 |
 |
usb2 vs firewire (done to death, i know)
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, getting ready to buy an external hard drive....portability and speed is a must here, and through my shopping adventures, most all are decently portable. However, really, is usb2 and firewire really that different in speed. I know in theory what is what, but in real world.....where would you spend your money???
I will be using this as a storage device, transferring larger (>100mb) files across drives, as well as "occasionally" a scratch disc......so which serves my purpose better? usb2 or firewire, and why?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Centennial, CO, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Your best bet would be to buy a dual firewire/USB2 case.
Chris
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Firewire, because it's better-suited for high-volume, constant transfers. USB 2.0 has very good burst speeds, but Firewire is simply faster for external hard drives. I did a quick Xbench test of a Firewire/USB 2.0 enclosure (Prolific PL3507 chipset w/ latest firmware) on my 2.0 GHz MBP:
Code:
USB 2.0, Firewire 400
Seq. Uncached Write [4K] -- 18.53, 19.98
Seq. Uncached Write [256K] -- 16.77, 17.84
Seq. Uncached Read [4K] -- 1.03, 9.15
Seq. Uncached Read [256K] -- 19.50, 32.31
Rdm. Uncached Write [4K] -- 1.17, 1.20
Rdm. Uncached Write [256K] -- 16.94, 16.98
Rdm. Uncached Read [4K] -- 0.43, 0.59
Rdm. Uncached Read [256K] -- 13.44, 18.95
Edit: The drive inside was a Western Digital WD1200JD (7200 RPM, 8 MB cache).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
On Macs, FireWire has better overall performance. On PCs, USB 2 has better overall performance.
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Tooki's pointed out several times that Mac FireWire drivers tend to be superior to Mac USB drivers, and that the opposite is true of PC drivers. It's a different focus, probably because of who invented FireWire...
In any case, results will also be dependent on the chipset in the external device. Some chipsets appear to be merely adequate no matter what kind of driver you're using, while others are stellar even with only adequate drivers. In other words, your mileage WILL vary depending on what you're connecting. Cable quality will also make a difference.
|
|
Glenn -----
MOT, OTR, TxLic
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by tooki
On Macs, FireWire has better overall performance. On PCs, USB 2 has better overall performance.
tooki
Not necessarily true. For the reasons I outlined above, Firewire still beats USB 2.0 for large-volume transfers -- even in Windows XP.
Besides, Intel Macs use a Texas Instruments Firewire chipset (AFAIR), and Intel's southbridge for USB 2.0. Drivers in XP vs. OS X will make little difference once both are optimized to the best level possible.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks for all the great info guys....greatly appreciated
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
