 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / March 2005iPod - Is USB 2.0 or Firewire faster?
I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use Firewire, and I have an available Firewire port. Is the Firewire transfer of files much faster than the USB transfer? - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org > I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use > Firewire, and I have an available Firewire port. Is the Firewire > transfer of files much faster than the USB transfer? yes.  SignatureLater. johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu Let 'indiana' be a 'noln', and 'hoosiers' be a 'solkk'. Leave only the 'noln' and .edu after the @ to reply . >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use >> Firewire, and I have an available Firewire port. Is the Firewire >> transfer of files much faster than the USB transfer? > >yes. Is it really THAT much faster, or faster at all? Some of the comparisons I've been reading on the Web seem to indicate that it's a toss up between Firewire and USB 2.0 (which is what I am currently using). - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org > >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org > Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org According to the specs Firewire is 400mbps and USB 2.0 is 480mbps. On paper USB 2.0 is faster. In the real world Firewire outperforms USB 2.0 for file transfers by quite a bit. See the following test site for comparisons. It also explains the differences in architecture between the two serial protocols. http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm Firewire was up to 70% faster than USB 2.0 in one test for file transfers. The lowest result was 16% faster than USB 2.0 Signature"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed." Bill Gates Source: Focus Magazine, nr.43, pages 206-212, (October 23, 1995) > >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > seem to indicate that it's a toss up between Firewire and > USB 2.0 (which is what I am currently using). USB 2.0 has a higher theoretical "burst" speed; however, its sustained data transfer rates tend to be much lower. I ran some tests with a 5GB pocket drive with both interfaces and found USB2 marginally faster (10%) on really small transfers (under 2MB), but FireWire being up to 4 times faster on large (100MB plus) transfers. This was to a dual 2GHz G5. SignatureSpenser > >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org > Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org Here's another more reliable source for information. http://www.g4tv.com/freshgear/features/39129/USB_20_Versus_FireWire.html Signature"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed." Bill Gates Source: Focus Magazine, nr.43, pages 206-212, (October 23, 1995) > >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > seem to indicate that it's a toss up between Firewire and > USB 2.0 (which is what I am currently using). I can't speak to the iPod. However, I am in a position to report on the relative speed of a Firewire 400 vs USB2 connection to an external 7200rpm hard drive from my G5. I bought a WD 200GB 7200rpm drive in an external USB2 enclosure a couple of weeks ago, intending to use it with a forthcoming Mac Mini. After setting it up and using it for a bit with the G5 I was unsatisfied, due not to drive speed but because I'd been unaware that I couldn't boot from a USB2 device. I took my next opportunity to buy a cheap Firewire 400 enclosure, and moved the drive over. Before doing so, out of curiousity I tested file write speed by copying a largish (10GB) single file from the internal G5 SATA drive to the external. Then, after moving the drive to the Firewire enclosure, I performed the same test. The copy to the Firewire enclosure was almost exactly twice as fast. The USB2 enclosure WAS operating in hi-speed mode (the rate was faster than the theoretical max of USB 1.1), and no other devices were on that bus. I was quite surprised - I expected the rates to be within 10-15% of each other. I'm not debating details about theoretical speed, or Apple's implementation, or other issues, just reporting my empirical results. Sorry, I don't recall the transfer times, and didn't calculate the actual throughput (well, actually, I did at the time but didn't record it and have forgotten). KeS > >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is it really THAT much faster, or faster at all? Define 'much'. > Some of the comparisons I've been reading on the Web > seem to indicate that it's a toss up between Firewire and > USB 2.0 (which is what I am currently using). Be specific. What sources have you seen make these claims? As is obvious from this thread, there's lots of speed/comparison claims out there. SignatureLater. johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu Let 'indiana' be a 'noln', and 'hoosiers' be a 'solkk'. Leave only the 'noln' and .edu after the @ to reply . > > Some of the comparisons I've been reading on the Web > > seem to indicate that it's a toss up between Firewire and > > USB 2.0 (which is what I am currently using). > > Be specific. What sources have you seen make these claims? Computer rags that test this type of thing, for one. > As is obvious > from this thread, there's lots of speed/comparison claims out there. Yeah but, bottom line, the question regards an iPod's transfer speed and USB 2.0 is fine and not particularly advantageous over Firewire 400 in this given application. > > > Some of the comparisons I've been reading on the Web > > > seem to indicate that it's a toss up between Firewire and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Computer rags that test this type of thing, for one. So, I'll just come out of my cave and admit to never seeing any review that found USB speeds to be comparable to FW speeds in actual use. What sources were these again? Yes, I could Google it, but then I'm one of the guys who was _answering_ the question. I don't need more research projects in my life, just at the moment, what with the dissertation progressing slowly. ;-) > > As is obvious > > from this thread, there's lots of speed/comparison claims out there. > > Yeah but, bottom line, the question regards an iPod's transfer speed and > USB 2.0 is fine and not particularly advantageous over Firewire 400 in > this given application. I'm not convinced. The iPod mini is a specialized form of portable HD, and without knowing more about the OP's uses and expectations it's difficult to say whether a given speed difference will be noticed. The OP hasn't gotten back here yet so until then we're mostly blowing smoke, but the least we could do is present reasonable arguments based on published information. That way even if nothing is decided the OP can at least read up and make a decision. FWIW, I figure that FW cables are cheap and handy to have around (then, I also think that having RJ-45 crimps and bulk cat-5 lying around is handy, YMMV). At that rate, if it's a speed boost (and I do believe this to be the case) that's even better. FW has other advantages over USB, but we'll put them aside for now. It would only drag this thing irretrevably into a morass. So back up the claim. I'll admit that I didn't back mine up the first time, so to be fair: From 2002 (and posted by another contributor to the thread): http://www.g4tv.com/freshgear/features/39129/USB_20_Versus_FireWire.html Or these two tests from barefeats.com, which give hardware, test type, and lots of other data that is not included in the g4tv piece: http://www.barefeats.com/fire26.html http://www.barefeats.com/usb2.html Now, what reviews have been seen saying that USB is as fast as, or faster than FW? Do these reviews give hardware and methodology specifications? Lets get the OP's hardware info and see whether we can make sense out of this. OR, we could just keep going back and forth: "USB is as fast!!!" "FW is faster!!!" "USB you @#$%@#$%@#$hat!!!" "FW you mindless troll!!!" There, I've taken care of that option for all of us so we don't have to go there. SignatureLater. johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu Let 'indiana' be a 'noln', and 'hoosiers' be a 'solkk'. Leave only the 'noln' and .edu after the @ to reply . > So, I'll just come out of my cave and admit to never seeing any review > that found USB speeds to be comparable to FW speeds in actual use. What > sources were these again? MacWorld. Ever heard of it? > I'm not convinced. The iPod mini is a specialized form of portable HD, > and without knowing more about the OP's uses and expectations it's > difficult to say whether a given speed difference will be noticed. Oh, come on. First transfer will take something like 4-5 minutes with Firewire and 6-7 minutes with USB 2.0. After that it's just add a tune here, add a tune there - 40 to 50 seconds with either protocol. Do you really think he's going to miss those 10 seconds of his life? >The > OP hasn't gotten back here yet so until then we're mostly blowing smoke, > but the least we could do is present reasonable arguments based on > published information. That way even if nothing is decided the OP can at > least read up and make a decision. If that what floats your boat, knock yourself out. > > So, I'll just come out of my cave and admit to never seeing any review > > that found USB speeds to be comparable to FW speeds in actual use. What > > sources were these again? > > MacWorld. Ever heard of it? I have. I've also written to them on a couple of occasions to correct glaring technical errors. Which is not to say that they can't be right, but they're certainly not infallible. G SignatureThere's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime. > > So, I'll just come out of my cave and admit to never seeing any review > > that found USB speeds to be comparable to FW speeds in actual use. What > > sources were these again? > > MacWorld. Ever heard of it? Give me a month and year of the article, please. I don't have a subscription, and I'm not just going to head to the library and start piling through back issues. Telling me that Macworld said it is no better than telling me that you've heard that USB is as fast as FW. Fine I believe that you've seen these claims. > > I'm not convinced. The iPod mini is a specialized form of portable HD, > > and without knowing more about the OP's uses and expectations it's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > here, add a tune there - 40 to 50 seconds with either protocol. Do you > really think he's going to miss those 10 seconds of his life? I don't know. For that matter, I don't know that the OP isn't going to completely change the contents of the iPod every week. This doesn't mean that you're wrong, it just means that I _don't know._ And did I mention that I'd like to see some specific information on the subject? > >The > > OP hasn't gotten back here yet so until then we're mostly blowing smoke, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If that what floats your boat, knock yourself out. Yes, asking for substantiation for claims floats my