1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Not All USB 3.0 Implementations Are Created Equal

Discussion in 'Storage' started by qubit, Sep 7, 2010.

  1. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,528
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Doesn't seem like it's ready for prime time, does it? This reminds me of the significant performance differences at stock speeds of mobos in the 90s which used the same chipsets.

    Tom's Hardware
     
  2. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    14,096 (6.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,915
    Location:
    IA, USA
    USB 3.0 requires a lot of bandwidth and some chips simply don't give it enough or there's too many other perhiperals eating away at the available bandwidth. I'm sure you'd see the same issue with SATA 6 Gb/s
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  3. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    This is why I am slow to adapt to new standards. Maybe wait till USB 3.1? I just stick to ESATA for now, although it does have a TON of flaws, it works fairly well.
     
  4. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,221 (6.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,260
    113MB/s? Still about 4 times as fast as USB 2.0, so sounds good to me.
     
    FordGT90Concept says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  5. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,528
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I'm sure you're right and I have to confess, that I've only read the first few paragraphs of this article, so they might mention this point in it somewhere.

    +1 I'd take it, ready for prime time or not, as long as it works without errors. Performance would only improve over time.
     
  6. mlee49

    mlee49

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,497 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,107
    Dont some USB2.0 devices benefit just from being connected to a USB3.0 slot? I want to say Mussels got better transfer rates(not 2-4x better) just by using the 3.0 slot.

    I'm not sure on this, but would be nice to see. :)
     
  7. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    I have no idea why you think connecting a 2.0 device to a 3.0 would magically increase performance. I think you fail to see the concept of a bottleneck. I could be wrong, but I am almost 100% sure putting a 2.0 device into a 3.0 port would do nothing (to increase performance).
     
  8. mlee49

    mlee49

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,497 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,107
    I think you fail to see my last sentence:

    I'm not sure on this, but would be nice to see.

    Dont worry when my UD5 comes on Saturday I'll fire it up and see for ya. :)
     
  9. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,528
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I'd be keen to see if it improves performance.

    There can be unexpected results sometimes. Say, the throughput rate isn't steady on a USB 2.0/2.0 connection, something one sees all the time on a network (try transferring a big file between two networked PCs and watching the throughput with NetMeter to see how it often drops massively). Making a USB 2.0/3.0 connection might resolve this and wouldn't surprise me at all.
     
  10. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Ok everyone, I made a diagram of how USB works, from 2 perspectives. Stand back:

    [​IMG]

    To mlee, not trying to pick on you, just think this is hilarious.
     

    Attached Files:

    mlee49 says thanks.
  11. mlee49

    mlee49

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,497 (3.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,107
    Massive win!!! Thanks PVT, caught a laugh while doing homework.
     
  12. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,528
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Dunno if you saw my answer in post 9. In theory, of course you should see no difference at all, but it's possible that making a USB 2.0/3.0 connection might make the data transfer rate more consistent and allow it to reach full USB 2.0 speed, assuming it wasn't already for some reason.

    I haven't tried this out myself, but it sounds like a plausible scenario to me.
     
  13. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    I understand what you are saying, talking about how 3.0 would make 2.0 work to its full potential. This is not the case however. Let's say the 2.0 device transfers max of 1 mb/s, and the 3.0 a max of 9000mb/s. Regardless, the max you can have the 2.0 go is 1 mb/s. Now if in a 2.0 port the 2.0 device was going .9mb/s then yes maybe it can go 1mb/s in the 3.0 port, but in reality, the bottleneck is IN the 2.0 device, meaning that there should be no change. Theory says no change. Reality will make no change. I can do some tests for you on a 3.0 card with a 2.0 device and a 2.0 device in a 2.0 port on the same machine. I promise you the results are so close together that the difference in negligible.
     
    qubit says thanks.
  14. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,528
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Thanks for that. It's just that I've seen how crappy data transfer performance can be over a network - and I'm talking about a very simple 100Mb (and later 1Gb) connection between two Windows PCs at home connected through a hub - so I figured if the same thing happens with USB it might improve it. Perhaps this problem doesn't exist with a USB connection? I really don't know and I'd be very grateful if you could do that experiment and post the result here. :)
     
  15. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    I was speaking hypothetically, but you have now given me a reason to get a 3.0 card for my laptop. I might as well... ;)
     
    qubit says thanks.
  16. mudkip

    mudkip

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,226 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    When I use my External HDD with USB 2.0 on my USB3 the transfer rates are about 40-50-60 MB/s instead of the usual 20-25 MB/s with USB 2.0
     
  17. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931 (3.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,528
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Yeah, I'm not surprised. It shouldn't make a difference, yet it does. Perhaps it's to do with drivers? Who knows.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page