| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 111126 | 2010-07-15 04:18:00 | USB 3.0 performance? | Deimos (5715) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1118892 | 2010-07-15 04:18:00 | Got my first USB 3.0 device today and the performance is bad, the HDD is capable of around 100MB/s and yet I'm getting around 36MB/s, I got better speeds out of eSATA, anyone else had any experience with USB 3.0? | Deimos (5715) | ||
| 1118893 | 2010-07-15 04:20:00 | Did you install the drivers for it if you're using Win7? I don't think Win7 fully supports it yet (until SP1 comes out which maybe next yr now) | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 1118894 | 2010-07-15 04:24:00 | Welcome to real life, where speeds are realistic. Try an SSD instead of an HDD and you'll see speeds more to your liking. Generally however, when a speed is said on a box, divide it by three and that's the real-world speed. -- They also trick you with megabits (Mb)and megabytes (MB) per second. Speedy: Usb 3.0 still has the speed capability. Also, 36 MB/s is a 3.0 speed. 2.0 you'd be more likely to get closer to a max of say 9 MB/s |
Cellux (15145) | ||
| 1118895 | 2010-07-15 04:32:00 | whats the actual sustained throughput spec of the HD, not the interface ??? Theres a reason that wont be on the box :punk | 1101 (13337) | ||
| 1118896 | 2010-07-15 04:44:00 | Welcome to real life, where speeds are realistic. Try an SSD instead of an HDD and you'll see speeds more to your liking. Generally however, when a speed is said on a box, divide it by three and that's the real-world speed. -- They also trick you with megabits (Mb)and megabytes (MB) per second. Speedy: Usb 3.0 still has the speed capability. Also, 36 MB/s is a 3.0 speed. 2.0 you'd be more likely to get closer to a max of say 9 MB/s Wow, what planet are you living on? Let me break it down for you: USB 2.0 480 Mbit/s = 60MB/s - I can achieve around 40MB/s (I don't know where you got 9 from) eSATA 1.5 Gb/s = 187.5MB/s - With the same disk as above I can achieve around 90+ MB/s (which would be the disk's limit) USB 3.0 3.2Gbit/s = 400MB/s (which is 10x faster than your claim of 40MB/s) I fixed it, the PCIe bus was slightly overclocked (102Mhz) changing it back to 100Mhz seems to have fixed it, I now get around 85-95MB/s and with my OCZ SSD I get 150MB/s |
Deimos (5715) | ||
| 1118897 | 2010-07-15 04:55:00 | Got my first USB 3.0 device today and the performance is bad, the HDD is capable of around 100MB/s and yet I'm getting around 36MB/s, I got better speeds out of eSATA, anyone else had any experience with USB 3.0? I bet its the marvel controller! What size file\s are you benching? |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1118898 | 2010-07-15 04:56:00 | I bet its the marvel controller! What size file\s are you benching? Its an NEC controller, I copied CS5 Master collection (around 4GB single file EXE) to and from the drive . |
Deimos (5715) | ||
| 1118899 | 2010-07-15 05:01:00 | Its an NEC controller, I copied CS5 Master collection (around 4GB single file EXE) to and from the drive. Ha, lucky you then, stay away from Marvel! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1118900 | 2010-07-15 05:04:00 | I get 40-50MB/sec for USB2. I guess USB3 would be great overall like for a lappie - portable USB HDs. For a PC there is eSATA. Surely whatever USB# cannot outrun eSATA on the same motherboard. People don't need USB3 for printers, well for currently that is. |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 1118901 | 2010-07-15 05:18:00 | most tests for external usb drives have usb2 at about 30mb/s, usb3 is about 100mb/s | utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||