My PC is "old" enough not to have a USB 3.0 connection. But, even if I installed a PCI card to adapt the motherboard to such a connection, won
Printable View
My PC is "old" enough not to have a USB 3.0 connection. But, even if I installed a PCI card to adapt the motherboard to such a connection, won
I don
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Lol, you're really really behind then [:O]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Nah not even close. Assuming you have PCI-express(not the old PCI), a PCI-E x 1 slot would already be fast enough to handle USB3.
This link might clear a bit: link
Do you have any new USB 3 devices by the way? Another fast solution for external HDD for example is e-Sata (which in combination with Sata 600 is even faster than USB 3).
The best thing about USB 3 is that it can also power your external HDD. (up to 2,5" disks if I'm correct)
Jan
wow. my desktop still has USB 1.0. Data transfer FAIL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
Yes, it would be fast enough to "handle" usb 3, but the question was whether the card would limit the usb 3. I'm pretty ignorant about computers and technology and such things (so correct me if I am wrong), but I thought USB 3.0 was supposed to be like 5 gbps. According to your link, a single connection pci express x1 slot is only 2.5 gbps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
Well, I'm even further back than that, since none of my PCI slots are PCI-express. All the old style PCI connections. I guess it's a lot like working with stone knives and bear skins. [;)]
I do have a slot being taken up by a dual port eSATA, for a couple of docking stations. Maybe I can find a card that will have both eSATA and USB 3.0.
Edit: I spoke too soon about the PCI slots. After looking past all the dust bunnies, there was one. Occupied with something I never use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
Dang, Alex... I was embarrassed by my c2quad q6600 still running DDR2 ram... I don't feel quite so bad anymore! [:P]
Yeah Dave, my desktop is an HP from 2002. XP, 1.4GHz pentium 3? i
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
Wow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
Yeah... you can still buy them on the EGG... I know that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
Definitely, sir. This time, BUILD!!! [Y]
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
I bet you don't really like computers then do you? [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Honestly, I have no clue Jon. I don't know what's the difference between single and dual directions is. Nonetheless I checked quite some producers of USB 3 PCI-E*1 adapters and they all claim to get up to 5Gb/s, so it "seems" (marketing or not) that the 5GB/s on PCI-Ex1 should be gettable...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
+1 [:P] I have a quadcore running at 4.2Ghz...[:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
Yep just like DDR2, some companies still offer them. I have even seen newly developed DDR2 lately. Don't think they are getting high salesrates though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
Yea build it yourself! It's actually quite enjoyable to build one as well. And just like with camera's and lenses, you're never done upgrading, so watch your wallet [A]
Oh yes, I
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
Shoot! That sounds like my computer, 2 computers ago! It was a pentium 4, too. It got hot enough when I was rendering video that it finally blew. I mean, literally. I saw a big spark and the thing froze up. I looked inside, and a heat sink had flew off one of the chip sets. It was all over, but the cryin'.
Now I don't feel so bad about not having USB 3.0!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
99% of the time, yes, USB3 will be limited by the bus. That's true in most cases even if you use a PCI Express 2.0 x1 card (which is theoretically capable of 500 MB/s). It's even true if you bought a brand new computer that has the USB 3.0 directly on the motherboard and even advertises full 400 MB/s USB 3.0.
There is a *huge* disconnect between advertising and reality, especially when it comes to USB 3.It took me several months, three computers, and several thousand dollars to finally get a computer that is capable of the the full 4.8 Gbps USB 3.0, so I feel I'm qualified to speak about it. I needed the full speed in order to capture, modify, and output live uncompressed 10-bit 1080p video (192 MB/s two ways) with a USB3 capture device.
99.99% of computers that advertise "True USB 3.0 @ 4.8 Gbps (400 MB/s)!" are not actually capable of speeds anywhere near that level (not even the speed of the USB 3 device itself). For example, my first motherboard, an Asus P7P55D, claimed this, but was actually only capable of less than half that speed. The second computer I tried with an add-in PCI express 2.0 x1 USB 3.0 card, but that too didn't work at the full "SuperSpeed". It wasn't until I bought an ASUS P6X58D-E that I was able to hit the fuill 4.8Gbps.
So why don't computer and motheboard manufacturers use the full speed? Because PCI express lanes to the CPU are expensive and in short supply. They have to divide them up among add-in slots, SATA controllers, etc. And it doesn't make for good marketing when you say "our USB3 is throttled from 400 MB/s to 100 MB/s so we could dedicate 75% of those PCI lanes to the 6 extra SATA ports on the motherboard!". Instead, they just lie and say "USB 3.0 400 MB/s!". (Lucifer was Director of Marketing in heaven before he got kicked out, you know. That's where he got his nickname "Father of Lies".)
So, theoretically, it is possible to have a PCI Express 2.0 x1 add-in card that provides the full USB 3.0 400 MB/s (4.8Gbps), but in practice no such configuration exists because no manufacturer truly dedicates a full 400 MB/s between the pci-x1 lane and the processor. (At least it certainly didn't exist between Sep 2010 and Feb, 2011).
All that said, USB3 is still going to be faster than USB2 (which tops out around 35 MB/s for me), so I recommend an add-in card anyway. (Personally, I use eSATA for hard disks.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Good advice. I'll get the card.
I wish they would skip USB3.0 and make Thunderbolt a standard :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by iso79
Then everyone would have to get new cords for their cameras..... and iphones... [:P]
[quote user="Dave Johnston"]
Then everyone would have to get new cords for their cameras..... and iphones... :P
[/quote]
So what? Remember the serial cable, and even USB 1.0 days? It
Quote:
Originally Posted by iso79
yeesh.... unfortunately...
