6703397
story
Comments: 168 +- IT: USB 3.0 the Real Deal, SATA 6GB Not Yet on Friday October 30, @04:00AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicupgrades.gif); width:70px; height:58px;
upgrades
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicstorage.gif); width:48px; height:51px;
storage
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topichardware.gif); width:64px; height:55px;
hardware
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
MojoKid writes "HotHardware has posted a sneak peek at a new motherboard Asus has coming down the pipe with USB 3.0 and SATA 6G support. The Asus P7P55D-E Premium has a PLX PCI Express Gen 2 switch implementation that connects to NEC USB 3.0 and Marvell SATA 6G controller chips. With a USB 3.0 enabled external hard drive connected to a USB 2.0 port and then to the board's USB 3.0 port, there were some rather impressive gains to observe. When connected to a USB 3.0 port, the external hard drive was about 5 — 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0, with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec. On the other hand, benchmarks with Seagate's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts. According to ATTO, there are slight overall performance benefits to be had connecting the drive to the SATA 6G controller, but the deltas were quite small; somewhere in the neighborhood of 5MB/s or so."
Related Stories
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Shoddy Method (Score:5, Insightful)
The Barracuda XT is a spinning platter HDD and so should not be expected to benefit significantly from the new SATA revision. SSDs on the other hand have already maxed out the transfer rate SATA 3Gbps. I suspect they would have seen the difference if they used a top of the line SSD.
This is good news all around, it's great to see things getting faster.
"off the charts"?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"off the charts"?? (Score:4, Funny)
"But this one goes up to 3!"
"Couldn't they just make 2 louder?"
Parent
moral? (Score:5, Informative)
This all sounds like exactly what you'd expect.
The old SATA standard was more than sufficient for the hard disk's max sustained transfer rate, so only burst performance (when everything is presumably coming from the disk's RAM cache) changed with the new SATA. So "SATA 6GB" is working fine, but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.
With USB on the other hand, USB 2 is simply far too slow to handle even the drive's sustained transfer rate, whereas USB 3 is fast enough to handle it.
So the moral seems to be: USB 2 sucks for disks, USB 3 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive, and SATA's still probably better than either (it's not really possible to tell from this article, since the sustained transfer rates are limited by the drive, and they curiously omitted the burst rates for USB).
Re:moral? (Score:5, Insightful)
> So "SATA 6GB" is working fine, but this disk is just too slow to take advantage of its speed increase.
You are forgetting that lots of people are switching to SSD disks with amazing throughputs.. so there is an actual benefit for SATA 6GB. I for one welcome the new SATA 6GB overlord.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the reason SATA 6GB exists is to boost SSD performance, then the should have TESTED it with an SSD.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's why some people call this HotHardware article "shoddy journalism".
I'm sure there are other articles which test SSD drives.
SATA Third generation is a new standard, and disks are just coming out now. I wouldn't expect to much until the vendors come out with new, competitive products.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd probably say something more like:
"USB 1 sucks for disks, USB 2 is better and probably sufficient for a typical hard drive"
Your comment made me feel old you insensitive clod :(
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"So the moral seems to be: USB 2 sucks for disks"
I can't be the only one that miss-parsed that is USB 2 sucks dicks.
SATA 3 is for SSDs (Score:5, Interesting)
On a tangent, Samsung just started mass production of a 64MB, 60nm phase-change RAM in September. Initially they are going to use them in mobile phones. The chips read, write and erase approximately 7 times faster than Flash memory, and also use less power. Sooner rather than later Samsung or the other PRAM producer Numonyx will put the chips in SSDs that can read and write at around 1GB per second.
what real deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for some SSDs! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's relatively straightforward to add more parallel channels to an SSD drive and increase bandwidth. In the long run, there isn't even much of a cost difference to make the same capacity SSD drive fast enough to max out SATA 6. (the main cost driver of SSDs appears to be the cost of the flash chips themselves)
So bring on the new drives that can max out SATA 6! Right now, you can get comparable performance if you put two or four high end SSDs into a RAID 0 array. However, there's a lot of problems with doing this : you have to fuss with software drivers, certain SSD features aren't supported very well (like Trim), and there are bottlenecks in motherboard RAID chipsets because spinning disks were never this quick. Dedicated hardware RAID cards cost $300-$1000, making the cost rather steep for most users. Finally, while SSDs probably are inherently more reliable in the long run than hard disks, it's not a good idea to build a system that depends on 2-4 separate drives, a motherboard chipset, and potentially buggy drivers or else your data is hosed.
