Friday, August 22nd 2008

USB 3.0 SuperSpeed Demonstrated

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
Add your own comment

49 Comments on USB 3.0 SuperSpeed Demonstrated

#1
twicksisted
all this speed is kinda useless if HDD's arent fast enough to store it all quick enough...
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
twicksisted said:
all this speed is kinda useless if HDD's arent fast enough to store it all quick enough...
not really, look how long we've been hating USB2.0 for being too slow for. USB 3.0 is going to be around for a long time, so it needs some future proofing.
Posted on Reply
#3
twicksisted
Mussels said:
not really, look how long we've been hating USB2.0 for being too slow for. USB 3.0 is going to be around for a long time, so it needs some future proofing.
No... for sure dude... its worth it... but what im saying is that HDD's are the major bottleneck in PC's... why have USB3 if a HDD cant store data as quick as firewire 800?
Posted on Reply
#4
Mussels
Moderprator
twicksisted said:
No... for sure dude... its worth it... but what im saying is that HDD's are the major bottleneck in PC's... why have USB3 if a HDD cant store data as quick as firewire 800?
you seen those SSD's on the front page that can push 250MB/s? Hard drives will reach that limit long before USB 4 comes out.
Posted on Reply
#5
twicksisted
Mussels said:
you seen those SSD's on the front page that can push 250MB/s? Hard drives will reach that limit long before USB 4 comes out.
well i hope so... i been waiting a long time for it...
but honestly i dont feel that it will... CPU, GFX cards and FSB's are way faster than any method of storage and I think it'll be that way for a long time
Posted on Reply
#6
Mussels
Moderprator
well of course. storage is the slowest part of a PC system due to the requirement that it remember the data when its done. faster buses are useless if you lose all the data when you lose power.
Posted on Reply
#7
twicksisted
Mussels said:
well of course. storage is the slowest part of a PC system due to the requirement that it remember the data when its done. faster buses are useless if you lose all the data when you lose power.
well all im saying is.... USB3 is great and all... and i bet theyll have USB3 external Hardrives etc... but its not going to make any sort of difference till the HDD's catch up.

I spose a good application would be to use the bandwidth for something external like a GFX card or similar ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
Mussels
Moderprator
twicksisted, you're missing the point. HDD's are well beyond USB2.0 and have been for a long time - you cant even reach 30MB/s sustained on USB 2.0, whereas hard drives are reaching the 100MB/s mark nowadays (1TB drives + velociraptors)
Posted on Reply
#9
twicksisted
Mussels said:
twicksisted, you're missing the point. HDD's are well beyond USB2.0 and have been for a long time - you cant even reach 30MB/s sustained on USB 2.0, whereas hard drives are reaching the 100MB/s mark nowadays (1TB drives + velociraptors)
The thing is that they saying that the bandwidth of USB3 is 3 times Sata1 & 1.5times the bandwidth of SataII. now we all know that Sata1 is enough on its own,.... the velociraptor is built on Sata1... reason being is becuase thats more than enough bandwidth for one or more of them...

Sata II is only neccessary in raid setups with like 4+ disks as anything lower wouldnt be able to utilise the bandwidth or throughput... itsd be a waste.

so whats the point of saying I have a USB3 device, when all the data sent from it cannot be stored fast enough because its physically impossible... may as well use something slower... or if you need speed, use Esata .... thats all im saying
Posted on Reply
#10
Mussels
Moderprator
Theres a few reasons for it, i'll list a couple.

1. USB never reaches its max capacity. USB 2.0 was less than 50% its advertised speed.
2. USB 3.0 works with USB 1.1 and 2.0 devices - that means its not only for HDD's, and the ports are multiple use.
3. E-sata is a biatch to get working on every system because of differing standards (trust me, i've ran into LOTS of problems with my E-sata cage on various controllers)


Remember this is to eliminate the bottleneck from USB2.0, its not like E-sata where its all new cables and connectors and single-purpose, these ports are going to end up on every system, there'll be hubs and so on.
Posted on Reply
#11
theJesus
Hmm, would there be enough bandwidth for a really nice HD webcam?

Edit: Oh and more importantly for audio-related tasks, it should be able to help in eliminating latency with external audio interfaces. And don't bring up the hard-drive thing, because studio-quality interfaces do more than just record to disk; they're used on stage a lot with sequencers and virtual instruments (soft-synths), etc. I would personally LOVE to have an interface that could have pretty much 0 (or <=1ms) latency while using all I/O channels and wordclock and stuff. Too bad I don't have enough mics, instruments, and other equipment to know what to do with all of it lol.
Posted on Reply
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
jesus: if the 30MB/s of USB 2.0 isnt enough for your webcam needs, you must have some fu**ing SWEET internet.
Posted on Reply
#13
Wile E
Power User
theJesus said:
Hmm, would there be enough bandwidth for a really nice HD webcam?

