1394 Cable Transferring Speed ?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Robert11, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. Robert11

    Robert11 Guest

    Hello,

    Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394 cable run
    as fast, and transfer as fast,
    as a "typical" internal HD ?

    How about via a USB cable ?

    Thanks,
    Bob
     
    Robert11, Nov 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert11

    Kraftee Guest

    Robert11 wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
    > cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
    > as a "typical" internal HD ?
    >
    > How about via a USB cable ?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Bob


    Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
    your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
    IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
    HD is......
     
    Kraftee, Nov 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert11

    Guest

    "Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

    >Robert11 wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
    >> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
    >> as a "typical" internal HD ?
    >>
    >> How about via a USB cable ?


    >Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
    >your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
    >IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
    >HD is......


    Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard drive
    with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as a test,
    there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.

    Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so much
    faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.

    Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with firewire
    - no contest.

    As you mentioned, you can only go as fast as the Hard Drive can
    receive data

    --

    Wings of death
    http://www.floobster.com/play.php?vid=640
     
    , Nov 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Robert11

    richard Guest

    On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:32:33 -0800, wrote:

    > "Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>Robert11 wrote:
    >>> Hello,
    >>>
    >>> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
    >>> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
    >>> as a "typical" internal HD ?
    >>>
    >>> How about via a USB cable ?

    >
    >>Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
    >>your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
    >>IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
    >>HD is......

    >
    > Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard drive
    > with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as a test,
    > there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.
    >
    > Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so much
    > faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.
    >
    > Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with firewire
    > - no contest.
    >
    > As you mentioned, you can only go as fast as the Hard Drive can
    > receive data


    Using an external USB hard drive, I've never really seen anything
    outstandlingly slow in response. Just like as if it were in the machine
    itself.
    I've downloaded from a camera before using usb and did not see that it was
    that slow as you say.
    But I would never wait until the card was that full either.
     
    richard, Nov 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Robert11

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Kraftee
    <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

    > Robert11 wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
    > > cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
    > > as a "typical" internal HD ?
    > >
    > > How about via a USB cable ?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Bob

    >
    > Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
    > your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
    > IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
    > HD is......


    USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
    FireWire 800 or eSATA.

    USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.
     
    Mitch, Nov 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Robert11

    M.L. Guest

    >> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster than
    >> your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed available via an
    >> IDE cable. The one big variable which you've missed is how fast the
    >> HD is......

    >
    > USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
    > FireWire 800 or eSATA.
    >
    > USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.


    In addition, USB uses your cpu bandwidth, firewire does not. All my
    external hard drives are firewire for that reason.
     
    M.L., Nov 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Robert11

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Robert11
    <> wrote:

    > Hello,
    >
    > Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394 cable run
    > as fast, and transfer as fast,
    > as a "typical" internal HD ?
    >
    > How about via a USB cable ?


    It sounds like you think the cable is what makes the difference; there
    are a lot of protocols and support chips involved in these things, too.
    The cable itself is almost incidental.

    For instance, USB is managed by the main processor, and all data runs
    through the main bus. So no matter what the nominal speed of USB is, it
    is mitigated by any other activity of the computer. It will be very
    slow when other transfer are going on or the processor is very busy.

    FireWire manages itself, and can transfer directly from one device to
    another. It also scales itself based on demand and activity.

    If you are talking about archiving, backups, or copying from source
    devices, you probably don't care about those differences -- they are
    things you do at the beginning or end of a project, and you may not
    have the computer doing much else then.
    But if you are talking about using the external drive as a startup
    drive, or to run apps from, or to use as scratch storage or VM, then
    those factors matter a lot.
     
    Mitch, Nov 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Robert11

    Kraftee Guest

    wrote:
    > "Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
    >
    >> Robert11 wrote:
    >>> Hello,
    >>>
    >>> Would an external HD storage device connected to the PC via a 1394
    >>> cable run as fast, and transfer as fast,
    >>> as a "typical" internal HD ?
    >>>
    >>> How about via a USB cable ?

    >
    >> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster
    >> than your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed
    >> available via an IDE cable. The one big variable which you've
    >> missed is how fast the HD is......

    >
    > Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard
    > drive with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as
    > a test, there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.
    >
    > Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so
    > much faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.
    >
    > Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with
    > firewire - no contest.


    Maybe with USB1.1 but look up the specs for USB2, you may get a
    suprise as theoretically it is supposed to be faster (by a largish
    margin) than even Firewire

    >
    > As you mentioned, you can only go as fast as the Hard Drive can
    > receive data


    That's going to be the cavat
     
    Kraftee, Nov 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Robert11

    Kraftee Guest

    M.L. wrote:
    >>> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster
    >>> than your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed
    >>> available via an IDE cable. The one big variable which you've
    >>> missed is how fast the HD is......

    >>
    >> USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
    >> FireWire 800 or eSATA.
    >>
    >> USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.

    >
    > In addition, USB uses your cpu bandwidth, firewire does not. All my
    > external hard drives are firewire for that reason.


    Why o why don't you actually read what is written...

    I never said USB was faster than Firewire I said that _USB2_ is faster
    there is a world of difference between the performances of those.

    Instead of this knee jerk reaction (mind you it is the norm I suppose)
    how about checking the specs..

    USB1.1 12Mbps
    USB2 480Mbps
    Firewire 400Mbps

    Which one is the fastest now then.....
     
    Kraftee, Nov 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Robert11

    nobody > Guest

    Kraftee wrote:

    >> Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with
    >> firewire - no contest.

