USB 3.0 SuperSpeed Demonstrated

Friday, August 22 2008

USB 2.0 has been around for quite some time now, it's already become a serious bottleneck with storage devices where its "up to" 480 Mbps speed limits transfer-rate significantly compared to what today's devices demand. External-SATA had proven to eradicate that bottleneck by providing speeds for external storage devices on par with internal fixed drives. A newer standard of the USB is in the works, this newer interface on paper promises 10-times the amount of bandwidth USB 2.0 did, that's 4.8 Gbps, more than three times over that of e-SATA, 1.5 times over e-SATA II.

At the ongoing Intel Developer Forum (IDF) event, prototype USB 3.0 boards and cables were shown transferring at 307+ MB/s. The USB 3.0 coalition proclaims this is fast enough to transfer a 27 GB HD in just 60 to 70 seconds. This interface is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 (HiSpeed) and USB 1.1 (FullSpeed), and will be referred to as SuperSpeed. A representative from Ellisys said current flash memory and hard drive storage capacities are outstripping USB 2.0 transfer speeds.

Source: TG Daily

posted by btarunr - 7:56 AM | Related News |

User comments

by Wile E (August 22nd - 8:05 AM) - Reply

I don't believe them. i bet that was just a short burst.

by Zehnsucht (August 22nd - 8:28 AM) - Reply

With powered eSATA in the works, I don't see how this will be a hit.

by Mussels (August 22nd - 8:59 AM) - Reply

300MB/s sounds good. As long as it does 250MB/s sustained i see a long life for that standard.

by theJesus (August 22nd - 9:07 AM) - Reply

I think it's funny that it still isn't an actual 480mbps even though they say it'll go "up to" 4.8gbps this time around.

by Wile E (August 22nd - 9:10 AM) - Reply

by: theJesus
I think it's funny that it still isn't an actual 480mbps even though they say it'll go "up to" 4.8gbps this time around.

USB 2.0 is 480Mb(its) per second, not MB(ytes). 1MB = 8Mb.

So the theoretical USB2 throughput is 60MB/s. USB3 is 600MB/s theoretical.

by DanTheBanjoman (August 22nd - 9:13 AM) - Reply

by: Wile E
I don't believe them. i bet that was just a short burst.

It's 50% efficiency, why can't that be true?

by Wile E (August 22nd - 9:16 AM) - Reply

by: DanTheBanjoman
It's 50% efficiency, why can't that be true?

It's just a personal feeling, not based on any evidence as of yet. I just don't trust them. lol. Anyway, I do want to see what the new interface can do. Hopefully I'll have to eat my words.

by Dark_Webster (August 22nd - 9:18 AM) - Reply

At least Microsoft must implement it well in Vista. Jeez, some times my Cruzer transfers at 30 MB ot 300KB on my lappy :).

by theJesus (August 22nd - 9:22 AM) - Reply

by: Wile E
USB 2.0 is 480Mb(its) per second, not MB(ytes). 1MB = 8Mb.

So the theoretical USB2 throughput is 60MB/s. USB3 is 600MB/s theoretical.

doh, the lower-case vs upper-case always throws me off as I over-look it :o

by Wile E (August 22nd - 9:22 AM) - Reply

by: theJesus
doh, the lower-case vs upper-case always throws me off as I over-look it :o

I figured. That's why I pointed it out for you.

by DanTheBanjoman (August 22nd - 9:27 AM) - Reply

by: Dark_Webster
At least Microsoft must implement it well in Vista. Jeez, some times my Cruzer transfers at 30 MB ot 300KB on my lappy :).

And that isn't just because it's a bad stick or controller? I've had no issues with USB implementation so far.

by Mussels (August 22nd - 9:29 AM) - Reply

no one trusts the USB3 specs because the USB 2.0 specs are full of crap. 480Mb/s is 60MB/s - i've never seen a transfer (USB HDD, flash drive, etc) ever break 30MB/s (sustained).

