Does iPod support true 480 mbps via USB instead of 12 mbps?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by lucky3killer, Jan 5, 2008.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #1
    I bought 5th gen of iPod with 60GB in last 6 month ago and downloaded some tv shows then transferred and what's shock, it's still 12 mbps but not hit at 480 mbps then I decided to return it because I don't like slower transfer, plus old iPod support firewire for transfer, that's so faster than USB with 12 mbps.

    Does you get true 480 mbps via USB when transfer into iPod? or just up to 12 mbps?

    In last 6 month (before switch to Mac), I was tested with iPod on my 5 years old HP PC with USB 2.0 slot and transfer the tv show (roughly 200MB) about take 5 min or so then I found it's 12 mbps.

    When I was transferred the tv show to external HDD via firewire 400 and it took few seconds.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    savar

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    #2
    I think you're confused by the terminology. The ipod interface is USB 2.0, which is what you describe as "true 480 mbps".

    The hard drive in side the ipod, however, does not necessarily support that rate of transfer.

    In order to get the highest rate of transfer, you *do* need to plug it into a USB 2.0 port. If it took 5 minutes to transfer a 200MB movie, then the port you plugged the ipod into does not support USB 2.0.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    eh

    I have a 5G Video and I wouldn't say my iPod syncs in "true" 480 mbps, even though it's plugged into a usb 2.0 port (on my 1.5ghz 12" powerbook).

    Sure firewire transfer is faster, but USB 2.0 isn't bad. USB 1.1 would take HOURS to sync.

    Also, why does it matter how long it takes to sync? Surely you're not reloading all 60 gigs on a constant basis.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #4
    My 5 years old HP PC has USB 2.0, that where I was plugged in USB 2.0 slot.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #5
    No, I'm care about high speed, just love to be faster and save my time.

    I was talked to my friend and he said iPod has USB 2.0 support but speed is rather to be rendered as 12 mbps than 480 mbps.

    I think about want buy 6th gen of iPod and try it on my Mac, if better than old HP PC.
     
  6. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #6
    480mbps is a theoretical top speed that devices rarely, if ever, reach. For those reasons, Firewire 400, at 400mbps (theoretical max speed) is almost always faster than USB 2.0.

    Someone else mentioned the hard drive, which is probably correct. In order to preserve battery life and reduce the amount of heat generated, the hard drives in the iPods aren't that fast, and are probably the bottleneck when it comes to file transfer.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    Killyp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    #7
    No point in supporting full USB transfer speed.

    1. It'll never reach 480 mbps anyway, USB never does. FW400 is miles faster
    2. It'll require more a more powerful USB chip in the iPod, probably shortening the batterylife and possibly taking up more space too
    3. It'll require a much faster hard drive, which will in turn make the iPod more susceptible to damage and shorten the batterylife/iPod Lifespan.
    4. It's already pretty darn fast as it is. I can get a full movie across in under a minute.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    Huh?

    What's your point here?
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    6G iPods (classic) wouldn't be any faster.

    I guess I'm confused as to what you're trying to accomplish here.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #10
    You stated that I was plugged in wrong slot, all of USB on HP are topped at 2.0, not 1.1 or less.

    I'm really wish Apple will return the firewire support to iPod for syncing, oh well.

    Thanks to everyone for answering here.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #11
    Oh really? Oh, I don't know about much on USB.

    No, you are not confused, just like make sense about USB wouldn't hit full 480 mbps.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #12
    Okay...

    Macs have come with USB 2.0 standard for about four years now, I believe. You aren't plugged into the wrong slot.

    Syncing is going to take longer than just a straight transfer. USB 2.0 is built for burst speeds, not sustained transfer.

    Firewire will never return to iPods. FW requires its own bus, making the iPod thicker. Since most computers don't come with a standard firewire port, I see why they did it.

    Don't get me wrong, I miss firewire too. It was wicked faster, but I like my iPods as thin as they are.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #13
    Ok, Here's USB for you USB can transfer at 480 gigabits (not bytes) per second under best conditions meaning if USB is carrying small files it can be very fast (faster than Firewire) but when large files go over it slows down drastically and it becomes almost useless not only that the device has to be quick too, but I'm sure it's just because of the size of what your transferring not the iPod's end.
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    #14

    That's not true at all. It's 480 megabits per second which is 60 megabytes per second. This is the bus speed, not a real world speed. I get between 100 and 120 mbps with my laptop which I think is just fine for a 1.8" drive running at 33k/rpm's
     
  15. macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #15
    An iPod will sync a 200MB file rather quickly. If you are experiencing anything that suggests otherwise, then something is wrong with your system or your device or whatnot. A 200MB file should transfer in less than 30 seconds. If it takes 2 minutes, then you have a problem.

    While you are at it, try and use proper english. Honestly, it is very difficult to read your posts.
     
  16. Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #16
    Check number 12. English might not be the posters main language.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #17
    12. Corrections. There is no need to point out another poster's spelling or grammatical errors unless you think it is causing confusion. Remember that not all members are native English speakers. Communication, not correctness, is our goal.

    Actually it was.
     

Share This Page