    >
    > Maybe with USB1.1 but look up the specs for USB2, you may get a
    > suprise as theoretically it is supposed to be faster (by a largish
    > margin) than even Firewire


    The clincher is that USB2 is 480 mbs in bursts, as well as being CPU
    intensive. It will crawl when doing "big things" on the host computer.

    FireWire is 400mbs but that is *sustained*, not burst.

    Use USB2 for small things or if it's the only interface you have.
    Run FireWire if you can for big transfers.
     
    nobody >, Nov 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Robert11

    FML Guest

    Kraftee wrote:
    > M.L. wrote:
    >>>> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster
    >>>> than your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed
    >>>> available via an IDE cable. The one big variable which you've
    >>>> missed is how fast the HD is......
    >>> USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
    >>> FireWire 800 or eSATA.
    >>>
    >>> USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.

    >> In addition, USB uses your cpu bandwidth, firewire does not. All my
    >> external hard drives are firewire for that reason.

    >
    > Why o why don't you actually read what is written...
    >
    > I never said USB was faster than Firewire I said that _USB2_ is faster
    > there is a world of difference between the performances of those.
    >
    > Instead of this knee jerk reaction (mind you it is the norm I suppose)
    > how about checking the specs..
    >
    > USB1.1 12Mbps
    > USB2 480Mbps
    > Firewire 400Mbps
    >
    > Which one is the fastest now then.....
    >
    >

    Although USB2 is theoretically faster than Firewire, in real life,
    Firewire almost always outperforms USB2. Architecture differences have a
    huge impact on the sustained throughput. Firewire is peer-to-peer where
    "intelligent" peripherals control bus conflicts. USB is master-slave
    where the CPU handles all arbitration functions adding additional system
    overhead and resulting in slower data flow.

    Typically Firewire is 33% to 70% faster than USB2 in disk read
    benchmarks and 16% to 48% faster in write benchmarks depending on number
    of files and file size.

    HTH
     
    FML, Nov 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Robert11

    DanR Guest

    "Kraftee" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
    news:...
    > M.L. wrote:
    >>>> Think you will find that a USB2 connection will be a tad faster
    >>>> than your firewire one & supposedly on par with the speed
    >>>> available via an IDE cable. The one big variable which you've
    >>>> missed is how fast the HD is......
    >>>
    >>> USB is not faster than FireWire 400; it doesn't even come close to
    >>> FireWire 800 or eSATA.
    >>>
    >>> USB is the slowest external storage available, not the fastest.

    >>
    >> In addition, USB uses your cpu bandwidth, firewire does not. All my
    >> external hard drives are firewire for that reason.

    >
    > Why o why don't you actually read what is written...
    >
    > I never said USB was faster than Firewire I said that _USB2_ is faster
    > there is a world of difference between the performances of those.
    >
    > Instead of this knee jerk reaction (mind you it is the norm I suppose) how
    > about checking the specs..
    >
    > USB1.1 12Mbps
    > USB2 480Mbps
    > Firewire 400Mbps
    >
    > Which one is the fastest now then.....
    >


    eSata. 3Gbps.
     
    DanR, Nov 19, 2007
    #12
  13. Robert11

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Kraftee
    <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

    >
    > Why o why don't you actually read what is written...
    >
    > I never said USB was faster than Firewire I said that _USB2_ is faster
    > there is a world of difference between the performances of those.
    >
    > Instead of this knee jerk reaction (mind you it is the norm I suppose)
    > how about checking the specs..
    >
    > USB1.1 12Mbps
    > USB2 480Mbps
    > Firewire 400Mbps
    >
    > Which one is the fastest now then.....



    It is you who didn't read.
    I did NOT specify USB 1.1
    I was including ALL USB specs -- yes, Firewire 400 is a LOT faster than
    USB 2. What you are reading is nominal speed, and USB can basically
    never reach that.

    FireWire 400 nearly can. FireWire 800 can almost double it.

    I don't know when or if USB 3 will be final, but it doesn't appear to
    be on track to compete with fast hardware protocols.
     
    Mitch, Nov 19, 2007
    #13
  14. Robert11

    Mitch Guest

    In article <>, Kraftee
    <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

    > > Had a friend who transferred photos from his camera to the hard
    > > drive with a Card Reader, USB2 (connect to camera) and Firewire. as
    > > a test, there were a couple of gigs on the memory card.
    > >
    > > Firewire was 10x faster, card reader the slowest. Firewire was so
    > > much faster that It's the route I'll take given a chance.
    > >
    > > Something like 20 mins to transfer using USB and 2 mins with
    > > firewire - no contest.

    >
    > Maybe with USB1.1 but look up the specs for USB2, you may get a
    > suprise as theoretically it is supposed to be faster (by a largish
    > margin) than even Firewire


    I doubt anyone reading this thread is thinking about USB 1.1
    There are lots of comparisons, using varieties of data in various
    situations, even under several platforms.
    FireWire 400 is faster.

    More than that, those comparisons are almost always FW 400, and FW 800
    has been out for years. It's significantly faster.
    FW1600 (reportedly) may be out soon, and eSATA is either close to being
    ratified or was recently.
     
    Mitch, Nov 19, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Hilton

    actual speed of 1394 (Firewire) CF readers?

    Bill Hilton, Mar 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,116
    Ron Hunter
    Mar 28, 2006
  2. sub
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,658
    SteveM
    Jun 26, 2006
  3. coldrex
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,237
    ryan_tagor
    Feb 9, 2008
  4. Ravichandran

    Pinging 1394 cable system from Network bridge

    Ravichandran, May 13, 2008, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    529
    Ravichandran
    May 13, 2008
  5. why?

    Re: Cable splitter's effect on cable speed

    why?, Dec 8, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    520
Loading...

Share This Page