8mbits = 1 megabyte
cheapest price and most common
Full speed rate is 12 Mbit/s (1.5 MB/s)
rate of 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s)
USB 3.0 (New)
A SuperSpeed (USB 3.0) rate of 5.0 Gbit/s (625 MB/s). The USB 3.0 specification was released by Intel and its partners in August 2008, according to early reports from CNET news. Products using the 3.0 specification are likely to arrive in 2009 or 2010.
^Means its useless
Question: USB 2.0 is faster than FireWire...right?
Answer: No, actually FireWire is faster than USB 2.0.
Question: Hold on...USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Raw throughput rating numbers alone don't tell the whole story, as explained below.
The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance. But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput. And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive for example).
Architecture - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
FireWire, built from the ground up for speed, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer
USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower, less-efficient data flow control)
Performance Comparison - FireWire vs. USB 2.0
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then USB 2.0 show:
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0
* 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
* 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
FireWire - Still the Performance King!
As the performance comparison shown above confirms, FireWire remains the performance leader. And is the best choice for DV camcorders, digital audio and video devices, external hard drives, high-performance DVD burners and any other device that demands continuous high performance throughput.
can transfer data between devices at 100, 200, or 400 Mbit/s half-duplex data rates (the actual transfer rates are 98.304, 196.608, and 393.216 Mbit/s, i.e. 12.288, 24.576 and 49.152 megabytes per second respectively) These different transfer modes are commonly referred to as S100, S200, and S400.
allow a transfer rate of 786.432 Mbit/s (98.304megabytes)
full specification supports data rates up to 3200 Mbit/s over beta-mode or optical connections..?
Firewire 1600s and 3200s
Out only since last year's december
the 1394 Trade Association announced that products will be available before the end of 2008 using the S1600 and S3200 modes that, for the most part, had already been defined in 1394b and was further clarified in IEEE Std. 1394-2008
The 1.6 Gbit/s and 3.2 Gbit/s devices use the same 9-circuit beta connectors as the existing FireWire 800 and will be fully compatible with existing S400 and S800 devices. It will compete with the forthcoming USB 3.0.
Comparison to USB
Although high-speed USB 2.0 nominally runs at a higher signaling rate (480 Mbit/s) than FireWire 400, typical USB PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of 280 Mbit/s, with 240 Mbit/s being more typical. This is likely due to USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol, whereas FireWire delegates the same tasks to the interface hardware. For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations
FireWire 800 is substantially faster than Hi-Speed USB.
Firewire also requires extra power
Firewire additional highlights
For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations.
Transfer rate 300mb/sec
Which one would you go for? (External Drives/PSP memories stick/etc others things)
I know people will surely go for eSata since it had the best performance (If were to choose) But the thing is, do you actually needs a transfer rate of 300mb/sec for the price? I mean USB 2.0 itself (5times slower) already have decent speed to move videos/games/etc (Sized around 2 or 3gbs in seconds) Do you actually think its worth it to just to skip the extra few seconds?