But USB3 relies on the host CPU right?
Yes, but the overhead is only marginally higher than USB 2.0 which you have to run anyway. Throw in the factor that there gobs of cores in even smaller computers these days ( watch some folks will moan about new entry Mac Pro only having four), that marginal difference won't matter to most if i means don't have to use a PCI-e slot to add a fast drive or get real time uncompressed HD video input into the box.
In the embedded space the overhead increase makes a much better impact than in the desktop/laptop PC space. For most users the cores issue more No-ops waiting to do something than USB overhead instructions.
and it does not support daisy chaining?
There will be USB 3.0 hubs eventually. Daisy chaining is a two edge sword. Throw slower FW400 stuff on the same chain and things will peter out. For the moment with discrete USB 3.0 solutions it is better because all the USB 3.0 stuff can be segregated onto that that controller and the older USB 2.0 (and less ) stuff on the built in controller of the core support chipset.
SATA doesn't support daisy chaining (without a defacto hub) and it is doing quite well.
Even FW400 was still faster than USB2 480. So it seems like FW is still superior in terms of the technology.
Recycling the 'war' from a previous decade doesn't help FW now. Both FW400 and USB 2.0 were created in the 1990's. It is 2010. The world changed.
There were several CPU instruction set technology designs that were better than the x86. The adoption of technology standards matters about as much as the technology.
FW used to be ahead in several areas. It isn't anymore. In terms of raw bandwidth folks are going with eSATA. Implementors of FW1600/FW3200 ha lagged behind SATA and now USB improvements. It has very low momentum.
The development cycle of USB 3.0 was used in part to blunt the momentum of follow on FW standards and to put it very bluntly it worked. Not sure how can look at the evidence ( perhiperals shipping
now ) and not come that conclusion. There was a long list of things that folks had concerning the "I would move to USB from Firewire but ...." problem. USB 3.0 tackled several of them ( duplex communication, effective isochronous, much higher speeds , etc. ) No it didn't get them all but it really didn't have to since it is the much more widespread technology. It is a significantly malformed notion to infere that USB 3.0 is largely USB 2.0 just clocked faster. It has got very substantive differences, hence why isn't being pushed into core chipsets quite as fast. It isn't a cakewalk to implement and there is a new software stack that goes with it.
I also heard a new FW is in the works that does 6.4GB.
When you tell me there is a computer peripheral vendor demoing a prototype system that implements one then wake me up.
Here are some USB 3.0 benchmarks of stuff you can buy now.
http://techgage.com/article/ocz_enyo_128gb_usb_30_portable_ssd/2
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2010/...sb-3-0-and-firewire-800-upgrade-cable-review/
Here is a USB 3.0 HD video uncompressed video digitizer can just hook up if have a USB 3.0 socket.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/
There were not even word of demos for FW1600 or 3200 at CES back in January.
Even the articles that talk about Dap and Point Grey with a 3200 demo should be put into context.
http://www.ptgrey.com/news/pressreleases/details.asp?articleID=353
there is a charge there where USB 3.0 is to the right of even the newer FW. (FW pumps more power ... but again that's much bigger an issue in embedded market where trying to minimize power supplies.)
I still like Firewire compared to USB it would be a shame to see the inferior technology end up winning.
I like aspects of Firewire too. It was a bonehead move for folks here in these forums (and perhaps Apple ) to spin FW800 as a "pro feature" when USB distributed the upgrade as widely as possible. One thing that held FW back was that there were not that many FW800 implementors or adopters.
The other problem was that many peripheral vendors peaked out at FW400.
Other than hard drives there wasn't much pushing for the higher data rates. Steve Jobs was correct in that most video cameras are storing video in files these days. Moving video from camera to computer can be simiply done as a file transfer problem. There is plenty of storage inside the computer so can make an internal copy if needed for average users.
If Firewire's primary competitive advantage is that only it has all of the legacy features of Firewire. .... then it has lost its way. Firewire has to uniquely solve user current or future problems. Otherwise Apple is likely to "steve" the technology eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if it does get dropped from next Mac Pro.