So I'm very much looking forward to upcoming SSDs like the Vertex 2 that should be able to max out a SATA 6 link. That is, once the SATA 6 motherboards become relatively common.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
there already is http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/27/fusion-io-ioxtreme-and-ioxtreme-pro-pci-express-ssds-sneak-out/
just pack that into sata controler, and sata3 is no more.
Price of USB 3.0 (Score:5, Interesting)
The big question with USB 3.0 is the price. That is the big advantage of USB over competitors like FireWire. Cables, host controllers, devices, hubs, everything is cheap. USB 3.0 looks a lot more complicated. The cables are much thicker with more wires and shielding. A USB 3.0 hub has to contain everything a USB 2.0 hub does, plus the new SuperSpeed part which is no longer just a dumb hub but more like a switch or router.
Re:Price of USB 3.0 firewire 1600 / 3200 better as (Score:4, Insightful)
Firewire 1600 / 3200 is better as it uses the same cables and ports as firewire 800. USB 3.0 needs new cables and ports also how high is the cpu load?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
USB 3.0 does away with polling and introduces an interrupt-based transfer model, so CPU usage should no longer be an issue.
Is it **better** as opposed to faster ? (Score:3, Interesting)
My issues with USB 2.0 are not so much about speed:
1- there's that ridiculous fudging about hi-speed, full-speed... is USB 3.0 **ALWAYS** USB 3.0, at last ?
2- I've got a bunch of 2.0 stuff (whichever 2.0 that was) that only works if I set my PC's USB ports as 1.0 only.
3- Even 2.0 stuff that kinda works has a way to make any non-intel-chipset PC freezy-jerky
4- I very rarely got anywhere near the supposed speed of 2.0 anyway.
In the end, I'd rather have a reliable, compatible, no PC freezes connection, than a "if everything works well" (read: rarely if ever) 10x faster one.
Not my experience at all! (Score:2)
1. My USB hard drives run consistently at ~25 Mb/sec. I have several types from different mfgrs and they all have the same transfer rate. I also have several 100 Mb Ethernet dongles from different mfgrs and they are all quite capable of saturating the network.
2. Not my experience at all! I segregate devices and hook them up to different hubs, but that's all.
3. Not my experience at all! I have nVidia chipset motherboards and NEC PCI cards that do USB just fine.
4.See #1
You don't mention anything about oper
Better SATA 6G Article (Score:5, Informative)
misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
article title is misleading, it should be "usb 3 sucks, sata6 is amazing"
USB 3.0 is not fast enough (Score:2, Funny)
The inevitable 10 Gbit Ethernet dongles will be limited by USB speed.
Wow ... no, I meant YAWN ... (Score:3, Insightful)
" ... When connected to a USB 3.0 port, the external hard drive was about 5 -- 6x faster versus connecting over USB 2.0, with total throughput in excess of 130MB/sec. On the other hand, benchmarks with Seagate's new Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive show little performance difference but a burst rate that is off the charts. ..."
So, the USB 3 will be attractive to consumers, with big, impressive numbers written large on boxes in stores everywhere, and the SATA 6G will be attractive to content creators (high end video production, etc). USB 3 will be cheap, and SATA 6G will be not-so-cheap.
About 99 out of 100 moderately clued in techies could have guessed the outcome of this one.
[Fudges around in toy box under desk ... pulls out crystal ball ... can barely discern "hippy type art school grad" reading AmandTech article dated Feb 2010 ...]
"Yeah, but wait ... it says here that if you load up the USB 3 with more than one device, they both really slow down, but my film lab's SATA 3G just keeps on truckin' when you daisy-chain them ..."
Yawn.
Light Peak (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a good thought - in my USB 3.0 article I mention that specifically. Can USB 3.0 survive without the FULL push of Intel? I tend to believe that other controller vendors will push the technology hard enough to make up for it and that the speed differences will push customers to really WANT the technology:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=809 [pcper.com]
Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium (Score:4, Informative)
I ordered a new system based on an Intel CORE i5 750 2.66GHZ CPU running on the Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium w/8 GB DDR3 1333 Mhz ram two days ago, and have been monitoring the net for signs of this mobo to actually hit the shelves. I will be running this with an unremarkable 64 GB Patriot SDD as the boot drive, until the new SATA 6 Gbps SSDs come out - which could take a awhile I imagine. I expect blazing speed from this platform, and can hardly wait for it. The only unknown is when will the mobo arrive. If it drags on and on, at least there is the option of an add on card that will convert one of the other ASUS X58 boards to USB 3 & SATA 6. I just hope I haven't made a mistake with the decision to wait. The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29.
