5Gbit/s USB3 going optical - whoah!

[Rainbow Man]

This is getting seriously hardcore.

There's a couple articles about it on the web already, with Anandtech's showing a cable cross-cut.

Curiously that image does not demonstrate the optical aspect of the new standard - which alledgedly is supposed to be live 'from day one'. So there'll be optical and non-optical USB3?

Way to fragment the market if that's the case. Or perhaps there's an optical/electrical converter in the moulded into the plug in each end in optical cables, eliminating the need for a direct interfacethat might get contaminated with dust/dirt etc.

In any case..interesting. The PC market is seriously heating up. Interfaces are getting WAY fast. PCIe 3.0 10gbit signal speed.. ~40GB/s I/O per 16x graphics card slot sounds nice. Wonder if they'll bump power delivery to half a kilowatt per slot too?

Peace.

 

[AlNom]

Many devices don't need that much capacity, but some can use more, including hard drives, flash card readers and optical drives such as DVD,

And here I was thinking that eSATA would solve that problem.

 

[Humus]

Now we just need devices that can make any reasonable use of all that bandwidth. I don't there there are many devices that are bottlenecked by USB2.0 right now.

 

[BRiT]

We are bottlenecked by USB2. There is no denying it.

Try copying files from a USB2 drive to an internal SATA drive.
Try copying files from a USB2 drive to an external USB2 drive.
Try copying files from a Firewire 400 drive to an internal SATA drive.
Try copying files from a Firewire 400 drive to an external Firewire 400 drive.

You will see that despite USB2 being 480mbps and Firewire being 400mbps, the copy times on USB2 devices will be significantly longer and slower than the Firewire devices.

I cant wait until USB3 comes along.

 

[Humus]

If a device with a 480mbps interface is beaten by a device with a 400mbps interface then clearly it's not fully utilizing its available bandwidth. I don't see how increasing the bandwidth would boost the performance.

 

[BRiT]

The device is using all the bandwidth USB2 can provide. The issue comes with the protocol used and how much overhead it consumes. Hopefully USB3 takes care of those issues in the protocol.

Here's some more information.

Question: Which is faster Hi-Speed USB 2.0 or FireWire?
Answer: In sustained throughput FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.

Question: If Hi-Speed USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the sustained throughput.

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture
FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer
Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:

Read Test:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

 

[AlNom]

Well, why ignore eSATA You're just getting an external port for using a SATA device - full speed hard drive.

I can find many devices to hook up simultaneously that are just fine with USB2.0. Is USB3 so important for devices that there needs to be a new standard to replace USB2.0? Just my opinion, but... I think a majority of people could get by on two eSATA ports maximum. One for a hard drive, one for transferring stuff like giant photos from a camera. Anything else

Plenty of motherboards have at least four SATA ports... motherboard manufacturers have added a specific eSATA in the rear panel for certain models. I just don't see their vision here. :|

 

[INKster]

Well, why ignore eSATA You're just getting an external port for using a SATA device - full speed hard drive.

I can find many devices to hook up simultaneously that are just fine with USB2.0. Is USB3 so important for devices that there needs to be a new standard to replace USB2.0? Just my opinion, but... I think a majority of people could get by on two eSATA ports maximum. One for a hard drive, one for transferring stuff like giant photos from a camera. Anything else

Plenty of motherboards have at least four SATA ports... motherboard manufacturers have added a specific eSATA in the rear panel for certain models. I just don't see their vision here. :|

A SATA controller takes more space on any given Southbridge and/or Northbridge die, therefore the cost of integrating it is higher than of USB's.
It's less dependent of CPU strength, adding further complexity to it.
Also, SATA wasn't really conceived for sturdiness. Its connector isn't designed for more than 40~50 insertions while maintaining mechanical and electrical integrity, and it can't supply power on it's own (needs another cable).
eSata adds a little to it, though, but native eSATA devices are relatively hard to come by when you have the long-term market and cost momentum like USB or even IEEE1394 do.

