XP with USB2.0 PCI card

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by TwistyCreek, May 20, 2006.

  1. TwistyCreek

    TwistyCreek Guest

    I just installed a Q-Store USB2.0 PCI card in my Dell.

    I am copying ~1.5G from my hard drive to the USB (via the new PCI card)
    and the speed is not as impressive as I hoped.

    It used to take nearly an hour on USB1.0?

    Should I notice a GREAT improvement from my USB1.0 tranfer rate?

    How can I tell how fast it's copying?

    (The USB stick SanDisk 2GB Cruzer Micro USB 2.0)
    TwistyCreek, May 20, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. TwistyCreek

    x1134x Guest

    The "S" in USB stands for SERIAL. Universal Serial Bus. Serial means
    one bit at a time. Knowing this, the speeds are rated in bits per
    second not bytes (groups of 8 bits). Lets do the math to break it down
    to how it works (one bit at a time, so down to bits). USB 2.0
    *averages* about 320Mbs (megabits per second) even though the spec
    says 480Mbs, while USB 1.1 only runs at 12 Mbps. (I can't pull the
    speed for 1.0 out of my head but I think they're relatively the same.)
    Since yours is a PCI card, it wont send data on the external bus, it
    will sent its data on the PCI bus, which will stack along with the
    other PCI devices in memory and receives an interrupt from the host,
    which then triggers the PCI interupt to the CPU. This will probably
    limit you to the 320Mbs at best. (if that last part doesn't make sense
    don't worry, just suffice it to say you can't acheive 480Mbs).

    The first thing to remember doing the math is that you cannot apply the
    decimal (base 10) number system, because computers use the binary (base
    2) system. Therfore, a kilobit does not equal 1000 bits, it equals
    2^10 (two to the power of 10) bits or 1024 bits. and a megabit does not
    equal 1000000 bits its 2^20 or 1048576 bits. So when it says 480Mbs
    that means 1048576*480 to get actual bits per second, or 503316480
    bits/s. Since we're estimating the fastest you could go at 320 we'll
    do that. Hell, lets do both. Hell, lets do all three! The other two:
    320*1048576 = 335544320 bits per second estimated max. And 12*1048576 =
    12582912 bits per second on USB 1.1

    So here we are:

    Theoretical max: 503316480 bits/s
    Estimated max: 335544320 bits/s
    USB 1.1: 12582912 bits/s

    Now that we have the real numbers, we just need to do one more

    Your ~ 1.5Giga BYTES of data is 1.5*(2^30 bits * 8). Hope this leap
    makes common sense. We're using the binary system to get a gigabit,
    multiplying by 8 to get gigabytes, then multiplying that total by 1.5
    so its a gigabyte and a half. The answer is 12884901888 bits. Thats a
    butt-load of bits. 12 billion, 884 million 901 thousand 888 bits.
    Maybe a butt-load and a pant-load. Or vise-versa, I digress.

    So at "theoretcal max" it should take 12884901888 / 503316480 seconds,
    or 25.6 seconds.

    and at Estimated max it should take 12884901888 / 335544320 seconds, or
    38.4 seconds

    and USB 1.1 max (theoretical remember) should take 12884901888 /
    12582912 seconds, or 1024 seconds or 17 minutes.

    Hope this helps put your performance in perspective. I doubt you're
    even coming close to that number. They don't call it WinDOZE for
    nothing. (that's most likely your bottleneck).

    For those poindexters out there that want to remind me that storage
    systems aren't beholden to the base2 definitions or GibiBits, I'll add
    as an appendix the "true storage" gigabyte which is 10^9 or one billion
    bytes. One billion sets of 8 bits. 1.5*(10^9 * 8) or 12,000,000,000
    bits. An even 12 billion bits. It should take 12884901888 / 503316480
    or 23.84 seconds.

    All these GB/s and Gibi-somethings and kilo whatevers are confusing.
    These SI units should be replaced with the previously mentioned butt
    and pant loads. I need to back up a butt-load of data. That should be
    sufficient or i need to download 3.2 pant-loads at 180 butt-loads per
    second. How long will that take?


    P.S. Please feel free to tear my math apart incase I smoked crack and
    don't remember smoking it. I'm humble enough to admit when I'm wrong.
    x1134x, May 20, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. TwistyCreek

    xxxx Guest

    x1134x said
    Thanks for the comprehensive discussion.

    I did some more testing.

