USB 3.0 gets seriously detailed
Filed under: Peripherals
Relevant Posts
- USB 3.0 specification to be formally unveiled this month (14 days ago - 40 Comments)
- SuperSpeed USB 3.0 spec officially released, first chipset demonstrated (3 days ago - 96 Comments)
- USB 3.0 demonstrations dazzle: uncompressed 1080p transfer proves simple (Yesterday - 69 Comments)
- Goodbye, FireWire 400 (3 days ago - 178 Comments)
- USB Port is neither USB nor Port, just amazing (21 days ago - 55 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Warren @ Aug 18th 2008 3:40PM
Bring it on! When will we see this in stores?
d @ Aug 18th 2008 3:55PM
know what I need to see on the market? On my macbook, I have two usb ports. To be able to pull those and replace them with these, easily, would be great.
Saad Rabia @ Aug 18th 2008 4:06PM
As soon as Vista gets updated with the lovely balloon: "This USB device can perform faster if you connect it to a Hi-Speed USB 3.0 port"
Podaman @ Aug 18th 2008 4:08PM
"Hardware partners are expected to have USB 3.0 controllers designed by mid 2009, and consumers won't see the first end products utilizing the spec until early 2010 (though a late Holiday 2009 push for new products isn't out of the question)."
Krush @ Aug 18th 2008 4:11PM
@d - you expect that from a company who doesn't even let you switch batteries on most of the products? ... good luck with that dude!!
@Warren -- I would like some market release dates as well. This is going to be very useful transferring HD media content .... but I'm keeping a look out for eSata and Firewire camps as well ... not too trusting of Intel.
Andune @ Aug 18th 2008 4:27PM
@Krush - What laptops from said company wont allow you to switch battery?
Alex @ Aug 18th 2008 5:07PM
@Andune:
The MacBook Air
d00b @ Aug 18th 2008 5:15PM
Seems like everybody goes googly-eyed at the 10x 4.8GB spec, but as explained in the article (or one of its comments), that only happens with bilateral transfers. Since most data flow will be one-way, the 5x bandwidth capacity will be the rule.
Blackstar @ Aug 18th 2008 6:49PM
Does this mean my dream of a USB Taser or USB defibrillation paddles will soon be a reality?
loosely_coupled @ Aug 19th 2008 2:28AM
Yeah, 4800Mbps = 600MB/sec, but only for two directions, so 300MB/sec in one direction. And knowing USB, it will probably really only do 150-200MB/sec with protocol overhead and other nonsense.
I'll bet anyone that Firewire 3200Mbps ends up being faster for large sustained transfers!
gil @ Aug 19th 2008 8:19AM
http://digg.com/hardware/USB_4_0_Expected_Max_Speed
Ghen @ Aug 19th 2008 4:35PM
Nobody cares about Firewire. Its not ubiquitous to both new PCs and new devices like USB.
jr.maty @ Aug 18th 2008 3:42PM
Eeeeeee!! Can't wait!!
Socioguy @ Aug 18th 2008 5:03PM
Yes, knowing Asus, there will probably be an Eee PC with USB 3.0 just for you.
Asus IS heart touching.
required @ Aug 18th 2008 3:43PM
is it as fast as firewire?
d @ Aug 18th 2008 3:44PM
no, if it had any kind of speed at all the iPod wouldn't be able to sync with it.
nerdtalker @ Aug 18th 2008 3:48PM
4.8 Gigabits USB 3.0 > 3.2 Gigabit Firewire 1394b (good luck finding one with that, anyhow) > 800 megabits firewire > 400 megabits firewire
Keep in mind that firewire is considered generally faster than USB 2.0 because of overhead and the faster chipsets associated with it.
moleboy @ Aug 18th 2008 4:50PM
actuall, firewire transfers slower than usb, it just streams faster.
CT A @ Aug 18th 2008 4:51PM
Keep in mind Firewire doesn't make your computer crawl.
Christian Walters @ Aug 18th 2008 5:09PM
Also keep in mind that Firewire=FAIL because no body supports its ass!
Michael Scrip @ Aug 18th 2008 7:10PM
> "Also keep in mind that Firewire=FAIL because no body supports its ass!"
Except for all those external hard drives that are USB/Firewire, and all those digital camcorders... just because YOU haven't used Firewire doesn't mean nobody has.
Firewire has always been faster than USB 2.0. I've been using Firewire for my external hard drives and digital video for 5 years, and it's been good to me.
Now I'm just getting into eSATA. So why should I switch to USB 3.0 in a few years?
Michael Scrip @ Aug 18th 2008 7:12PM
> "Also keep in mind that Firewire=FAIL because no body supports its ass!"
Except for all those external hard drives that are USB/Firewire, and all those digital camcorders... just because YOU haven't used Firewire doesn't mean nobody has.
Firewire has always been faster than USB 2.0. I've been using Firewire for my external hard drives and digital video for 5 years, and it's been good to me.
Now I'm just getting into eSATA. So why should I switch to USB 3.0 in a few years?
ethana2 @ Aug 18th 2008 7:26PM
Firewire controllers have a cache for transferred data and can be connected in any configuration-- has USB 3.0 picked up on either of those strengths yet?
And why on earth don't we have a protocol that scales up yet? We can only go so fast as /they/ say we can? What's up with that?
A person should be able to get a physically compatible connector, and have a data rate that depends on power consumption allowance, cable length, ambient spectrum noise, and be determined on-the-fly by the controllers. Is it just about the overhead? ..because with a wired connection, cable length isn't a dynamic thing, it just needs to be able to work with what it's got when the connection is established... If it's not good enough universally, it won't be used universally, and if it's not used universally, it's simply not universal.