"USB" is a very powerful brand, and i expect it to even put out the good fight against Bluetooth once the Wireless-USB spec becomes generalized.

 

[AlNom]

A SATA controller takes more space on any given Southbridge and/or Northbridge die, therefore the cost of integrating it is higher than of USB's.

But that's what I mean by the devices that actually need that high of a bandwidth. A lot of new motherboards already come with four SATA ports. Enthusiast boards come with 6-8. So that space is already taken up there.

By implementing USB3, you'd be adding another part to the SB/NB on top of SATA.

Also, SATA wasn't really conceived for sturdiness. Its connector isn't designed for more than 40~50 insertions while maintaining mechanical and electrical integrity,

They could probably just redesign the material construction of it, no

and it can't supply power on it's own (needs another cable).

eSata adds a little to it, though, but native eSATA devices are relatively hard to come by when you have the long-term market and cost momentum like USB or even IEEE1394 do.

"USB" is a very powerful brand, and i expect it to even put out the good fight against Bluetooth once the Wireless-USB spec becomes generalized.

No argument from me there! Thanks for your insight.

 

[Davros]

you dont have eSata devices just sata devices + you connect them to the eSata port
id like to see networking added to usb so you can connect 2 pc's just by shoving a usb cable in each like you can with firewire

ps: what ever happened to firewire800
"The full IEEE 1394b specification supports optical connections up to 100 metres in length and data rates up to 3.2 Gbit/s.
supports upto 63 devices and can supply up to 45 watts of power per port at up to 30 volts"

 

[INKster]

But that's what I mean by the devices that actually need that high of a bandwidth. A lot of new motherboards already come with four SATA ports. Enthusiast boards come with 6-8. So that space is already taken up there.

By implementing USB3, you'd be adding another part to the SB/NB on top of SATA.

They could probably just redesign the material construction of it, no

Yeah, but adding a metal shim and completely redesign the plastic frame isn't exactly an easy task.
Look at all those interface plugs over the years, and how even newer specs like eSATA or HDMI had to look to USB/IEEE1394 for inspiration.


Also, i think another argument is simple politics.
USB led to a very rare situation where pure consensus between the Consumer Electronics makers and the PC makers had occurred, which led its popularity to skyrocket over the years in addition to its negligible implementation costs right from the start.


Fractures between both camps occur simply because they can't "talk" (read, "$$") to one another properly. Different mentalities, different market speeds, different spending habits and profit margin levels, i don't know.
Why the need for DisplayPort or DVI Dual Link when you have HDMI 1.2/1.3 ?
Why the long drag on SATA Optical drives (used by the CE industry, in addition to PC makers), when the hard drive industry, and even the core logic industry has adopted it so quickly ?

These were just two examples, but there are others.
Heck, even the CE industry can't get its act together with multiple competing HD disc formats, multiple Flash memory formats, multiple codec implementations (mandatory or not, there are way too many MPEG-4-based video codec's to my liking in both Blu-ray and HD-DVD; why not just one ?).

 

[Rainbow Man]

By implementing USB3, you'd be adding another part to the SB/NB on top of SATA.

Yes but sata is only good for storage. USB does anytthing you want and there's a lot of stuff that needs high bandwidth that isn'tstorage.

• Networking
• Printers
• Scanners
• Cameras
• Video capture
• Etc

Peace.

 

[Urian]

For Video Edition I use Firewire 800 I have to say that I found the USB 2.0 more unstable that Firewire 400 and if the USB 3.0 are 5Gbit/sec then I will be happy if it becomes a reality.

 

[soylent]

(The intent of USB is different than firewire. USB is more aimed at being a universal solution for pluging many different kinds of things into a host, all needing different kinds of bandwidth, and forcing them to coexist gracefully.

e.g. no error correction and strict latency guarantees(e.g. microphone), bulk transfer(e.g. external HDDs. Error correction, barely any latency guarantee), interrupt based etc.)