Edit: Oh and more importantly for audio-related tasks, it should be able to help in eliminating latency with external audio interfaces. And don't bring up the hard-drive thing, because studio-quality interfaces do more than just record to disk; they're used on stage a lot with sequencers and virtual instruments (soft-synths), etc. I would personally LOVE to have an interface that could have pretty much 0 (or <=1ms) latency while using all I/O channels and wordclock and stuff. Too bad I don't have enough mics, instruments, and other equipment to know what to do with all of it lol.
Firewire is a much better suited interface for that. Firepod, FTW!!! lol.
Posted on Reply
#14
theJesus
Mussels said:
jesus: if the 30MB/s of USB 2.0 isnt enough for your webcam needs, you must have some fu**ing SWEET internet.
lol I don't even have a webcam, I was just curious because that would be fucking awesome. I suppose now that I think about it though, probably the only reason webcam's aren't like HD and shit is network limitation, not the interface.

@Wile E: Yeah, I'm rockin' a used Firestation that I got off ebay for ~200 shipped for a newbie interface. Of course it took ****ing two months to get the drivers to work properly thanks to the stupid MLan interface, instead of standard firewire. I'm only a hobbyist though, so I didn't want to spend like 500+ for a new interface with the same amount of I/O. If I ever get more serious about it though, I'll get a good interface with ADAT so I can still use the Firestation, but without needing MLan.

In any case, would fw800 still be better than usb3.0?
Posted on Reply
#15
Wile E
Power User
theJesus said:
lol I don't even have a webcam, I was just curious because that would be fucking awesome. I suppose now that I think about it though, probably the only reason webcam's aren't like HD and shit is network limitation, not the interface.

@Wile E: Yeah, I'm rockin' a used Firestation that I got off ebay for ~200 shipped for a newbie interface. Of course it took ****ing two months to get the drivers to work properly thanks to the stupid MLan interface, instead of standard firewire. I'm only a hobbyist though, so I didn't want to spend like 500+ for a new interface with the same amount of I/O. If I ever get more serious about it though, I'll get a good interface with ADAT so I can still use the Firestation, but without needing MLan.

In any case, would fw800 still be better than usb3.0?
For audio production, I would still have to say Firewire800 is better. If for no other reason than it's ability to stream.
Posted on Reply
#16
twicksisted
Mussels said:
Theres a few reasons for it, i'll list a couple.

1. USB never reaches its max capacity. USB 2.0 was less than 50% its advertised speed.
2. USB 3.0 works with USB 1.1 and 2.0 devices - that means its not only for HDD's, and the ports are multiple use.
3. E-sata is a biatch to get working on every system because of differing standards (trust me, i've ran into LOTS of problems with my E-sata cage on various controllers)


Remember this is to eliminate the bottleneck from USB2.0, its not like E-sata where its all new cables and connectors and single-purpose, these ports are going to end up on every system, there'll be hubs and so on.
I guess youre right ;)
Bring on USB3...hehe
Posted on Reply
#17
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
Ketxxx said:
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.
Interesting numbers you have there. 3% having no USB1.1 devices. I bet you also believe 90% of the people has a C2D with 4GB of RAM and a 4870. Most people don't upgrade every year, they use their computer for four years and then still cheap out on their next machine. Which isn't all that bad as they only browse the interweb and chat.
Posted on Reply
#18
Makaveli
twicksisted said:
the velociraptor is built on Sata1
This is incorrect the new raptor is using a Sata2 connection. Only the older raptors were still SATA1.
Posted on Reply
#19
mrw1986
TheMailMan78 said:
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!
So you probably thought your internet speed was 6 MB/s and not 6Mb/s....lol
Posted on Reply
#20
PP Mguire
On the external HD argument, flash drives that can utilize USB3.0 (Or hell even 2.0 ones) would be great and not so damned slow. The USB2.0 bus is crap now with flash drives reaching up to 32gig and beyond. If i was to transfer 32gig of information on USB2.0 it would take forever. That X-FI usb thingy would prolly work good on USB3.0. I just hope sustained speeds are good on this. Wish firewire would have taken instead of USB though.
Posted on Reply
#21
MadCow
DanTheBanjoman said:
Interesting numbers you have there. 3% having no USB1.1 devices. I bet you also believe 90% of the people has a C2D with 4GB of RAM and a 4870. Most people don't upgrade every year, they use their computer for four years and then still cheap out on their next machine. Which isn't all that bad as they only browse the interweb and chat.
Exactly, I still use a computer with only USB 1.1 ports. I have a USB 1.1 hub that I still use, and plenty of USB 1.1 peripherals. I don't know about most people, but I don't just use USB for storage. :rolleyes:

But I am looking forward to USB 3.0, 2.0 is pretty damn slow, especially since bandwidth is shared for the whole controller, so it becomes twice as slow as soon as you plug in another USB drive.
Posted on Reply
#22
PP Mguire
especially since bandwidth is shared for the whole controller, so it becomes twice as slow as soon as you plug in another USB drive.
Wow i didnt know this. That sucks balls.
Posted on Reply
#23
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
I personally think that USB 3.0 will kill of some of my 2.0 devices like 2.0 killed my 1.x devices. (small voltage increase killed em)
Posted on Reply
#24
Mussels
Moderprator
PVTCaboose1337 said:
I personally think that USB 3.0 will kill of some of my 2.0 devices like 2.0 killed my 1.x devices. (small voltage increase killed em)
thats very unlikely. The only times i've ever seen USB devices die was when people plugged the headers for the front case USB in backwards... and thats very rare nowadays as teh connectors only go on the one way.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment