USB 3 Makes External USB RAID ''Possible''

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]thackstonns[/nom]serious why the negatives. I just dont see why people are all happy about this chip that provides more power but not any more throughput. Maybe I read something wrong, but 500Mbits isnt a big jump over 480Mbits. Until they reach higher speed I dont think they should put it on boards. All you are gonna have is people buying new motherboards and add in cards thinking they are able to get the full spec. I really feel that its false advertising. It isnt anywhere close to the spec.[/citation]

Well, the story does say:
"USB 3.0 is actually designed to handle transfers of up to 5 Gbit/sec, a huge increase in throughput when compared to the 480 Mbit/sec limit seen with USB 2.0. "

So yeah, it's not only 20Mbits faster. While it also does state the transfer rates for the raid array would be 500 Mbit/sec, that's taking into account you don't always reach full throughput. Rarely have I ever seen USB2.0 reach it's max of 480 Mbits/sec. 5 Gbit/sec is much faster than 480 Mbit/sec, which is the true comparison of USB3.0 and USB2.0.

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]Hes saying that with his 6mbit connections he can only achieve rates of about 600kb/s.. Which is about standard for DSL.. When I had 1.5mbit dsl I could get around 150kb/s, my 3mbit connection would get my about 300kb/s and my 6mbit got me about 600kb/s... Comcast is the only provider that has actually provided me with full bandwidth. My newsgroup transfers always pegged at a solid 8mbit, or 1mbyte/sec, except for the first minute or so where Comcast provides up to 24mbit/s with their TurboBoost..[/citation]

With Charter (cable) I pay for 10 Mb and reach actual speeds of ~1.2 MB. Which is why I've always prefered cable to DSL, DSL always seems to come up short compared to cable when comparing the same speed. However, I've also noticed DSL tends to be a slight bit cheaper depending on the amount of carriers in the area.

So yeah, while he may technically be paying for 6Mb, which should equal around 768KB, because of the nature of most DSL (at least from what I've seen) 600KB seems about right. Possible reasons for not reaching the rated bandwidth could be because of distance between his connection and the providers hub or perhaps because of the quality of the phone lines.

I've personally found cable to be more relaible than DSL at least in my area, though everyone's mileage may vary.

 

[thackstonns]

Well, the story does say:
"USB 3.0 is actually designed to handle transfers of up to 5 Gbit/sec, a huge increase in throughput when compared to the 480 Mbit/sec limit seen with USB 2.0. "

So yeah, it's not only 20Mbits faster. While it also does state the transfer rates for the raid array would be 500 Mbit/sec, that's taking into account you don't always reach full throughput. Rarely have I ever seen USB2.0 reach it's max of 480 Mbits/sec. 5 Gbit/sec is much faster than 480 Mbit

/sec, which is the true comparison of USB3.0 and USB2.0.

No thats not what the story says. It says the through put of the chip is 500Mbits. and that the theoretical speed (the spec speed) of usb 3.0 is 5Gbits per second. I dont see how this is an upgrade besides the power. If I bought a chip based on the usb 3.0 specs thinking that I am going to get 10 times the performance. Buy all the external drives for a raid array, spend the time to set it up. and get 25Mbps through put im gonna be pissed. All I am saying is until you can deliver the spec dont sell the chip. Its not like we are talking about with overhead, signal loss, blah blah blah that it only truly does 3.5Gbits. We are talking about roughly the same speed as usb 2.0. Thats not an upgrade in my opinion

 

[ssalim]

How is it that USB2.0 have the same speed as USB3.0? So what do you consider an -up-grade? *rolls eyes*