SuperSpeed USB 3.0 unleashed
Summary
Topics
Unveiled on Monday by the USB Implementers Forum, the USB 3.0 spec can theoretically support data-transfer speeds of up to 4.8Gbps — 10 times the speed provided by USB 2.0.
The new standard, also known as SuperSpeed USB, is also expected to be more power-efficient than its predecessor.
"SuperSpeed USB is the next advancement in ubiquitous technology," Jeff Ravencraft, the president of the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF), the industry group that promotes USB technology, said in a statement on Monday. "Today's consumers are using rich media and large digital files that need to be easily and quickly transferred from PCs to devices and vice versa. SuperSpeed USB meets the needs of everyone, from the tech-savvy executive to the average home user."
The USB-IF hopes USB 3.0 will be built into computers from late 2009, with consumer products using the specification starting to appear the following year — or roughly a decade after USB 2.0 made its appearance. According to the industry group, the first such products will include external hard drives, flash drives, digital cameras and personal media players.
The specification was designed to be backwards-compatible with earlier iterations of USB.
Companies that were instrumental in developing USB 3.0 include Intel, HP, Microsoft, ST-NXP Wireless, NEC and Texas Instruments. Intel had taken the lead in the specification's development, but only made a draft specification available to companies such as AMD and Nvidia in August of this year. Prior to that release, there had been concerns that the USB 3.0 specification would be forked into divergent versions.
Talkback Most Recent of 16 Talkback(s)
-
Where's the Beef?
I've seen specs before, but where's the link for this information. You can't claim something unless you have proof.
Maarek17th Nov 2008 -
ShadeTree17th Nov 2008 -
Why so long?
USB 3.0 is a welcome advancement, but it seems to have taken too long to get here. Why the delay? I must admit I haven't followed the development process closely.
barwell17th Nov 2008 -
Ummm ...
Now I'm not completely up on throughput of all devices, but 4.8 Gbps means that this device can transfer 600 megabytes of information in 1 second - that's about an entire CD in a second - a computer cannot read a hard drive, let alone a CD that fast, so isn't this overkill?
The only way I can see reaching 4.8 Gbps is to go from one USB3 Flash Drive directly to another USB3 flash drive WITHOUT going through the motherboard ...
---EDIT---
And holy crap - that's faster throughput than a Gigabit network - pretty soon we won't be using ethernet...:)
---EDIT---
Please correct me if I am wrong ...
Ludo
Ludovit17th Nov 2008 -
The rate is theoretical.
While this is alot higher then anything we see now... this provides room to grow. Of course the real transfer rates will be limited to what you are transfering to and from and other specs of the computer. Also, all devices must be USB 3.0 as well. I don't know if they have changed it, but I know used to if you plugged a USB 1.0 into a USB 2.0 all USB devices would run at USB 1.0, at least on a lot of machines that I worked on.
ShadowGIATL17th Nov 2008 -
SamCPP18th Nov 2008 -
even USB 2.0 isn't fully utilized by most devices
If you've got a single external hard disk or DVD-ROM drive on USB 2.0, the USB bus isn't the bottleneck. Even while hard drive storage capacity has grown by magnitudes, the throughput speed is still stuck close to what it was more than a decade ago. SATA helped a little, but not nearly enough.
USB 3.0 will be useful someday, and the earliest beneficiaries will be external multi-drive RAID configurations using 4-6 volume stripe sets. Even most of the solid-state transfers (flash devices, either standalone or embedded in cameras as so forth) run below USB 2.0 speeds because of inefficient memory controllers or poorly-designed file structures.
terry flores17th Nov 2008 -
Because of its reliance on a host CPU
USB is fundamentally flawed because it relies on a host CPU. It is OK for USB 1 devices like mice and keyboards, but where high speed data transfer is reqired. FireWire, on the other hand, uses an independent controller so 2 devices can exchange data independently of a host CPU so FireWire 400 outperforms USB 2, even though its theoretical maximum throughput is lower.
Anyone who cares about speed for external devices is already using eSATA or FireWire 800, both of which are very much faster than USB 2. FireWire3200 and eSATA are probably faster in actual use than the proposed USB 3 standard.
eSATA will have their 6Gb/s spec finished by the end of the year, FireWire should have their equivalent available next year. What is USB?s schedule for keeping up?
Fred Fredrickson18th Nov 2008 -
Well I wouldn't be too quick to brag about
firewire... Firewire is a security hazard.
Refer to http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cold-Boot-Reloaded-FireWire-Tool-to-Bypass-Windows-Authentication-80446.shtmlSamCPP18th Nov 2008 -
non-standard USB plugs
USB is bad not just because of it's heavy reliance on the host CPU, but also because many manufacturers left the standard mini-USB plug to use their own version, or worse.
"There are at least 10 different types of non-standard Mini-USB receptacles and jacks currently in use." (wikipedia: not official, but this is pretty accurate)
A big pet peeve of mine is a device using "locks" on USB cables to only allow a specific manufacturer's design to power it (specific resistance across x-y pins seems most prevalent). Yes there are workarounds, but this is anti-consumer with no benefit to the product.
(edited subject line)
EMonkIA20th Nov 2008 -
nonsense
"USB is fundamentally flawed because it relies on a host CPU"
There is nothing in the spec that says that the host CPU needs to be involved in USB transfers; the CPU can offload as much as it likes to the controller.
You can see that CPU is not a limiting factor simply by looking at the CPU meter during USB operations; even video or disk I/O over USB are just not noticeable on modern hardware.
Furthermore, you're barking up the wrong tree; what matters isn't maximum speed, it's bang for the buck. USB has lower costs overall, so dollar for dollar it gives you more speed. Most people simply don't want to pay the extra money to get FW800 or FW3200 speeds. SATA is nice, but it's only suitable for disks.
USB 3.0 will be a success, and it deserves to be one. FireWire is dying out.
MikeJ233224th Nov 2008 -
I could hardly find a firewire cable
Compared to the slew of USB I could barely find a firewire cable. I think firewire has lost.
DevGuy_z19th Nov 2008 -
RE: SuperSpeed USB released
Great, now we have to wait for Apple to incorporate it into its
products so PC makers can follow suit, as it happened with
the origincal USB implementation.
emiliosic18th Nov 2008 -
Every product has a single original
implemented. Get over it. Someone will implement it first. Who cares? USB has momentum now. Everyone will be interested.SamCPP18th Nov 2008 -
Anyone wants a LaCie USB 1.0 HD doorstop?
Just when I upgraded my external SCSI 2.0 hard drives to USB 1.0...
fantozzi19th Nov 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
