Is Lightning Cable USB 3.0 based?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Razeus, Sep 16, 2014.

  1. Razeus macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
  2. Rafterman macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    #2
    No. Its speeds are 2.0-similar.
     
  3. Razeus thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #3
    Still? Wow. I figured they'd be on USB 3.0 by now.
     
  4. derekgroves macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #4
    Yeah- filling a 128gb device with content at anything less than USB 3.0 is going to be painful. No excuse for this.
     
  5. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #5
    Hmm, are there any specs for 802.11ac on the new iPhones? What's the max link speed? Wi-Fi might actually be faster or comparable to USB 2.0 this time around. Mind, I have a 128GB iPad and I just load it via Wi-Fi. The syncing feels less painful when you don't have to be tethered to a computer. I usually just sync 10-25GB of content at a time, though.
     
  6. mnsportsgeek macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    #6
    Is Lightning Cable USB 3.0 based?


    Wifi sync is garbage. Takes 3 times longer on my N900 router. I doubt 1350 will make that much of a difference. It seems like the wifi isn't the bottleneck.
     
  7. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #7
    I've never actually used iTunes sync. However, syncing with Plex (videos) and ComicGlass (comic reader) are pretty much limited by wi-fi throughput for me. Of course, that was with throughput maxing out at 100-150 Mbps.

    If the bottleneck is the internal storage/NAND flash used, switching to USB 3.0 isn't really going to improve things.
     
  8. KisakiSama macrumors member

    KisakiSama

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    #8
    I know my MacBook gets some blazing speeds over wifi (both 802.11ac) but I'm curious how the phone will compare as well. I'm still syncing my iPhone 5 via cable but with the upgraded wifi I might give it a shot and see if it's any quicker.
     
  9. Cougarcat macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    #9
    Actually, there is an excuse--the flash in the iPhone is slower than USB 2. USB 3 wouldn't make syncing any faster.
     
  10. geoff5093 macrumors 68000

    geoff5093

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Dover, NH
    #10
    Theoretical speeds for 802.11ac using 80MHz and 3x3 MIMO is 1.3Gbps I believe. My LG G3 has 802.11ac and the highest I've seen when next to my router is in the upper 400Mbps range.

    You can't be serious... You think flash memory in the iPhone 6 has a maximum read/write speed of 60MB/s? A typical MicroSD card has speeds of 40-50MB/s, a SATA-based SSD has speeds of 500MB/s+, and DDR3 memory has 10GB/s+ transfer rates.
     
  11. derekgroves macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #11
    Ok, so let's think and take that one step further.....faster flash memory? Other manufacturers somehow manage?
     
  12. MH01 macrumors G4

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #12
    the big feature of Iphone 6S, USB 3.0 :)
     
  13. rui no onna, Sep 16, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2014

    rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #13
    A typical microSD has write speeds of 4-20 MB/s. A SanDisk Ultra 64GB microSDXC UHC-I Class 10 has a write throughput of around 10 MB/s. :rolleyes:

    As for SATA-based SSDs, they've got dedicated controllers probably larger than the A8, dedicated DRAM for caching, parallelism usually with 8-16 channels and other little tricks such as pseudo-SLC cache. If you look at performance of smaller 64-128GB SSDs, they're almost at 1/3 or 1/4 performance of the big SSDs due to the loss of parallelism. :rolleyes:

    ----------

    Well, Samsung does have a NAND flash factory and has extensive experience making SSD controllers. If they wanted to, they can integrate the storage controller in the processor instead of using self-contained eMMC chips. :p

    Thing is while Android devices may have USB 3.0, it may not actually mean much in real world use. Write Benchmarks from AnandTech:
    [​IMG]
     
  14. geoff5093 macrumors 68000

    geoff5093

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Dover, NH
    #14
    I'm not sure where you read those MicroSD speeds, but you are dead wrong. Since you are a fan of benchmarks, take a look at these:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/microsd-cards-2014/-2-Sequential-Write-MB-s,3481.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/microsd-cards-2014/-1-Sequential-Read-MB-s,3480.html

    MicroSD cards seeing read speeds of 90-95MB/s and write speeds of 65-90MB/s.

    Those benchmarks are not a true representation of the speed of the flash memory, but of the interface of which that flash memory is connected. I also fail to see the iPhone on that chart, so we have no way to know for certain if USB 3.0 is "useless" on the iPhone 6.
     