Is backwards compatibility limiting our ability to be forward thinking?
xValentine @ Aug 18th 2008 10:21PM
@Christian Walters
Nobody supports FW ?
How about 80-90% of all laptops/PC/camcoder/macs/external harddrives today that has the "IEEE 1394a/b/c" port. ?
ybd @ Aug 18th 2008 3:44PM
I can't wait. Too bad it won't be backwards-compatible with the numerous USB 2.0 devices (probably, I'm far too lazy check)
d @ Aug 18th 2008 3:45PM
reading is a wonderful thing.
Andrew @ Aug 18th 2008 4:05PM
Are you kidding? It says right in the summary of the article.. ON ENGADGET!
thatrotierkid @ Aug 18th 2008 4:21PM
"The highlights include assurance that USB 3.0 will be backwards-compatible with USB 2.0"
third line of engadgets 6 line summary. why even read a blog and comment if you dont even read the 5 second summary?
ethana2 @ Aug 18th 2008 7:55PM
Gonna be honest, if you're far to lazy to read /that/ far, I'm surprised you can feed yourself.
..or /do/ you?
Sapuri @ Aug 18th 2008 3:45PM
480 Mbps = 0.46875 Gbps, NOT 4.8Gps as listed.
(you can type it into your google toolbar on Firefox and verify!)
TeJay @ Aug 18th 2008 3:47PM
"it'll provide transfer rates up to ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps)"
Meaning that 3.0 will be 480x10 = 4.8 Gbps.
Does nobody on this site have reading comprehension?
Kamokazi @ Aug 18th 2008 3:49PM
You either suck at math or suck at reading:
ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps)
10x480Mbps=4800Mbps or 4.8Gbps
Mike C @ Aug 18th 2008 3:49PM
480Mbps x 10 = 4.8 Gbps. You can check the post above for the sentence.
CPTStewart @ Aug 18th 2008 3:49PM
I believe the 4.8Gbps refers to the USB 3.0 speeds, not 2.0.
Seanross @ Aug 18th 2008 3:50PM
"provide transfer rates up to ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps)"
Again reading is fundamental...
z0phi3l @ Aug 18th 2008 3:50PM
It's talking about the 3.0 speed, as in ten times the current 480mbps or 4.8gbps
Reading comprehension FTW!
edgore @ Aug 18th 2008 3:50PM
The new spec is ten times faster than the old spec (480 Mps) so move your decimal place one over the the left...and it's 4.8 Gps
broli @ Aug 18th 2008 3:52PM
Guys you battered him enough already.
w00t @ Aug 18th 2008 4:00PM
480Mbit = 0.46875Gbit so x10 would be 4.6875Gbit!
Unless you buy into hard drive manufacturer's bullshit or you think 'kibibit', 'mebibit' and 'gibibit' sounds good that is!
tyler @ Aug 18th 2008 4:17PM
@ broli:
i guess around here, when it rains, it pours
The 3rd Hot Dog @ Aug 18th 2008 4:33PM
Ouch, d00d.
Sapuri @ Aug 18th 2008 6:04PM
ouch.
So like, I'm learning to read here...
Jon @ Aug 18th 2008 10:37PM
Hold on guys -- he's got a point:
isn't 1024Kbps = 1 Mbps and 1024Mbps = 1Gbps?
So 4.8Mbps in Gbps is 0.46875, multiply by 10 = 4.6875 Gbps, so he's right in terms of the conversion.
ps @ Aug 18th 2008 11:27PM
Guys, wait a second -- he's got a point:
remember 1024kbps = 1mbps, and 1024mbps = 1gbps, since they work on a 2^10 system...
so 480mbps = 0.46875gbps and therefore ten times 0.46875 is in deed 4.6875gbps.
mattkenny @ Aug 19th 2008 5:48AM
@ "Jon @ Aug 18th 2008 10:37PM"
"isn't 1024Kbps = 1 Mbps and 1024Mbps = 1Gbps?"
"So 4.8Mbps in Gbps is 0.46875, multiply by 10 = 4.6875 Gbps..."
The whole 1024 vs 1000 thing was only ever for storage, not for comms. The only reason they used 1024 bits per kilobit was because when manufacturing ROM chips they worked in powers of two (i.e. 2^addressbits). For comms, they always used base 10 prefixes (i.e. 1000 bits per kilobit), since there was no physical reason to change the definition. I.e. your old 56kbps dialup modem was 56000bps, your 1.5Mbps ADSL is 1500kbps = 1500000bps.
Now that I have the lesson out of the way (I just finished teaching a lab at uni :-p ), you can see that USB 3 has a transfer speed of 4.8Gbps = 4800Mbps = 4800000kbps = 4800000000bps.
class dismissed.
tanais @ Aug 18th 2008 3:46PM
>"and it will be much more mindful of energy waste."
so no USB kettle then?
ethana2 @ Aug 18th 2008 7:57PM
That's just proper frequency scaling and a proper interrupt based system i bet.
If you can power a kettle with .9A at 5V, be my guest. (i think that's what it is anyway)
Dave Chappelle @ Aug 19th 2008 9:10AM
Damn, this means no USB 3.0 Water desalination plant?
SoloSalsa @ Aug 20th 2008 12:04PM
I want a microwave, way faster.
Bassir @ Aug 18th 2008 3:46PM
It's times like this when I'm excited for something like this that reminds me that I'm a huge geek.
I love being a geek.