boat. So, here's why I initially posted 'yes' in response to the OP's question: I've seen reports (some of which are linked in an earlier post of mine) that indicate that FW is 'much' faster than USB, on my definition of 'much' (you can read the reports for quantified data). Rational argumentation and giving support for claims is pretty clearly not something that happens on usenet so I skipped it. Then people posted a bunch of conflicting claims and I, like a fool, tried to at least get a record of the sources for the various positions, figuring that the OP could get some good information. I posted links and asked for others. What I get is snarky replies. Good for me. You win, I'm done with this one. SignatureLater. johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu Let 'indiana' be a 'noln', and 'hoosiers' be a 'solkk'. Leave only the 'noln' and .edu after the @ to reply . > Oh, come on. First transfer will take something like 4-5 minutes > with Firewire and 6-7 minutes with USB 2.0. After that it's just > add a tune here, add a tune there - 40 to 50 seconds with either > protocol. Do you really think he's going to miss those 10 seconds > of his life? While I generally agree with you, I found that USB2 support for transferring a large amount of data to be flakey (slow speeds, error messages in the logs). I know someone who uses external drive enclosures as part of a backup strategy. The enclosures (LaCie) support both FW and USB2. He first tried USB2 first but quickly changed to to FW. He hasn't had a problem since then, and doesn't want to fool around with it for fear of messing up backups. This may have been resolved with recent hardware (devices, chipsets, drivers), but for me (personally) USB2 left a sour taste in my mouth. There haven't been reports of any issues, so I'm sure the OP could use either safely. SignatureDavid Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI > > I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > > USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use > > Firewire, and I have an available Firewire port. Is the Firewire > > transfer of files much faster than the USB transfer? > > yes. No. It is not *MUCH* faster like he asked. All tests of the two that I've ever seen indicate that Firewire is just slightly faster than USB 2.0. FWIW, I would just use the USB and forget about it. In the application you are using it in it won't matter much after the initial transfer since incremental updating would still pretty fast with either USB or Firewire. > I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org > Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org Firewire is more stable >> I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging >> USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use >> Firewire, and I have an available Firewire port. Is the Firewire >> transfer of files much faster than the USB transfer? >Firewire is more stable I've been reading about Firewire vs. USB, and I have been using USB for years, and I have never seen or heard anything about USB "stability" issues. - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org > Firewire is more stable Well, aside from the kernel panics, anyway. Go read the iPod discussion forums at apple.com. A lot of people are having crashes when they use Firewire with iPods. Something about the latest iTunes and the latest iPod update has causes problems for a lot of people with Firewire. Signature--Tim Smith hello, firewire is 400 Mbit/s (the regular one) or 800 Mbit/s (the new one) usb 1.1 is 12 Mbit/s usb 2.0 is 480 Mbit/s normally usb2 is faster than firewire 400 yomgui > I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org > Sludge Report: http://www.sludgereport.org firewire is 400 Mbit/s (the regular one) or 800 Mbit/s (the new one) usb 1.1 is 12 Mbit/s usb 2.0 is 480 Mbit/s I should add that pcmcia is 400 Mbit/s so if you get usb2 through pcmcia, it should be only 400 Mbit/s yomgui > firewire is 400 Mbit/s (the regular one) or 800 Mbit/s (the new one) > usb 1.1 is 12 Mbit/s [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > yomgui Theorically yes, practically no. I just made tests using QuickBench™ X I have a difference about 30 % in speed in some cases. The winner is FireWire. > firewire is 400 Mbit/s (the regular one) or 800 Mbit/s (the new one) > usb 1.1 is 12 Mbit/s > usb 2.0 is 480 Mbit/s > > normally usb2 is faster than firewire 400 Normally FireWire is faster than USB 2.0 because the protocols are totally different. The theoretical Mb/s only tells part of the story. SignatureJohan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/ > hello, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > normally usb2 is faster than firewire 400 Theorically yes, practically no. I just made tests using QuickBench™ X I have a difference about 30 % in speed The winner is FireWire > I just bought a new iPod Mini and it came with a synch/charging > USB cable. I have seen elsewhere that the iPod's can also use > Firewire, and I have an available Firewire port. Is the Firewire > transfer of files much faster than the USB transfer? On a Mac, firewire is always much much faster than USB2. This is because Apple uses crappy USB controller chips from NEC. If you put in a third party card from someone other than NEC, you will find that USB2 _almost_ will be as fast as firewire1. Firewire2, as found on my new PB, is much faster than both firewire1 and USB2. SignatureMorten Dreier http://morten.dreier.no/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.