eSata Versus USB versus Firewire

[Gwei]

8mbits = 1 megabyte

USB 1.0
cheapest price and most common
Full speed rate is 12 Mbit/s (1.5 MB/s)

USB 2.0
rate of 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s)
more standard?

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



Firewire

http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm

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:

Read Test:


* 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

Write Test:


* 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.

Firewire 400
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.

Firewire 800
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.

ESata
Expensive
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?

 

[yjlasher22]

fire wire duh, but if ur com is old, u can onli go with usb coz no port lols, esata is too expensive. usb 3.0 is gonna be a hit when it rolls out fully

 

[Rishwin]

USB for devices that don't need high bandwidth.

Fiewire for the fastest speed (used for live high speed camera feeds). As for eSATA... it's not expensive, juts get sata->eSata cables/adapters.

 

[Gwei]

USB for devices that don't need high bandwidth.

Fiewire for the fastest speed (used for live high speed camera feeds). As for eSATA... it's not expensive, juts get sata->eSata cables/adapters.

The cables are not expensive, but devices that came with eSata port are usually more expensive than devices that only had a USB

 

[Mr.Lucifer]

No normal external harddrive can write, nor read, at 300 MB/sec...

The simplicity of USB and the fact that it doesn't require external power makes up for the somewhat slow transfer rate in most cases. Nevertheless, I prefer speed over simplicity when it comes to more stationary things like HDD's.

 

[Gwei]

There are external harddrive that came with eSata, how do you actually knew it can't read at 300MB/sec?
I knew external harddisk may came in 4200rpm/7200rpm labeled on boxes (I don't get how fast it is actually though, I just thought the higher the better?lol) , but if they can't even read close to 300mb/sec, why would they had harddisk for it? D:

 

[Mr.Lucifer]

There are external harddrive that came with eSata, how do you actually knew it can't read at 300MB/sec?
I knew external harddisk may came in 4200rpm/7200rpm labeled on boxes (I don't get how fast it is actually though, I just thought the higher the better?lol) , but if they can't even read close to 300mb/sec, why would they had harddisk for it? D:

My harddrive reads at 120 MB/s, and that's a fairly good HDD, way better than those external HDD's. I remember reading a benchmark long ago where a 200GB Seagate was tested and had 30MB/s read!

 

[Rishwin]

Please please please keep in mind when you say "external drive" you are referring to pre-made ones. How many people do you think check the spin speed or the cache of the drives before they buy an external drive? I can tell you 98% of them do not, nor do they know what any of that means. Hence, the majority of external drives are filled with slow spin low cache hard drives for people who just need storage.

If you are really a "pc enthusiast" i strongly hope your idea of an "external drive" is a 7,200RPM (or 10,000RPM raptor) drive with 32MB of cache, placed inside a high-end well ventilated hard drive enclosure. Test one of these babies against a pre-made maxtor or samsung external drive and see the huge difference. Please also keep in mind that almost all GOOD external enclosures come with several USB ports as well as eSATA and (some have) firewire. Test them on esata/firewire against the USB-only external's you buy premade from the shops.

Alot can influence the speed and transfer rate. Including the fact that many people need external drives because their 5 year old Pc is running out of space. I'd like to see a PC that old have a USB 2.0 port.