Here are a host of links I collected on it this morning...
Asus Unveils USB 3.0 Motherboard [informationweek.com]
Asus Xtreme Design P7P55D-E Premium
The motherboard, unveiled Wednesday [October 28 2009], is 4.8 inches by 3 inches and is scheduled to be available next month for $299.
October 30th, 2009
USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview - ASUS brings the goods [pcper.com]
the P55-Express based P7P55D-E Premium is very close to hitting the market.
October 29th, 2009
USB 3.0 and SATA 6G Performance Preview [hothardware.com]
October 29th, 2009
This Is The First USB 3.0 Motherboard [gizmodo.com.au]
October 28th, 2009
ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card [zdnet.com]
The P7P55D-E Premium motherboard will retail for $299 while the U3S6 add-on card will be $29. Both will be available November.
October 28th, 2009
ASUS brings the first mobo with SATA 3 and USB 3 [atomicmpc.com.au]
October 28th, 2009
ASUS P7P55D-E Motherboard Offers USB 3.0 and SATA-III 6G Performance [benchmarkreviews.com]
North American Availability
The P7P55D-E Premium and U3S6 expansion cards will be available at ASUS authorized retailers early November at $299 and $29 respectively.
Speed, price and ubiquity. HTH. HAND. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speed, price and ubiquity. HTH. HAND. (Score:5, Informative)
Intel were very clever pitching USB as a replacement for things like PS/2 and RS-232 connectors. That meant that everyone had a USB port or two and collected USB 1 devices. When USB 2 came around, even though it wasn't quite as good as FireWire 400, it was almost as good and it was effectively free, because there was almost no price difference between a USB 1 and a USB 2 controller, and you needed a USB 1 controller for everyone's keyboard and mouse. Now USB 3 is here, the same is going to happen. USB 2 controllers will be replaced by USB 3 controllers, and everyone will have a set of USB 3 ports. FireWire doesn't just have to be better, it has to be better by enough of a margin to make it worth adding an extra controller, extra motherboard traces, and extra ports.
Parent
Re:IEEE1394 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's faster. In their tests, they were getting 140MB/s transfers through USB3 to a single drive. I have two (older, slower) drives that can, between them, saturate a FireWire 800 bus giving me a total throughput of a shade under 100MB/s. One thing the tests didn't show was how well USB3 scales. What happens when you plug two disks in to a single USB3 port? What about four or five? I can chain together FireWire 800 disks and see it scale almost linearly, but can I do the same with USB3 hubs? In real-world usage, USB2 was much slower than FireWire 400 due to protocol overhead. Has this been improved with USB3? What happens if I run a USB1 keyboard on the same hub as my USB3 disk? The FireWire standard goes up to 3200Mb/s, although I've never seen an implementation that goes over 800. USB3, apparently, gives the same speed after protocol overhead, but how close to this can it get in the real world? USB 2 had a very high CPU load compared to FireWire, has this been fixed with USB3?
It seems that USB3 has fixed most of the things that made FireWire better than USB2, and FireWire 3200 isn't supported anywhere that I've seen, so USB3 probably has more long term future. It's not clear that USB3 is better than FireWire 3200, but it does have one big advantage: it's actually being deployed. It is clearly superior to FireWire 800, which is the fastest FireWire you'll find on existing systems.
Parent
Re:IEEE1394 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think if Apple had not been so greedy in the beginning, FireWire would be the standard today. And I'm also sure in the end Apple would have made much more money from it, too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple might have been one of the big names behind 1394 - but there were many others. Apple never had much of a say as to what the royalties would be. They even gave away their trademark name "Firewire" in order to help with adoption. Eventually the 1394 royalties were reduced to 25c a device but by this time USB2 was already in the market.
But you are correct about greed in the beginning. Had the group of companies kept 1394 affordable (ie, 10c a device) then Intel would never have developed USB 2.0 i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that Intel has everything to gain from USB over Firewire. USB has higher CPU overhead (they sell CPUs) and requires a controlling host (more CPUs sold).
