder" the newer firewire devices...

Well there is FW3200 with comparable speeds (FW3200 = 3.2Gbps USB3 = 5Gbps) but there is a real chance that we won't see much of it. Apple's moving away from it and with the current FW licensing fees not too many other want to use it if there is no advantage.
 
dont forget esata!!!

i just got a new 1.5TB with usb/esata last week.
and esata is really fast, like sata, just external :)
 
If USB 3.0 still uses packets for transfer, regardless of how big they are, won't there still be a potential for bottlenecking?
 
If USB 3.0 still uses packets for transfer, regardless of how big they are, won't there still be a potential for bottlenecking?

dude, thats an epic techy post for you :lol:

Heres something that might be helpful for you guys.

•A new major feature is the SuperSpeed bus, which provides a fourth transfer mode at 4.8 Gbit/s. The raw throughput is 4 Gbit/s, and the specification considers it reasonable to achieve 3.2 Gbit/s (0.4 GByte/s or 400 MByte/s) or more after protocol overhead.[50]
•When operating in SuperSpeed mode, full-duplex signaling occurs over 2 differential pairs separate from the non-SuperSpeed differential pair. This results in USB 3.0 cables containing 2 wires for power and ground, 2 wires for non-SuperSpeed data, and 4 wires for SuperSpeed data, and a shield (not required in previous specifications).[51]
•To accommodate the additional pins for SuperSpeed mode, the physical form factors for USB 3.0 plugs and receptacles have been modified from those used in previous versions. Standard-A cables have extended heads where the SuperSpeed connectors extend beyond and slightly above the legacy connectors. Similarly, the Standard-A receptacle is deeper to accept these new connectors. On the other end, the SuperSpeed Standard-B connectors are placed on top of the existing form factor. A legacy standard A-to-B cable will work as designed and will never contact any of the SuperSpeed connectors, ensuring backward compatibility. However, SuperSpeed USB cables, with their extended plugs, will not fit into legacy receptacles.
•SuperSpeed establishes a communications pipe between the host and each device, in a host-directed protocol. In contrast, USB 2.0 broadcasts packet traffic to all devices.•USB 3.0 extends the bulk transfer type in SuperSpeed with Streams. This extension allows a host and device to create and transfer multiple streams of data through a single bulk pipe.
•New power management features include support of idle, sleep and suspend states, as well as Link-, Device-, and Function-level power management.
•The bus power spec has been increased so that a unit load is 150 mA (+50% over minimum using USB 2.0). An unconfigured device can still draw only 1 unit load, but a configured device can draw up to 6 unit loads (900 mA, an 80% increase over USB 2.0 at a registered maximum of 500 mA). Minimum device operating voltage is dropped from 4.4 V to 4 V.
•USB 3.0 does not define cable assembly lengths, except that it can be of any length as long as it meets all the requirements defined in the specification. However, electronicdesign.com estimates cables will be limited to 3 m at SuperSpeed.[29]
•Technology is similar to a single channel (1x) of PCI Express 2.0 (5-Gbit/s). It uses 8B/10B encoding, linear feedback shift register (LFSR) scrambling for data and spread spectrum. It forces receivers to use low frequency periodic signaling (LFPS), dynamic equalization, and training sequences to ensure fast signal locking.
 
if the fw/USB battle was to be decided by throughput speeds a lone, USB would of won a long time ago.

this however is not the case. firewire has always been more stable, and been able to transfer much closer to it's theoretical maximum, and will likely remain the choice of interface for performance external hard drives, and audio interfaces.

you must remember that USB was originally designed for very low bandwidth applications (1.5mbit), and has had more throughput tacked on to the specification, up to the USB2.0 max of 420mbit. backwards compatibility has always been maintained, however, which no doubt is a source of USB's comparative slow speeds to firewire.

USB3's max of 4.2gbit, or 5 (can't remember which), will never be reached. i'd be surprised if a device could be made to utilise 25% of this available bandwidth.

i have no doubt however, that USB will "win" the war. time has often shown us that the best format is not usually the one that wins.

i doubt USB will ever have the latency of PCI cards, given that USB ports are wired onto the PCI bus, so they must have at least the latency of that..!

thanks,