Buzz Out Loud Lounge: USB 2.0 can handle HD... sort of
USB 2.0 can handle HD... sort of
by roberpic - 5/12/06 10:44 PMFirewire is A LOT better at handling HD than USB 2.0, even being ~80mbps slower, because firewire provides a more stable, constant speed than USB 2.0. Also, firewire can get a great deal closer to reaching its theoretical maximum speed than USB 2.0.
Theoretical vs. Typical
by robstak - 5/13/06 8:44 AM In reply to: USB 2.0 can handle HD... sort of by roberpicDon't know too too much bout this, but I understood that firewire is faster than USB regardless of theoretical maximums because firewire has a higher realistic bandwidth than USB. Anyone know more about this?
That's what I've heard too
by barret55 - 5/13/06 12:31 PM In reply to: Theoretical vs. Typical by robstakI've always heard that while Firewire's max transfer speed is only 400 mbps, it's sustained transfer rate is higher than USB 2.0.
-Terry
re: That's what I've heard too
by mattmoris - 5/13/06 12:59 PM In reply to: That's what I've heard too by barret55Yeah, it's the sustained throughput that is faster with firewire. But more computers have USB than firewire. But I've noticed that almost all new computers have firewire 400 as well. I bought a $300 computer for my sister in December and it has two firewire ports.
480 > 400 : Gee - I didn't know that
by u2mr2os2 - 5/15/06 8:32 PM In reply to: USB 2.0 can handle HD... sort of by roberpicWindows defenders are always quick to point out that 480 is greater than 400, therefore, USB 2.0 is better. They prove they only know the marketing bullets. The fact is that HDTV is well within the capacities of both.
It is known that USB 2.0, although rated at 480Mbps, does not achieve this in the real world, where it reaches 320 Mbps, and only when not sharing the bus. Firewire 400 has a higher sustained throughput than USB 2.0.
I have to agree
by rochesterjr - 5/16/06 8:29 AM In reply to: 480 > 400 : Gee - I didn't know that by u2mr2os2I'm a Windows user but I've always known that in the real world firewire 400 does have better sustained throughput than USB 2.0. It's a numbers game but the devil is in the details.
http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm
How is this a discussion between Mac and Windows?
by alpabarot - 5/16/06 10:06 AM In reply to: 480 > 400 : Gee - I didn't know that by u2mr2os2Because Apple has a board member only on the 1934 Trade Association while Windows has members on both?
Anyone that uses USB to tranfer files knows it's not that fast. Unfortunately more computers have USB and we're forced to put up with it.
It could be worse, try Bluetooth for file transfers. MOOOOOLAAAAASSSESSSSShttp://reviews.cnet.com/5224-10152-0.html?forumID=97&threadID=176086&messageID=1939124#
Submit
Firewire vs USB
by Chris_Fon - 5/30/06 4:40 AM In reply to: USB 2.0 can handle HD... sort of by roberpicanyone heared of Firewire 800?
its called that because it has a theoretical max speed of 800MBps, putting it ahead of the USB 2.0 speed.
However, manufacturers of any CPU-HD devices will most probably make the devices with USB because 480MBps is more than enough to handle HD and it is compatible with more devices due to the many computers without firewire ports.
Like it or not, USB will be used
In most cases USB is fine
by Redhats Q - 5/30/06 3:04 PM In reply to: Firewire vs USB by Chris_FonMy mpeg is all usb 2.0 In fact I use usb 2.0 to ide adapters on all my drives in a tower, then I add a Plug in HDD tray and with the 2 I can unmount any drive and swap it without rebooting the machine .. (Until windows crashes of course) , but it mostly works fine. and its perfect on the macs and Linux boxes too.
Then I can swap out drives at will. All my edited Mpeg encoded files are done this way (ready for DVD writing)
But for the raw video coming in from the Camera its firewire all the way. We have raid arrays (terabytes) that are FW800 connected and a Set of camera's also FW800 connected and waste a box as a simple transfer device. but that way everything is saved and clean.
My Reason being USB data is bursty, that is the data is not steady, it builds to a mass and then is dumped to the drive, this makes the transfers unsteady and there is a risk of timing getting messed up which is is a real problem. USB and Raw video have never been a good combination to me.
Firewire, I-Link IEEE 1394 or whatever you call is is a steady transfer so the data flows smothly accros the connection. this make for a better raw capture.
So in a nutshell. If you are dumping an HD video camera to drive using USB you could have problems with timeslips. which is why video uses firewire. 400 V 480 .. not much to it. Smooth V Burst lots to it.
Top end gear uses FW 800 which is the best, but pricey. For the average home user USB 2.0 is all you need. Unless you have a real high end machine the processor will be so busy that your data flow will be small. Even on my dual G5 video suite mchines we dont often hit transfers much above 150MBits/S on compiles unless we are working on files that need no translation. On the Quad its all firewire.
FW is really needed for capture devices far more than Hard Drives, unless you are saving raw uncrompressed DV in which case you need Big raid arrays anyway .. so for the average user what's the Big.
USB is fine
by shanaka perera - 5/30/06 6:40 PM In reply to: USB 2.0 can handle HD... sort of by roberpicUSB has never failed me from PVP's to external hard drives, so I'm stickin' with it.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
