Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: USB 2.0 or firewire 400  (Read 9543 times)
hippy Green
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« on: June 27, 2007, 05:37:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi there does any one have any ideas on USB 2.0 or firewire 400

I have a Macbook pro and wanting to have a couple of external HD and store major files on them, rather then writing it to MBP HD would better to use USB 2.0 or firewire 400

interested in what you think

Cheers D
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6944


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2007, 06:20:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi there does any one have any ideas on USB 2.0 or firewire 400

I have a Macbook pro and wanting to have a couple of external HD and store major files on them, rather then writing it to MBP HD would better to use USB 2.0 or firewire 400

interested in what you think

Cheers D
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would go for a FW 400 drive. Some enclosures offer both USB 2 and FW connectors.
Logged

Francois
hippy Green
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2007, 07:27:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would go for a FW 400 drive. Some enclosures offer both USB 2 and FW connectors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

do you think it would be quicker writing to the firewire 400 HD rather then the HD on the MBP??

thanks for your feed back

Cheers D
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6944


« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2007, 08:44:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
do you think it would be quicker writing to the firewire 400 HD rather then the HD on the MBP??

thanks for your feed back

Cheers D
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No idea. Although I have external FW drives and a MBP, I had not had the time to perform any test. If you have a MBP with a FW800 connector, then it might be the way to go. Try to google for performance tests. [a href=\"http://xlr8yourmac.com/]Xlr8yourmac[/url] and Bare Feats may have relevant tests.
Logged

Francois
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2007, 09:30:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought the reason to go with FW over USB was FW required less system overhead.  (So while your disks might transfer at the same rate your cpu might be working harder to do it.   I've no idea if that matters with the speed of todays cpus or not.)
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2007, 11:55:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Firewire also provides power to a device where USB doesn't.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
dilip
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2007, 02:43:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Not true.  USB can power certain devices, but won't deliver enough juice to run a 3.5" drive.  There are a lot of 2.5" external drives that run off USB power.

I'd look to a FW800 drive if possible, but I know from my own searching that they are few and far between (especially if you're just looking for an enclosure).

--dilip

Quote
Firewire also provides power to a device where USB doesn't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2007, 02:45:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, certain devices but my experience hasn't been good in this respect unless you've got a powered hub. With FireWire, not an issue.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2007, 06:07:38 PM »
ReplyReply

usb is superslow compared to FW..even 400....FW800 is by far your best choice...most enclosures out now offer all 3 anyway...check out otherworldcomputing for drives and barefeats.com for speedtests....
Logged

Roy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2007, 06:34:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
do you think it would be quicker writing to the firewire 400 HD rather then the HD on the MBP??

thanks for your feed back

Cheers D
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FW 800 with a 3.5" external drive will be faster than your internal drive.

FW 400 with a 3.5" external drive will likely be similar in speed to your internal drive.

USB 2 is slower than FW 400 and much slower than FW 800.

For external drives, use 3.5" as they are much faster than 2.5" drives. Buy a triple interface (FW 800/400 and USB 2) maximum flexibility
Logged

Roy
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2007, 10:37:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Firewire vs. USB 2.0

FireWire - Still the Performance King!

Question: USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire...right?
Answer: No, actually FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.

Question: Hold on...USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Raw throughput rating numbers alone don't tell the whole story, as explained below.

The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance.  But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput.  And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive for example).
 
Architecture - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
     

    *

      FireWire, built from the ground up for speed, 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
       
    *

      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, less-efficient data flow control)


     Performance Comparison - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
     Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then 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

     FireWire - Still the Performance King!
As the performance comparison shown above confirms, FireWire remains the performance leader.  And is the best choice for DV camcorders, digital audio and video devices, external hard drives, high-performance DVD burners and any other device that demands continuous high performance throughput.

This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1995 - 2007 by CWOL.com
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2007, 01:07:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, certain devices but my experience hasn't been good in this respect unless you've got a powered hub. With FireWire, not an issue.

Another thing to consider is stability. I know nothing about the numbers (and don't really care   ), but from a purely subjective viewpoint I find that Firewire is far less prone to issues such as interference with power-saving (sleep) than is USB. I have a Firewire 800 Mercury Elite Pro drive from Otherworld Computing, and am very happy with it. Previous drives and other devices connected via USB hubs had endless issues with waking my Mac from sleep and preventing it going to sleep, and were subjectively much slower and "clunkier".
Logged

Snook
Guest
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2007, 06:18:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I definetly notice a difference for sure. Much faster Fire wire...
  Snook
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad