Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FireWire to Reach 3.2 Gigabit/s Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah it does a little, except a whole lot faster
yeah, I've always found USB's theoritical limits to be exactly that, purely theoretical. I've been about to get over 80MB/sec out of a firewire 800 drive whose theoretical maximum would be 100MB/sec. USB 2.0 whose limit is allegedly 50MB/sec I can barely squeeze 20 MB/sec out of.
Would be a little superfluous, the bottleneck is typically on the iPod side with its drive controller from what I can tell.
Why not continue to sell ipod with USB but also sell the firewire cable seperately, that way apple can make money on an overpriced Firewire cable, we can have our quick transfer speeds and... be able to gloat over PC at how far superior our macs are.
everyones a winner
Pointless if your hard drive is the bottleneck
The very most you can get out of a hard drive (if your lucky) is 80 megabytes a second. I'll start getting excited when a hard drive can keep up with the interface it runs on.
The very most you can get out of a hard drive (if your lucky) is 80 megabytes a second. I'll start getting excited when a hard drive can keep up with the interface it runs on.
Same connector as what?
FireWire 400 or 800?
I think that the biggest problem with the adoption of FW800 was the fact that it had a different connector than 400. This was stupid because many years ago, I saw the road map of FireWire going from 400 to 800 to 1600 and to 3200. They should have standardized on the connector that could handle 3200 and then used that on all of the previous generations, even if it meant leaving some pins blank.
FW400 is vastly better that USB 2.0 even with its putative 480 mbps speed.
I hope FW 3200 can do well. As far as saying that the "data transfer standard war " is over and that USB won, keep in mind that you are dealing with a company that never throws in the towel. In any company can take an early technical leader that was overtaken by a popular inferior technology and make it relevant again, it is Apple. Let's get 'er done this time, guys!
FireWire 400 or 800?
I think that the biggest problem with the adoption of FW800 was the fact that it had a different connector than 400. This was stupid because many years ago, I saw the road map of FireWire going from 400 to 800 to 1600 and to 3200. They should have standardized on the connector that could handle 3200 and then used that on all of the previous generations, even if it meant leaving some pins blank.
FW400 is vastly better that USB 2.0 even with its putative 480 mbps speed.
I hope FW 3200 can do well. As far as saying that the "data transfer standard war " is over and that USB won, keep in mind that you are dealing with a company that never throws in the towel. In any company can take an early technical leader that was overtaken by a popular inferior technology and make it relevant again, it is Apple. Let's get 'er done this time, guys!
There isn't enough space in current generation iPods for a Firewire controller, it would also increase the price of the units. Just look at the thickness and cost of the third-generation iPod.
Firewire is dead in the water for iPods.
It sounded to me like you need to buy new hardware, e.g. the controllers in your logic board and whatever devices take advantage of the new speed. The cables stay the same because the cable isn't the weakest link in the chain, much like a USB cable could be either 1.1 or 2.0 depending on the speed of the controller. Or how a CAT5 cable initially supported 10 mbps, then 100 mbps, now Gigabit ethernet. Nothing suspicious about finding faster ways to make things happen on the same cable.
Indeed. USB2 is plenty fast for one 7200 rpm drive. Those 1.8" drives are pretty bad performance wise. But it's good enough for audio and stamp sized video. Plus you got those seek times, basically for every track that has to be synced.
Firewire would make some sense for the flash based iPods. Although having a consumer device (iPod) connect faster to a Professional device (Mac Pro and Macbook Pro, both of which have FW800) isn't really profitable.
It's far more probable Apple upgrade the iPods and Macs to USB 3.0. It's backwards compatible down to USB 1.1 and Windows PCs are more likely to have it. Also, Firewire is for realtime data. You don't need realtime iPod syncing, do you?
That new Firewire would indeed be great for Professionals doing Audio and Video. It might not be quick enough to get RAW video from the RED camera to a RAID, besides, you can buy a special RAID just for that camera. High Definition can be a bitch indeed. We only have it occasionally in Germany, and it's all 1080i, i.e. unwatchable (interlaced) on any affordable LCD TV. Why there is an interlaced high definition digital broadcasting standard is beyond me, all the production is done in progressive, LCDs only works in Progressive mode... Where can I get 720p on demand movies and series in Germany?
USB 3.0 is the thing to watch as the competitor. Whilst USB isn't quite as quick as Firewire (esp. on sustained transfers) it is a little more convenient (less chance of blowing the ports on USB while system is up).
