USB 3.0

[rherron]

Anyone using an external drive with USB 3.0 connection?

Thoughts on 3.0?

[tonebloke]

No, not at the moment. But from what I've gathered if you don't have an up-to-date system, RE - Motherboard, then you can't use 3.0.
In general; 3.0 will run at 2.0 for nearly everyone on what they have now.

[paddington]

yes, and Thunderbolt blows it away, hands down.


it's a gap-filler. 2 years, tops.

[rherron]

You need a $30 USB 3.0 PCI Express Interface Card.

Whether USB 2.0 or 3.0, I need more storage space than I currently have for routine backups of work and personal files. 2 TBs doesn't go as far as it used to! :)

The new external HDs are USB 2.0/3.0 and cheap, so I'm going to add the PCI card and give 3.0 a shot.

Big believer in automated, routine backups. I lost an HD once and it wasn't a big problem for me. Now that we have a 2 year old and his entire life in pictures and videos is on the computer... $120 for 2 more TBs. It's worth it.

[saltman]

You are getting to the point where the transfer speed is faster than the hard drive you are using. Unless you are using SSD drives or RAID0 drives, USB3 or SATA3 make little difference to none at all.

Or any yet to be released, might come out someday by that time you need something new anyway protocol. ;)

[co9ol]

I don't know about USB 3.0 but I do notice a significant difference between the slower USB 2.0 and Firewire 800. It's just head to find cases that have a 800 port. :(

[rherron]

Bottom line is I need more space period, whether USB 2.0 or USB 3.0. I got $30 extra dollars invested in this project. :)

I'm running 64-bit Windows 7 on a Dell XPS 630i. Intel Core 2 Quad Core processor @ 2.83 GHz. 8 GB RAM. The set up is pretty damn fast.

When I get the new external HD and the USB 3.0 card I am going to just copy and paste a ton of pictures and see how long it takes to paste to a Western Digital external drive hooked up via 2.0, and then see if it's noticeably faster via the new WD drive on 3.0.

Will post the results.

Again, I'm out 30 extra bucks -- not gonna change my life.

[dwarfinside]

I've got two external hard drive enclosures with USB 3.0 interface. I also have several WD external drives with USB 2.0 interface. My speeds vary a little bit, but the USB 2.0 gets about 20 kB/sec while the USB 3.0 goes at about 200 kB/sec :thumbsup. I've got USB 3.0 integrated into my motherboard.
While Thunderbolt does blow USB 3.0 away as far as data transfer speeds, I still see USB 3.0 as a helpful interface. With all the USB 2.0 devices already in existence, computer makers will likely continue to provide a USB interface. Since USB 3.0 is backwards-compatible, there's no reason it wouldn't become the new industry standard. And its 10 times faster - win/win situation.

[DanielG]

I've got two external hard drive enclosures with USB 3.0 interface. I also have several WD external drives with USB 2.0 interface. My speeds vary a little bit, but the USB 2.0 gets about 20 kB/sec while the USB 3.0 goes at about 200 kB/sec :thumbsup.
I think you mean 20 MB/sec (megabytes/sec) for USB 2.0 :)
Though I'd be surprised if you're getting 200 MB/sec on USB 3.0

[dwarfinside]

Yeah, you're right. I meant 20 MB/sec for USB 2.0. I am getting 200 MB/sec on USB 3.0 - but speeds vary a bit. I just copied a DVD to my USB 3.0 drive to re-check. Speeds peaked at 210 MB/sec and were sustained at a steady 159 MB/sec. Still pretty fast.


http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6907/79341911.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/79341911.png/)

[rherron]

Copied a bunch of jpeg photos from C drive to external drives. One a Western Digital My Book 1 TB drive on USB 2.0. The other a Western Digital My Book 2 TB drive on USB 3.0.

446 files in 12 folders.
948 MB total.

On drive connected via USB 2.0 it took 1:12.52 to copy to drive.
On drive connected via USB 3.0 it took 18.48 to copy to drive.

That's a lot faster (a quarter of the time or so) and $30 well spent IMO.

Liking the USB 3.0.