 

[chavvdarrr]

Yes but sata is only good for storage. USB does anytthing you want and there's a lot of stuff that needs high bandwidth that isn'tstorage.

• Networking

Peace.

You'll have peace once you tell me how to do networking via usb

 

[Rainbow Man]

I was just mentioning some things that need bandwidth that isn't storage.

Besides, there are network dongles available for USB, I've seen 'em. They may not be terribly common though, especially not these days when every PC comes with ethernet built straight into the core logic chipset.

Peave.

 

[AlNom]

you dont have eSata devices just sata devices + you connect them to the eSata port

Thanks, I already acknowledged that way above:

You're just getting an external port for using a SATA device

• Networking

I question whether or not this is particularly useful for the vast majority of users who don't have anywhere near close to even 100Mbit download or upload speeds. And those people who currently use Gigabit ports for data transfer are still probably niche compared to everyone.

But hey, it's forward thinking. Nothing wrong with that if it takes off.

• Printers
• Scanners

Are they that limited by USB2.0 How big are your documents that they need to be sent to the printer all at once? How fast are your scans that 30-40MB/s is slow

• Cameras
• Video capture

eh? That's storage.

I'll believe the politics, but yeah, the absence of dedicated power is a good enough reason to me.

 

[Albuquerque]

Alstrong, the problem comes in shared bandwidth versus dedicated bandwidth. Each pair of USB ports on your computer are actually hubbed, and a lot of people with multiple USB devices will actually use USB hubs rather than cabling each and every device directly to the computer. And even for those who do cable directly to the PC, you still have the "pairs" problem.

Greater source bandwidth means you can branch it off a few more times before it starts to truly suffer. So long as you're using a USB 3.0 hub, of course

And, if you've ever stored pictures in RAW format or tried transferring video (even in NTSC), you'll appreciate how slow USB 2.0 can be. Firewire > USB for anything video or still-picture related...

 

[AlNom]

Alstrong, the problem comes in shared bandwidth versus dedicated bandwidth. Each pair of USB ports on your computer are actually hubbed, and a lot of people with multiple USB devices will actually use USB hubs rather than cabling each and every device directly to the computer. And even for those who do cable directly to the PC, you still have the "pairs" problem.

Greater source bandwidth means you can branch it off a few more times before it starts to truly suffer. So long as you're using a USB 3.0 hub, of course

hmm.... I didn't think of that, but I mean there's USB mouse and keyboard. I can't imagine those take up a lot of the bandwidth. Do people actually try to use a USB printer, scanner, and storage device (be it a digi cam, vid cam, flash) all at the same time (Damn multitaskers )

And, if you've ever stored pictures in RAW format or tried transferring video (even in NTSC), you'll appreciate how slow USB 2.0 can be. Firewire > USB for anything video or still-picture related...

For sure, but I wasn't arguing the necessity of something faster for this particular app, hence why I was thinking about SATA; I just conveniently forgot about the lack of dedicated power as INKster pointed out.

 

[Albuquerque]

hmm.... I didn't think of that, but I mean there's USB mouse and keyboard. I can't imagine those take up a lot of the bandwidth. Do people actually try to use a USB printer, scanner, and storage device (be it a digi cam, vid cam, flash) all at the same time (Damn multitaskers )

USB allows for "bandwidth reservation", not dissimilar in nature to a QoS network implementation. Devices can reserve both bandwith and power from the USB interface.

So if you have a printer, web cam, scanner, digital SLR, a harddrive, an external BR/HDDVD burner, a USB flash device (for ReadyBoost! ), keyboard and high-res mouse, you've got a lot of bandwidth reservations. And if that's all on a hub or two (think: new higher-end LCD's come with decent USB hubs built in, gee, why not use it?) then you've got problems.

Now of course, that's a worst-case construed case, but it's not really that improbable from a John Doe computer-is-an-appliance-that-just-plugs-in-and-works kind of user.