Its probably like wireless and powerline networking, where they measure up and down at the same time and claim its double the speed.

by lemonadesoda (August 22nd - 1:04 PM) - Reply

In the bits vs. bytes discussion, dont forget that serial bit transfer requires start, stop, EC, CRC control bits etc. There is a bigger overhead than with parallel data transfer, esp. with how we measure throughput of HDDs. So you need more than 8 bits to get 1 byte worth of data. This is where the "50% efficiency" comes in. A combination of "burst", "wait" and control/EC.

by Ketxxx (August 22nd - 1:14 PM) - Reply

About time USB3 started being known about in the public. I'm still arguing why the hell does USB3 need to be backwardly compatible with USB 1.1 though.. NOBODY uses bloody 1.1 and I bet less than 3% of PC owners actually still own a USB1.1 device.

by TheMailMan78 (August 22nd - 1:38 PM) - Reply

Ya know Iv been messing around with computers for 20 years and I had no F#@KING clue there was a difference between "MB" and "Mb". I never gave it much thought and if I did just figured it was a typo. I feel like such a newb! :laugh: I love this forum!

by chron (August 22nd - 1:40 PM) - Reply

all i can say is wow

by PVTCaboose1337 (August 22nd - 3:50 PM) - Reply

by: Mussels
no one trusts the USB3 specs because the USB 2.0 specs are full of crap. 480Mb/s is 60MB/s - i've never seen a transfer (USB HDD, flash drive, etc) ever break 30MB/s (sustained).

Its probably like wireless and powerline networking, where they measure up and down at the same time and claim its double the speed.

This is probably right... sadly. I think the hardware though is the weak link in the examples you gave though.

by cdawall (August 22nd - 5:24 PM) - Reply

so who thinks this will actually give good transfer rates? and who thinks this will be another firewire looks slower but smokes USB2.0 thing? this time its going to be eSATA looks slower but is really much faster because its not a burst protocol its sustained speeds like firewire

by newconroer (August 22nd - 5:54 PM) - Reply

Firewire > USB.

Shame it didn't catch on more.

by timta2 (August 22nd - 7:36 PM) - Reply

by: newconroer
Firewire > USB.

Shame it didn't catch on more.

I agree! In the real world Firewire 400 smokes USB 2.0.

by WarEagleAU (August 22nd - 9:36 PM) - Reply

I have an External that is firewire and boy it transfers the hell out of some data.

personally, I like sustained speeds and true to form data, not speculation and paper specs, which is what this seems like to me.

by theJesus (August 22nd - 10:03 PM) - Reply

by: Ketxxx
About time USB3 started being known about in the public. I'm still arguing why the hell does USB3 need to be backwardly compatible with USB 1.1 though.. NOBODY uses bloody 1.1 and I bet less than 3% of PC owners actually still own a USB1.1 device.

Unfortunately, G15 rev1 (don't know about rev2) keyboards use usb1.1 for their pass-through ports (not the actual connection though). So if I still use this keyboard when USB 3.0 is standard, I'd like to still be able to plug a new mouse into it (unless it's some super-high dpi monster).

by Mussels (August 23rd - 1:47 AM) - Reply

by: Ketxxx
About time USB3 started being known about in the public. I'm still arguing why the hell does USB3 need to be backwardly compatible with USB 1.1 though.. NOBODY uses bloody 1.1 and I bet less than 3% of PC owners actually still own a USB1.1 device.

most mice and keyboards still use 1.1. Lots of webcams do too.

80% or so of people would still have a 1.1 device - seriously, go have a look. i still have a USB 1.1 scanner and printer as well.

by tkpenalty (August 23rd - 4:01 AM) - Reply

by: Ketxxx
About time USB3 started being known about in the public. I'm still arguing why the hell does USB3 need to be backwardly compatible with USB 1.1 though.. NOBODY uses bloody 1.1 and I bet less than 3% of PC owners actually still own a USB1.1 device.

All in my input prephrieals use USB 1.1 FYI :shadedshu

by MadClown (August 23rd - 4:05 AM) - Reply

i want my instant data transfer, give me some of dem holografix disks

Post your own comment

Username:
Password:
Register Here!