Quote:
Originally Posted by iso79
Very True... I just wonder if the masses are going to let USB go though.... Firewire was beast back in the day... and a lot of people still use its latest iteration... but it never got as mainstream as it could have, despite the speed it provided... i just wonder if the same fate lies ahead for the thunderbolt.
Firewire is still great. I use all firewire800 external drives. USB 2.0 is just too slow.
Just a little update on the USB 3.0, with the add-in card and the Delkin card reader.
Let's just say that it's FAST! I'm going to try loading up more pics on a card, then try to time its download speed.
But, it's WAY faster than 2.0. The images from a 7D or 5DMk2 (RAW) were zipping by so fast that it looked the lines on a highway going about 200 miles an hour. [:D]
Ineo and Thermaltake make a docking station that are equipped with USB 3.0. I have a Thermaltake that is eSATA, too.
The speed of the USB will probably rival the eSATA, on the docking station. Don't know, but it sure is fast.
It was a good investment, and the add-in card was a cinch (thanks, Daniel).
Alan
If anyone is interested, I get about 60 Mb/sec transfer with the USB 3.0 Delkin card reader, coupled to a PCI express card.
Lightning fast, compared to USB 2.0.
Though, 2.0 is fine, too, as long as you grab a cup of coffee, and don't give a rat's patoot about the time savings.
My next PC will have 3.0, though.
Alan
That's definitely interesting Alan. At this point I'm still using the cmaera's USB connection. I guess that with a USB3 card reader, downloading 32GB, will go a lot faster than it does now [A] Will see if there's a cheap one available here, else I will wait a bit longer and I will grab a cup of coffee along the way [:D]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]All<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]There is no mention of what you used to determine the speed of transfer. There is a link to an excellent benchmarking tool (ATTO Disk Benchmark) for memory cards. Give this a go and post the resulting graph.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1749/ATTO_Disk_Benchmark_v2.46.html<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; color: #cccccc; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raid
True. It was a rough, qualitative method.
Total Gb of images divided by time (stop watch).
Is it perfect? No, but it comes close.
I think what I was trying to point out was USB 3 is faster. Whether it was 60 Mb/s, 58 Mb/s or 62 Mb/s, it really doesn't matter.
Compared to 2.0, it's way faster.
Hi Alan
The tool I provided you a link to is ideal for letting you know if you are getting the best out of your system.
The attached image is the result of Scandisk 16GB Ultra CF card (30MBs). As you can see I can only get 25MBs out of my PC even though its a very fast machine.
The beauty of this method is that you can make changes (CF card, USB reader etc) and find out where your system limitations are.
[IMG][View:http://i1046.photobucket.com/albums/b466/Gollum4242/Test%20Images/16GBSandiskUltra.jpg][/IMG]
I get close to 60 MB/s transfers (using Sandisk 60 MB/s cards) with an ExpressCard/34 CF reader on my Mac. I might try Thunderbolt when CF readers become easily available.
RAID, thanks. That's an interesting tool.
John, that's as fast as my upgraded reader and card. I'll be watching for the results for Thunderbolt, too. Thanks.
Here are my results with a Transcend 400x 32GB CF-card (60MB/s write, 90MB/s read says the official box) and a Pretec P240 USB 3.0 Multi Card-reader:
http://enyama.wippiespace.com/qwRad/...nscend400x.jpg
I also tested transferring 1GB of RAW files to the card and measured the time this took with a stopwatch and it took ~31 seconds to write the images (31MB/s) and ~13 seconds to read them back to my computer (77MB/s) so the actual real world performance compares pretty well to the benchmarks. Interesting to note how ATTO is faster at writing than CrystalDiskMark or real world Windows file copying. Might be that my 7D is also closer to the 60MB/s write speed that the Transcend card promises when writing images.
My relevant PC specs are as follows: Intel 2600K @ 4Ghz, Asus P8P67-M Pro, 16GB of RAM, Intel 320 128GB SSD and Windows 7 x64
qwRad
That’s very impressive performance. My transfer rate is both limited by the card (30MBs) and the card reader (USB2). I have never seen USB2 reader get above the high 30’s, which make sense as nobody can get 480Mbs (or even close).
If you still have your USB2 reader how does the card perform there?
ATTO Benchmark was recommended to me by the ScanDisk Forum. They use the results to determine of the card is legitimate or counterfeit because it does push the card/interface.
Here are the results from USB 2.0, on the left the P240 USB3 reader in an USB 2.0 port and on the right my old Fuj:tech HDD-dock/Multi-card reader:
http://enyama.wippiespace.com/qwRad/...nd400xusb2.jpg
My old reader clearly is the bottleneck here but I really wouldn't expect it to be that slow since it works pretty well with HDDs I can plug to it. Anyways the Pretec USB3 reader shows USB2 bandwidth fully saturated. Interesting to note the read speed is a bit faster than the write even though write in USB3 port was higher..
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Nothing unusual here, just confirms all the tests that Rob Galbraith did on readers.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Once upon a time there were two types of Flash Media.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]The first type was used for application like computer BIOS. This type was very slow to write, had a limited number of write cycles but was very fast to read.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]The second type was used in portable Flash Media, like USB sticks and CF cards etc. This type was fast to write, had a very large number of write cycles but was a lot slower to read.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]The latest generation of CF cards has a newer technology that has improved write times and reads times made a huge jump as well as write cycles (note the difference between the read and write on your first test, 60MBs write and 90MBs read). If you want to see what the old technology was like grab one of you <1GB CF cards or old USB sticks. <o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Old technology flash media can still be found in cheap and counterfeit products, this is why it’s important to test.<o:p></o:p>