Slashdot Mirror
USB 3.0 the Real Deal, SATA 6GB Not Yet
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."
Speed, price and ubiquity. HTH. HAND.
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.
Make the chart bigger!
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).
We live, as we dream -- alone....
SATA 2 is already a bottleneck for many SSDs as this chart shows them hitting a wall at approximately 260MB/s. SATA 3 should release the proverbial floodgates for sequential reads.
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.
From what I can see in the graphs the USB3 HDD is indeed faster than on USB2 because of the bandwith; the SATA HDD is about the same on SATA 2 and 3, but also pretty near USB3. The title is implying superiority of USB over SATA when clearly the HDD is the limiting factor.
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.
What, USB 2 slow? Seems like you never tried to transfer 3GB of photo's to a PC that only has USB 1. Seriously, USB 2 is FAST. If you want slow, try USB 1.
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.
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.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
You're spot on with the CPU load. The reason Firewire is still so popular, and the reason why Mac users were so up in arms when Apple dropped it from their alu MacBook is that for video and audio there's still no good alternative. I can hang 16 channels of digital audio I/O from the Firewire bus and do live digital mixing on a Mac and run digital effects etc.. There's no way I could do that with USB and expect it to be stable if it works at all. Jobs made a big thing about newer digital video cameras being USB2, but the point is it's offline in the sense that you're transferring data from one hard drive in the camera to a hard drive in the computer - if there's a problem with the USB2 bus the camera can throttle back the data transfer or repeat if necessary. If you're using a tape-based digital format (which is still the mainstream standard in the pro/semi-pro world) then you need Firewire because it will reliably import a full tape without dropping frames; effectively it's streaming rather than just copying, for which I wouldn't trust USB2.
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.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I don't know why the editors didn't include a link to it, but AnandTech has a much better review of the SATA 6G-equipped motherboard and its performance; one that actually gets around to doing real-world tests and not just synthetic tests. It turns out that the 6G Marvell controller is slower than the standard Intel ICH10 controller in virtually all cases. Until someone integrates SATA 6G in to a proper motherboard chipset, it's not just performance limited, it's performance degrading.
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.
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.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
" ... 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.
but USB3 is probably *slower* than eSATA when used with external SATA HDD.. and most of motherboards already have that connector.
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?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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?
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?
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!
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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)
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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 in the first place. After all, Intel was originally a supporter of 1394.
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 Firewire interfaces. Some of them, like the slick-looking Apogee models, with their phenomenal AD/DA converters, are Mac only.
Look, I don't think Firewire is the end-all. Personally, I don't mind opening up my computer's case and putting in a card, so I wish more of the companies were coming out with really good PCI-E DAW interfaces or something. But I think that unless Apple is ready to cede their strong portion of the pro audio market, they won't kill Firewire any time soon. USB 2.0 has been somewhat underwhelming for audio performance (at least most of the USB 2.0 audio interfaces that have come out have been underwhelming, which is not the same thing).
That is, I don't see Apple giving up on FW unless they start coming out with Macs that you can open up and install your own hardware that don't cost $3k. Or if USB 3.0 is so great and all the pro audio manufacturers start coming out with USB 3.0 gear.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
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 devices with the assumption that any power will be available over the port. Many computers come with 4-pin FireWire ports, and if you plug things into these you won't even have the power pins connected. In contrast, every USB device can guarantee that it can get the power that it requests, either from the computer or the hub.
And it's not just 40% faster. One drive was 40% faster. I assume USB can scale to at least 2 devices, so that would make it 280% faster. Compared to FireWire 800, of course. FireWire 3200 has been promised for almost a decade, but still isn't shipping. The big advantage FireWire had, apart from speed, was the ability to do isochronous transfers, which USB added. The peer to peer model is nice on paper, but the only time I've used it was to connect two computers together so that one that was connected to a wired ethernet link could share its network connection with the other. Being able to print directly from a camera sounds nice, but cameras and printers are both shipping with USB and not FireWire, and it turned out that just putting a USB host controller on the camera worked just as well and was cheaper.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Sure you can yank up the bandwidth of USB3, but as long as you're stuck with PIO that isn't much of a gain. I would rather have USB3 have a DMA extension for really fast transfers instead of having to have the CPU wake up for every little I/O operation. On a related note, does anybody know any laptop brand that sells computers *with eSata*? That would be awesome.
Quantum hacker.
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
I wonder if even Intel's heart is in USB any more. USB 3 sounds considerably more complex than previous versions, not just for the chipsets but in terms of the cost of cabling etc. I wonder if the tech is going to see serious adoption. Intel are already talking up Light Peak which has a potential for insane transfer rates. I expect USB will be around for a long time yet, but I wonder if USB 3 will have time to become established before something much better appears.
USB 3.0 does away with polling and introduces an interrupt-based transfer model, so CPU usage should no longer be an issue.
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
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
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
October 29th, 2009
This Is The First USB 3.0 Motherboard
October 28th, 2009
ASUS debuts USB 3.0 motherboard and add-on card
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
October 28th, 2009
ASUS P7P55D-E Motherboard Offers USB 3.0 and SATA-III 6G Performance
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.
Ahhh, I love you XKCD.
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.
Deleted
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
"I DARE you to make less sense!"
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.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)