  15. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #15
    The microSD write speeds I quoted were benchmarks I ran using CrystalDiskMark using a Transcend UHC microSD reader. That's with an older version of the SanDisk Ultra 64GB you linked. Seems like SanDisk might have improved performance a bit. After the abysmal write speeds with the SanDisk, I only buy Samsung Pro microSD which does 20+ MB/s write. Also, if you actually check the part numbers for the Tom's Hardware benchmarks, those are all SD cards and not microSD. There is a SanDisk Extreme microSD that does 50 MB/s write but those cost more than $1/GB (granted, that's still cheaper than Apple's speed bumps). The sequential read speeds look nice but personally, they're of little use to me. Most of the syncing I do is from to PC to microSD, not from microSD to PC. :rolleyes:

    There are plenty of storage benchmark apps available for Android (and I'm sure they have the ability to write a native Android benchmarking app) so I don't see why they would use external benchmarks on a PC which are, as you mentioned, dependent on interface.

    By the way, I just ran the Storage Write benchmark using the PeformanceTest Mobile app by PassMark on some of my iDevices.

    iPhone 5c 16GB: 37.7 MB/s
    iPhone 5s 32GB: 48.6 MB/s
    iPad 4 128GB: 54.5 MB/s
    iPad Air 16GB: 33.7 MB/s

    USB 2.0 throughput tends to cap at ~40 MB/s. I certainly hope Apple designed Lightning with USB 3.0 compatibility in mind. I know we'll probably have to purchase new cables but it would be great if the new USB 3.0 cables are backwards compatible with existing Lightning devices.
     
  16. geoff5093 macrumors 68000

    geoff5093

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Dover, NH
    #16
    That's very interesting, so hopefully Apple did use USB 3.0 to get the most out of these devices, especially with 128GB.

    Using an average of 40MB/s for USB 2.0, it would take 53 minutes to fill up 128GB of storage, so anything they could do to improve this would be awesome.
     
  17. Newtons Apple Suspended

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #17
    ^^^THIS^^^

    Maybe in the iPhone 8
     
  18. geoff5093 macrumors 68000

    geoff5093

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Dover, NH
    #18
    Might want to read a few posts up... The flash used in the iPhone 5S and iPad AIR is already faster than the real world throughput of USB 2.0.
     
  19. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #19
    If that 400Mbps (50MB/s) is actual sustained throughput, then it's already better than USB 2.0.

    They're not using USB 3.0 otherwise, that would have been mentioned in the keynote. :rolleyes: However, I do think they should probably make the switch to USB 3.0 soon.

    ----------

    Actually, that was the 128GB iPad 4 that had 54.5 MB/s seq write. The 16GB iPad Air only had 33.7 MB/s seq write.
     
  20. yegon macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #20
    The wired transfer speed, or lack of it, doesn't really bother me tbh. I always get max capacity devices, I want high quality video/audio everywhere, including trains tunnels (I travel a lot), buildings with no wifi/poor signal where I get long breaks, and most of all the gym, which is a complete deadzone for mobile signal.

    Getting high bitrate content on there isn't important in itself, x264 compression is leagues ahead of what it once was and is generally fine for small screens, but I don't want to have two encodes of stuff. One at max quality for home theatre, one for mobile. Did that in the bad old days of tech with no hardware video decoders, pita.

    Sure, first day when I sync a tonne of stuff is a pain, but after that it's maybe a 10-15gb updating of content once a week. No big deal for me.
     
  21. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #21
    Curious, unless you're putting 20-40GB straight Blu-ray rips on your devices, wouldn't you still have to encode anyway?
     
  22. yegon macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    #22
    I'll be honest, I don't do any encoding, I was avoiding mentioning that 100% of the content is downloaded mkv's. Doesn't make it legal, but I do subscribe to Netflix, buy lots of Blu Rays and I've paid for almost all the HBO content I've seen, albeit a year or two after watching said content by buying boxsets. I've never watched GoT legally day and date for example, but I buy the BD the moment it appears.

    Point still stands regarding two copies of different quality files, high capacity saves me the hassle. I watch a tonne of content while at work/gym.
     
  23. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #23
    Gotcha. I rip my own (unless iTunes Digital Copy is included like with GoT) so there's no getting around having to encode for mobile use unless I purchase multiple versions of the same content. Or getting them through darknet which I don't really do nowadays. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page