    I copied the 1.5G to the USB drive in ~45mins.
    I copied the 1.5G to the hard drive in ~2 mins

    This time was ~identical whether I copied via USB1.0 or USB2.0

    It appears the two paths are identical... and I'm sure the original ports
    are USB1.0.

    xxxx, May 20, 2006
  4. TwistyCreek

    T.J. Dunster Guest

    Is your XP running service pack 1? if not, install it.
    T.J. Dunster, May 20, 2006
  5. TwistyCreek

    x1134x Guest

    Goto device manager. (right click My Computer choose manage, click the
    device manager on the left of the window that pops up. FInd your USB
    adapter(s) in the right hand pane, and expand it. Try to see if you
    have any indication of USB 2.0 or ENHANCED USB or ENHANCED PCI to USB.
    If so, you have the right driver.

    Also get the SP1.

    x1134x, May 20, 2006
  6. TwistyCreek

    xxxx Guest

    x1134x said
    Device Manager|Universal_Serial_Bus_Controllers

    Generic USB Hub
    Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D2
    Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D4
    Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24D7
    Intel 82801EB USB Universal Host Controller - 24DE
    USB Printing Support
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    USB Root Hub
    VIA Rev5 or later USB Universal Host Controller
    VIA Rev5 or later USB Universal Host Controller
    VIA USB Enhanced Host Controller

    (None are disabled)

    (The PCI card is a Q-Stor, the driver they recommended I install off
    the CD was in a directory called VIA\VT6212L, so I am assuming the
    correct driver is installed. However, there is no reference to PCI as
    the documentation (and you) have suggested. Since the USB ports are
    indeed on a PCI card, and I can use them (albiet slowly), I'm assuming
    the lack of a PCI reference is ok? Otherwise, I'd not be able to even
    access them? Or does the internal USB1.0 bus appear on the PCI pins
    and enable the new USB ports to simply appear "plugged into" the my
    original USB1.0 bus? I'm way over my head here. ;-)
    Microsoft Windows XP
    Home Edition
    Version 2002
    Service Pack 2

    Thanks for any additional thoughts.
    xxxx, May 20, 2006
  7. TwistyCreek

    x1134x Guest

    That one is your USB2.0 driver.

    You're probably NOT going to get the max usb speed out of windoze
    without a lot of tweaking. And even then your still not going to get
    it. Check the specs of your USB hd plug to see the max data rate it

    x1134x, May 20, 2006
  8. TwistyCreek

    Michael Guest

    Sorry, did you mention the PCI bus speed?

    Eg., my HP has 100 mhz FSB, so even with my USB2.0 PCI card I cannot
    approach the USB2 max rates. I need the USB2 protocols to connect devices
    that are not supported by USB1.1 -- but I won't get USB2.0 speeds until I
    upgrade to a computer that supports it.

    Hopefully, you have a newer 433 mhz bus -- in which case my comments would
    be irrelevent.

    Good Luck
    Michael, May 20, 2006
  9. TwistyCreek

    Michael Guest

    Sorry, did you list your computer's bus speed?

    For example, my HP has only a 100 MHz FSB, so I cannot approach the USB
    2.0 max rates with my PCI USB 2 card. (I need the card, tho, so that I can
    access USB 2 only devices like my iPod.)

    Anyway, I hope that your computer is a more recent 433 MHz, and that my
    comments are irrelevant.

    Good Luck
    Michael, May 20, 2006
  10. TwistyCreek

    xxx Guest

    Michael said
    I have a DELL 4600, P4, 2.8G. I'm not sure what the FSB speed is but I'd
    be surprised if it was the bottleneck.

    Best Regards,
    xxx, May 21, 2006
  11. TwistyCreek

    x1134x Guest

    Mike, get a computer basics book and study it. If you go start, run,
    and type in calc, you have a calculator already on your pc. Use them
    both to understand how a pc works.

    First of all the PCI bus speed is not the FSB speed they are two
    different busses. The fastest the PCI bus speed could possibly be is
    133MHz on a very new pc, but most PCI cards won't support that, nor
    would they support a 66Mhz bus. The PCI specification for the bus is
    33MHz. That being said even a 33Mhz bus will not bottleneck serial
    communications. Lets do math! (Its fun!)

    First since we know how computers work, we know that the bus is NOT
    serial communication it is parrallel. Both the PCI bus and the FSB
    (the bus that feeds data into the CPU from all other busses) operate at
    32 bits. That means it can handle 32/8 or 4 bytes per clock cycle. Hz
    meant Hertz, which is a unit for cycles per second. Mhz is 1 million
    cycles per second or 1000000Hertz. Total bit handling capacity then
    for 33Mhz is 32*(33*1000000) or 33000000*32 or 1056000000 bits/second.

    remember the speeds for USB?

    Theoretical max: 503316480 bits/s
    Estimated max: 335544320 bits/s
    USB 1.1: 12582912 bits/s

    Bus speed @ 33Mhz: 1056000000 bits/second. That's exactly twice as
    fast as the theoretical max of USB 2.0 which we know cannot be
    acheived. Therefore, any bus within the computer operates fast enough
    to handle the serial communication of USB.

    x1134x, May 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.