Firewire can run between two low-powered devices, leaving Intel off the radar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
agreed. also, i think a lot of mac users appreciate target disk mode. i use it daily:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=999229&cid=25415561 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do desktop and server Macs still have firewire?
Yes and so do all three sizes of macbook pro (13, 15 and 17 inch), hell even the mac mini has it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it's 40% faster over the bus
40% faster in this test, unfortunately hothardware didn't benchmark the bare drive but looking at thier SATA results (based on a different and probablly higher end drive) I suspect the drive was the bottleneck in this USB3 test.
USB3 also tweaks up the power a little so there should now be enough to reliably run a laptop hard drive off bus power (with 2.0 it's hit and miss)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FireWire devices are not allowed to draw (or provide) more than 40W if they want to stick within the spec. Unfortunately, that's not particularly useful. 40W would be enough to power my external disks, but my MacBook Pro does not have enough power for this. The peer to peer nature of FireWire is the problem here. There is no client-server relationship between devices, and so there is no provider-consumer model intrinsic in a FireWire chain when it comes to power. This means that you can't design device
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now even Apple is dropping Firewire from their most popular models.
Do you have a source for that claim or are you just guessing as to what apples most popular models are?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody ought to tell the pro audio manufacturers. I just got the Musicians Friend Christmas Catalog, and there are a host of new Firewire interfaces, including the Focusrite Saffire series (I bought the Saffire DSP 24 and it's one of the nicest portable DAW interfaces I've used, and goes for $399! (DSP! for 399!). Companies from Apogee to M-Audio to RME to MOTU to Avid, Prosonus, Edirol, and I could go on, are all bringing out new Firewi
Firewire owners (Score:3, Interesting)
If you owned a firewire 800 disk drive, you would be smiling like me now.
When FW1600/3200 gets out of door, it will be same endless saga again since they will beat USB 3 too. They should also check the load on host CPU while doing those USB 3 speeds. Intel's standard is still host (CPU) controlled. Surprised a bit?
Re:Firewire owners (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"You know that BetaMax never really died? Almost every TV station in the US used it."
Only the lowest budget TV stations would consider using Betamax. Betamax is a consumer format that, revisionist history aside, had only nitpicky benefits over VHS. Pretty similiar bandwidth/noise specs as VHS.
What you're thinking of Beta-CAM (And more accurately, Betacam SP) which is records high bandwidth analog component video. This is what TV stations use, and the only thing in common it had with Betamax is that the smal
Your gloating is premature (Score:3, Insightful)
There probably won't be FW1600/3200 at all. It'll be abandoned for USB.
Sure there may be a device or two created by some not so bright producers but the reality is they'll fade away and be forgotten.
It doesn't make a blind bit of difference how good something is, it only matters that average punter will buy it. USB will be everywhere, firewire will not. I stopped giving a shit about competing standards years ago.
Re:5x-6x times faster?! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:5x-6x times faster?! (Score:5, Funny)
What, USB 1 slow? Seems like you never tried to transfer 3GB of photo's to a PC that only has a keyboard to type them pixel by pixel.. Seriously, USB 1 is FAST. If you want slow, try typing down 3GB.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What, keyboard slow? Seems like you never tried to transfer 3GB of photo's to an iPhone that only has a touchscreen to type them pixel by pixel.. Seriously, keyboard is FAST. If you want slow, try typing down 3GB on a touchscreen.
Re:Just to put an end to this... (Score:4, Funny)
What butterfly slow? Seems you've never had to transfer 3 GB of photos by gathering a huge amount of hydrogen together, forming a star, waiting for star to burn burn through and go nova forming many heavier elements, taking those elements and combining it with alot more hydrogen to form a solar system, evolving life on one of the planets and shepherding their technological development in the hope that there will one day be 3 GB of photos and the computer to transfer them to.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh, I love you XKCD [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What, USB 1 slow? Seems like you never tried to transfer 3GB of photo's to a PC that only has a keyboard to type them pixel by pixel.. Seriously, USB 1 is FAST. If you want slow, try typing down 3GB.
3GB
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What, USB 1 slow? Seems like you never tried to transfer 3GB of photos to a PC that only has RS232. Seriously, USB 1 is FAST. If you want slow, try RS232.