Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First-Ever USB 3.0 Hard Drive

Posted by timothy on from the if-you're-tired-of-the-current-cables dept.

dreemteem writes "After 8 years of success, the USB 2.0 standard has begun its long journey into obsolescence. Dutch storage company Freecom has announced the first mainstream storage product based on 'SuperSpeed' USB 3.0. Buyers will be interested to hear that the new external Hard Drive XS 3.0 doesn't cost the earth at £99 (approx $160) for a 1TB drive, even though that excludes the £22.99 for a desktop PCI-bus controller necessary to make it work at its intended throughput. Laptop users can pair it with a £25.99 plug-in PC Card to achieve the same effect."

9 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. eSATA, Weakest Link, etc by ergo98 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We now can transfer a 5GB movie in just 38 seconds - it's unbelievably fast," said Freecom's managing director, Axel Lucassen. Assuming that USB 3.0 scales proportionately, USB 2.0 would have transferred the same file in six and a half minutes
    Ignoring the naive assumption, USB 2 is as fast or faster than the majority of hard drives (which average reads in the 50-60MB/s range). Buying a faster connection technology won't somehow make your hard drive faster.

    Though if you really are concerned, we've had the excellent and widely support eSATA for some time, giving you a 1.5Gbps or 3.0Gbps connection, and if your MB supports SATA, then it supports eSATA. For a second hard drive I put it in an external enclosure supporting both USB 2 and eSATA, and normally use eSATA, sacrificing nothing (and all of the SCSI-like features of SATA are enabled and used).

    1. Re:eSATA, Weakest Link, etc by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Informative

      >Ignoring the naive assumption, USB 2 is as fast or faster than the majority of hard drives (which average reads in the 50-60MB/s range). Buying a faster connection technology won't somehow make your hard drive faster.

      Absolutely false. USB 2.0 real world speeds are around 30-40mb/sec because of all the overhead. A low end hard drive can easily do 60+ mb/sec and bursts well over 100 mb/sec. USB 2.0 is terrible for hard drives, which is why we have eSata today and need USB 3.0 soon.

      Also, your 54mbps wireless g gives you around 20-30mbps not 54.

    2. Re:eSATA, Weakest Link, etc by jasonwc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Two points-

      USB 2.0's theoretical speed may be 480 Mbit/sec but I've never seen maintained transfer speeds above 30 MB/sec (240 Mbit). Usually I get between 20-25 MB/sec in real-world usage. On HD Tune, I get speeds of 30-32 MB/sec with USB and 100-110 MB/sec (800-880 Mbit/sec) over eSATA on the same 1 TB drive. Thus, USB 2.0 at best reaches half of it's theoretical speed.

      At best USB 3.0 will offer speeds equivalent to eSATA.eSATA has been available for years and almost every mid to high-end motherboard now comes with an eSATA port. Furthermore, an Expresscard two-port eSATA card can be purchased for $40 on Newegg. Thus, USB 3.0 will only be useful when computers with USB 3.0 ports become standard. If you have to purchase a PCI/expresscard expansion card, why not just get an external drive with eSATA? Many drives now come with USB 2.0 + eSATA ports and can be purchased for the same or slightly more than USB only-drives.

  2. Re:Interesting... by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 3, Informative
    Or I could RTFA, where this question is answered...

    The company is also supplying drivers to make USB 3.0 work with Vista and XP. Windows 7 should have 'native' drivers from not long after launch, or users will hope so. Apple is not yet supported by the XS 3.0.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  3. Re:wire speed vs. practical maximums by owlstead · · Score: 4, Informative

    My very old 120GB drive is already faster with Firewire 400 than with USB 2.0, even on older computers. Just for fun also check the SanDisk firewire CF card readers and their performance vs USB.

    USB 2.0 is nice and cheap and compatible. It is also completely crap for file transfers. USB 3.0 seems to solve a lot of the issues that 2.0 has at the cost of additional cables and pins. And that's not just speed, it is also polling and high latency etc.

  4. Re:Let's see some all-3.0 computers now! by timbck2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    FW800 devices use different connectors than FW400 and thus require adapters, while the USB 3.0 connector will plug into a USB 2.0 port (and run at USB 2.0 speed).

    --
    Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
  5. Re:38 seconds? by Laptopdude · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're confusing the different specs. USB 2.0 theoretically runs at 480Mb/s, while USB 3.0 theoretically runs at 4.8Gb/s. So at peak speed (4.8Gb/s = 0.6GB/s), you would transfer 5GB in just over 8 seconds. So it seems the estimate of 38 seconds is based on real-world speed, not theoretical. 5 GB in 38 seconds would translate into just over 1Gb/s.

  6. Re:Let's see some all-3.0 computers now! by timbck2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's not what the SuperSpeed USB 3.0 FAQ seems to imply.

    --
    Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
  7. Re:Let's see some all-3.0 computers now! by nog_lorp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Are you kidding? USE A USB2 CABLE.

    If you need to use your USB2 device with a USB3 host, you use a USB2 cable (which came with your device).

    If you need to use your USB3 device with a USB2 host, the cable works too.