Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USB 3 in 2008, 10 Times as Fast

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i'll-believe-it-when-it's-on-my-laptop dept.

psychicsword writes "Intel and others plan to release a new version of the ubiquitous Universal Serial Bus technology in the first half of 2008, a revamp the chipmaker said will make data transfer rates more than 10 times as fast by adding fiber-optic links alongside the traditional copper wires." "The current USB 2.0 version has a top data-transfer rate of 480 megabits per second, so a tenfold increase would be 4.8 gigabits per second." This should make USB hard drives easier and faster to use."

8 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Bottleneck? by mrjb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Currently I'm getting transfer rates of about 16 megabyte per second on hard drives connected via USB. That's roughly 160 megabit per second, whereas USB 2.0 can transfer up to 480 megabit per second. While I'm all for faster and better, the bottleneck seems to be elsewhere in this case.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Bottleneck? by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the controller, likely. I'm getting 30% higher transfer rates with FW400 than with USB 2.0 on the same external disk.

      Which doesn't give me high hopes for USB3. High-speed links are all good and well, but if they keep including cheap-ass controllers, what's the point?

    2. Re:Bottleneck? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the controller, likely. I'm getting 30% higher transfer rates with FW400 than with USB 2.0 on the same external disk. It's as least as likely the problem is in the protocol. USB is synchronous - data every packet received must be acknowledged in a return packet before the next data packet can be transmitted. That back and forth for each data packet means a lot of wasted time where the channel is essentially idle. Sometimes using a shorter cable can make a noticeable improvement.

      Firewire has both synchronous and asynchronous modes. In async mode, a bunch of packets can be transmitted before any acknowledgment back is required. That's bad if the cables is flakey, since it will result in a lot of retransmits, but bad firewire cables are the exception, not the rule. So async is almost always way more efficient than synch. I'm pretty certain that you are using the async mode for talking to your disk.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  2. Plug Shape by Crock23A · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could be slightly off topic but I had to sound off on this one...

    While I appreciate USB's capability for backwards computability, I would much rather have a plug shaped in such a way that I didn't have to flip it over every time I try to plug it in. I don't know about you guys but this is one of the most annoying aspects of using my computer, and I run Windows!

    This would also be a great time to make a universal "other side" of the cable, rather than having a different plug for every single USB device. I have a mini plug for my camera, a big square one for my printer, a 2.5 mm jack to charge my MP3 player, etc. All these cables make a mess. If all my devices could share one cable, I'd be much happier.

  3. Re:Yeah, but.. by LiNKz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, if you integrate an element of fiber optics into a cable that routinely wrapped up, stepped on, or just basically abused, wouldn't it fail far easier than a standard cable?

    --
    Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
  4. Screw bandwidth... by Balinares · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give us a standard that actually delivers enough power that you don't need an additional power cord for just about every other device already... :/

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
  5. Re:Great. by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory

    No Flash is slow to write , very fast to read. Hence Windows use of it for "ReadyBoost" caching. There is extremely low latency just not enough bandwidth to sustain high levels of I/O.

    On the other hand , by introducing fiber into the link doesn't that take away the greatest part of usb ? being able to just fold up the cable and stuff it in your pocket along with a small hard drive ? I know I use it for restoring machines after catastrophic failures (yeah windows) and some times I don't go right back to my desk with the cable and drive and have to toss it in my pocket. I can't do that with fiber, it would fracture.

    --
    This package Does Not Contain a Winner
  6. Re:Great. by antime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The quoted speed of USB 3 is probably the bus speed, i.e. it's shared by all devices connected to the same host. So one disk won't saturate the bus, but if you plug in a bunch of them the bandwidth won't seem so incredibly massive anymore. Then you have to consider the bandwidth reserved by isochronous devices etc.