 |
 |
Why is G5 USB so slow compared to MBP USB?
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, England
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hi,
The USB 2.0 on my G5 is painfully slow compared to USB 2.0 on my MBP. I done some tests using a 250GB external hard drive and copied the same 7.26GB from each machine to the hard drive and then from the hard drive to the machine using a direct connection (no hubs).
G5 -> Hard Drive = 11m14s
Hard Drive -> G5 = 7m24s
MBP -> Hard Drive = 4m47s
Hard Drive -> MBP = 3m32s
I also tried the same tests running XP Pro on the MBP, and whilst I don't have the timings, it was quite a bit slower under XP than under Leopard.
Does anyone know why this is? And is there anything I can do about it (other than buy a FireWire drive)?
Many thanks,
Matthew
|
|
A G5 and an iPod ;-)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In front of my iMac
Status:
Offline
|
|
It should be the pretty much the same speed on both machines, with one being faster than the other (I don't know what your G5 or MacBook's specs are). Does it seem slow in other operations as well? Try a different USB port if you can.
A better test would be to see how fast copying that file is on a similar G5.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oouston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple always had poor USB chipsets or drivers in the PowerPC Macs due to incompetence, indifference, or malice (pick your conspiracy theory). Your MBP figures (26 - 35 MBps) are actually pretty good for USB performance.
|
|
Mac update estimates: MacBook Pro 3Q08 (Cantiga/PM45, 2.53-2.8Ghz Penryn, 8GB RAM); MacBook 4Q08 (Cantiga-G/GM45, 2.26-2.53Ghz Penryn, 8GB RAM); MacBook Air 3Q08 (1.86Ghz ULV or 2.4Ghz LV Penryn, 4GB RAM); Mac Pro/Xserve 4Q08 (2.93-3.33+Ghz Nehalem, 48+GB RAM); iMac 1Q09 (Cantiga, 2.53-3.06Ghz Penryn [quad possible], 8GB RAM); Mac mini 3Q08 (2.1-2.4Ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Other factors could influence your results; how full your hard drive is (can affect seek time and transfer speed), the processing power the machine has (USB is processor-dependent, and a processor running multiple processes while a USB transfer is active will slow down transfer speeds), and the quality of the USB chipset and drivers. You would need a much more tightly controlled environment to get accurate results.
OTOH, I guess the only results that truly matter are from real-world activities.
|
|
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
What Mark and himself said. Note that USB2 on Macs is overall awful and should be avoided when purchasing hard drives for usage on Macs. Connect via FW800 or better still via eSATA (which of course requires buying the appropriate drives, cards and connectors as needed).
-Allen Wicks
(Last edited by SierraDragon; Apr 28, 2008 at 09:26 PM
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I believe that this is because when Apple used a PowerPC chip and board it was not Intel Chipsets. Intel invented USB and thus has the advantage of producing superior chip products for it's x86 type chips.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ismailovski Market
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SMacSteve 
I believe that this is because when Apple used a PowerPC chip and board it was not Intel Chipsets. Intel invented USB and thus has the advantage of producing superior chip products for it's x86 type chips.
I use an Intel Core 2 Duo and USB 2.0 speeds still stink compared to Windows boxes.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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