Good article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-battle-of-the-next-gen-firewire-s3200-vs-usb-3.html
Good article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-battle-of-the-next-gen-firewire-s3200-vs-usb-3.html
1. USB2 runs quicker on Windows. Quite a bit quicker. Still no contest with FW though.
2. FireWire, 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.
3. Hi-Speed 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 data flow control).
I'm glad Firewire is being updated again - I was wondering how long it'd be before we saw the next step. It's great that 1600 is being missed and we're jumping straight to 3200.
doubtful, because there'll be some architecture upgrades to make use of the quadrupling of the speed.
I <3 Fire!
USB always have seemed cheap to me, like the hardwared will break or bend easy. Firewire 4 eva!!
USB always have seemed cheap to me, like the hardwared will break or bend easy. Firewire 4 eva!
!1. USB2 runs quicker on Windows. Quite a bit quicker. Still no contest with FW though.
2. FireWire, 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.
3. Hi-Speed 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 data flow control).
I'm glad Firewire is being updated again - I was wondering how long it'd be before we saw the next step. It's great that 1600 is being missed and we're jumping straight to 3200.
doubtful, because there'll be some architecture upgrades to make use of the quadrupling of the speed.
I know about FW's peer-to-peer architecture, but I didn't know that USB2 was faster on Windows. Do you know why it is? I haven't fired up my PC in awhile; now I'm interested in a little side-by-side test.
I wonder if the new FW spec will have the same advantages over USB3 that FW400/800 has over USB2? USB2 does not have much bus power and real world sustained throughput is slower than FW in most cases.
I have to admit it would be nice to have FW in smaller devices, including the iPod, but the extra hardware and cost is a factor.
I have to admit it would be nice to have FW in smaller devices, including the iPod, but the extra hardware and cost is a factor.
I think it's because of the drivers, they're just better on Windies.
I wonder if the new FW spec will have the same advantages over USB3 that FW400/800 has over USB2? USB2 does not have much bus power and real world sustained throughput is slower than FW in most cases.
I have to admit it would be nice to have FW in smaller devices, including the iPod, but the extra hardware and cost is a factor.
It likely will. USB3 will be backward compatible, so will keep the same architecture. I expect FW3200 to outperform USB3 without problem.
Why is that the case. And I don't mean why as in "isn't everything supposed to be better on a mac".... But, if USB 2.0 is a standard architecture, surely only OS driver is different? Is Apple's USB software really that bad? I can't say that I've noticed much difference when I use USB 2.0 dirves to transfer files between a PC and a Mac, then again I'm probably hitting the limit of the physical disc and not reaching that o the interface so might not have noticed.can you elaboarate on te resns you think t would be slwoer on a Mac - assuming the Minitruth lets you post such heresy
Why is that the case. And I don't mean why as in "isn't everything supposed to be better on a mac".... But, if USB 2.0 is a standard architecture, surely only OS driver is different? Is Apple's USB software really that bad? I can't say that I've noticed much difference when I use USB 2.0 dirves to transfer files between a PC and a Mac, then again I'm probably hitting the limit of the physical disc and not reaching that o the interface so might not have noticed.can you elaboarate on te resns you think t would be slwoer on a Mac - assuming the Minitruth lets you post such heresy
I'll try and root out the article. I have a feeling it was arstechnica that said it first.
I don't think that is true anymore. Maybe when the standard first came out, but not anymore.
As has already been stated, like any of this matters. The disks that we jack into these FW3200 enclosures are crap anyway, so you won't get any faster transfer rates unless you have flash drives or a killer RAID setup. Move along.
So what ever happened to 1394c also known as S800T?
I thought that S3200 was already part of 1394b.
Does this revision update the spec from 1394b-2002 to 1394b-2008?
Then again, since Apple has made nice with Intel, maybe Intel has forgiven Apple over it's Firewire snootiness, and S3200 will be integrated into Intel's chipsets. Dare I dream that S3200 support will be built-in to the Santa Rosa refresh Intel has announced for January?
I thought that S3200 was already part of 1394b.
Does this revision update the spec from 1394b-2002 to 1394b-2008?
Then again, since Apple has made nice with Intel, maybe Intel has forgiven Apple over it's Firewire snootiness, and S3200 will be integrated into Intel's chipsets. Dare I dream that S3200 support will be built-in to the Santa Rosa refresh Intel has announced for January?