USB 3.1 Spec Approved, Brings 10Gbps Speeds

Status
Not open for further replies.

skit75

Splendid
It seems, at least according to Tom's USB 3.0 jump drive comparison a couple weeks ago, that manufactures have also failed to deliver on the lower end peripherals. This hasn't stopped many of them from plastering USB 3.0 on the product though.
 

ipwn3r456

Honorable
Mar 21, 2012
851
0
11,060
26


Yeah it didn't say it on the article. It doesn't really make sense to be not compatible with USB 1.x. But really, I don't think anyone, if not, rarely uses USB 1.x these days.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41
Anybody with a usb 1.x as standard for their PC is crazy. But I can think of many cases where I'd like to quickly edit a word doc or something on an old computer I can borrow.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


Yes we are actually with eHDDs that is. USB is great for mice, keyboards and such but for data transfers it sucks like no other. With USB its one hub that controls all the ports. If you connect 1 flash drive, you get the maximum speed. But add more and each one slows down.

Sata on the other hand is a per channel setup which means each sata channel gets the full 3Gbps/6Gbps. My eSATA dock gives my WD Black transfer rates of 150-200MB/s while the best my USB 3.0 eHDD gets is 100MB/s. Thunderbolt as well is the same way. Each TB port is its own channel allowing each one to give 10Gbps bidirectional or 20Gbps on the newest one.

I want it to drop in price of course but USB sucks for data transfers compared to eSATA/TB. Its just not efficient.
 

nevilence

Distinguished
May 8, 2012
339
0
18,810
7


You are right, it does suck compared to the other two, but usb hdds arent about to disappear, so a speed increase is good no matter how you look at it
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
It didn't say when this will actually be released to consumer products. so i'm guessing you won't start seeing usb 3.1 in pc's for another year from the spec completion date, like with usb 3.0 when the specs were finally finalized you didn't see products with usb 3.0 until a year later.
 

smeezekitty

Distinguished
Yes we are actually with eHDDs that is. USB is great for mice, keyboards and such but for data transfers it sucks like no other. With USB its one hub that controls all the ports. If you connect 1 flash drive, you get the maximum speed. But add more and each one slows down.

Sata on the other hand is a per channel setup which means each sata channel gets the full 3Gbps/6Gbps. My eSATA dock gives my WD Black transfer rates of 150-200MB/s while the best my USB 3.0 eHDD gets is 100MB/s. Thunderbolt as well is the same way. Each TB port is its own channel allowing each one to give 10Gbps bidirectional or 20Gbps on the newest one.

I want it to drop in price of course but USB sucks for data transfers compared to eSATA/TB. Its just not efficient.
Perhaps but I find it hard to believe that you would be running so many high bandwidth devices at once.
And in general USB hard drives are used for secondary (or tertiary) storage and thus doesn't need to be that fast.

I have an external USB 2.0 drive. Big file transfers are painful but overall it works well enough. I am sure USB 3.0 would seem much better.
 

nevilence

Distinguished
May 8, 2012
339
0
18,810
7


when i went from 2.0 to 3.0 it blew my mind, if 3.1 is double 3.0, there goes my mind again
 

lp231

Splendid

Your better off just getting a laptop with the best dedicated graphics your money can buy.
External GPU is stupid because it requires a external monitor to work instead of using the laptop screen.
 

enewmen

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2005
2,229
0
19,810
5


That's the point. Many want a lightweight notebook to carry around. Then when they go home or to the office, plug it in a docking station with a high-power graphics card and a large monitor. Get the best of a notebook and a desktop.
 

lpedraja2002

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2007
620
0
18,990
4


Actually there is a device that allows you to use a desktop video card externally with your laptop, its not mobile at all but if you need the power google it, Tom's did a review of their product years ago so I don't know if they're still around.
 

CrArC

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2006
219
0
18,690
1


I have a USB3.0 flash stick which can tickle 200MB/s. I hear speeds can be platform-dependent (and also depends on the quality of the devices you're using - I have a USB3 hard drive which only manages 100MB/s).

But yeah, string a few of those together and USB 3.0 would start to sag under the strain. However, it's VASTLY cheaper than Thunderbolt, backwards compatible with so many devices, takes up less space than eSATA and is more versatile (eSATA = drives only), and delivers power too. Overall it's clear why it's winning the interface race.

Moreover, most users today won't need heavy bandwidth except for the odd file transfer, which doesn't justify Thunderbolt or eSATA. These needs will change in the future if we start breaking out more devices over external buses (i.e. graphics, displays, primary storage, fast & high-storage portable devices) and then the nature of USB will become a limiting factor. Thunderbolt is ahead of its time in this respect, really, as it's catering to this future need.


 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,822
0
22,780
0
Unless you RAID several high-end SSDs the bandwidth is wasted, Thunderbolt may have been ahead of its time but by the time people get close to using it the tech will have become obsolete - nobody wants to replace legacy devices with existing USB connectors like printers, flash drives or external HDDs, so finding a way to up the USB speeds was always going to bear fruit - Thunderbolt just needs to give up, nobody is making devices for it in any volume and that is a death sentence in this business
 

stevejnb

Honorable
May 6, 2013
609
0
10,980
0


Let's not. Rapid technological advancement can prove to be a very displacing force with a society that is constructed around technological norm X being unable to adapt to new technology Y without friction. When the casualties of that friction can be things like the environment, millions of jobs, international power balances, etc, keeping a reign on technological progress is important. Not to suggest it should be actively impeded, but if you add a new toy into a room full of kids, one kid will get to play with it, maybe get hurt using it, another will be crying because they don't get it, and a third will be getting ready to beat up the possessing kid because they want it. Introduce newness, create turbulence. Sometimes it's best to not give the kids a new toy every day and instead let them work on reaching an equilibrium with the toy they have.

I mean, look at something like the internal combustion engine. One of the most important advancements in human technology of the past several centuries, but paired with the mindset of "we should make this available to everybody," we may end up releasing so much carbon into the atmosphere so as to cause catastrophe. Advancements in firearms paired with no corresponding advancements in tactics led to some of the most brutal battlefield massacres in history that just didn't have to happen if someone had stopped and said "Wait, is it really a good idea to run cavalry at guys holding machine guns?" A sprint for new technology beyond the consideration of the implications of that technology is not always a good thing.

USB vs Thunderbolt is a benign example, but... We have a standard which millions use cheaply and with great convenience. Is it necessarily worth the hassle - IE, billions in R&D, fragmentation of connections - to uproot that standard for something that offers basically a marginal improvement in performance? Maybe, but I think it's worth considering that question rather than childishly saying "MORE TOYS! MOAR MOAR MOAR!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY