Faster harddrive?
- Thread starter Matsaki
- Start date
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
FireWire "800" is the speed of the drive: 800mbits/sec. USB 2.0 is rated at 480mbits/sec, and FireWire 400 is rated at (yes, you guessed it) 400mbits/sec.
USB 2.0 is technically faster than FireWire 400, since it can support 480mbit/sec transfer rates, but I think you'll find FireWire 400 as fast as USB 2.0, and possibly slightly faster due to the differences in implementations between FW400 and USB 2.0.
USB 2.0 is technically faster than FireWire 400, since it can support 480mbit/sec transfer rates, but I think you'll find FireWire 400 as fast as USB 2.0, and possibly slightly faster due to the differences in implementations between FW400 and USB 2.0.
'Which harddrive is faster (to prefer) ... USB 2.0 or FW 800?' - neither.
As explained above USB 2.0 and FW800 are transmission protocols, the speed of a hard disk drive is measured in rpm [revolutions per minute] - typically, 4800, 5400, 7200, and 10000.
If you mean, 'which protocol will transfer data from an installed hard disk drive?' - the answer is FW800. And so would be FW400.
Note: regardless of what Apple states FW800 is not twice as fast as FW400 - in real world use. In many cases, do not expect FW800 to be even greater than 1.5 the speed of FW400.
As explained above USB 2.0 and FW800 are transmission protocols, the speed of a hard disk drive is measured in rpm [revolutions per minute] - typically, 4800, 5400, 7200, and 10000.
If you mean, 'which protocol will transfer data from an installed hard disk drive?' - the answer is FW800. And so would be FW400.
Note: regardless of what Apple states FW800 is not twice as fast as FW400 - in real world use. In many cases, do not expect FW800 to be even greater than 1.5 the speed of FW400.
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
True -- this is a limitation of the actual device you're transferring to (the hard drive inside of the FireWire/USB enclosure), and not a limitation of the protocol.barhar said:
If you had a theoretical hard drive inside the enclosure that could write and read data at an unlimited speed, then FireWire 800 would be roughly twice as fast as FireWire 400.
The fact that IDE and SATA drives "top out" at around 30MB/sec is the limiting factor in the actual speeds of the protocols. 400mbit/sec is roughly 50MB/sec, and, since there isn't an IDE or SATA drive in existance that could possibly sustain that kind of transfer rate (well, there MAY be, but typical IDE/SATA drives do not), you'll likely see maximum speeds closer to 30MB/sec with all of the aforementioned protocols (FW400, FW800, USB 2.0).
Unless you're trying to eek every last bit of performance out of a drive, I would recommend USB 2.0 since it's more prevalent than FireWire. I would have recommended FireWire 400 in the past, but now that Apple is focusing more on USB 2.0 than FireWire 400, I would recommend USB 2.0... or, better yet, an enclosure that supports both USB 2.0 and FireWire 400.
With a iMac G5 iSight (late 2005), I find that FW 400 is about 1.4X faster than USB 2.0 for the same HD (dual interface). Also, most (not all, be careful what you buy) FW HDs can boot OS X, useful for certain backup and "safety clone" schemes, and in case of internal HD failure (it's nice to have a full clone of the internal HD ready to boot from if the internal HD goes.) When selecting any FW HD or enclosure, make sure the bridge chipset is Oxford 411, 412, or 422. Don't accept any others such as Prolific, Initio (although Macally has success with their versions), etc. Dale Meyn.
ElDiabloConCaca
U.S.D.A. Prime
I think you mean Oxford 911, 912 or 922. I've never heard of Oxford 4xx...
FireWire bootability depends on the Macintosh model... older Macintosh computers (pre-PCI G4 computers) cannot boot Mac OS X from external devices. While some enclosures may fail as a bootable device, this would be because they're using an incompatible chipset... Oxford 9xx chipsets are bootable.
FireWire bootability depends on the Macintosh model... older Macintosh computers (pre-PCI G4 computers) cannot boot Mac OS X from external devices. While some enclosures may fail as a bootable device, this would be because they're using an incompatible chipset... Oxford 9xx chipsets are bootable.
tumbleguts
Registered
ElDiabloConCaca said:
This is the very real reality... I was always under the understanding that most drives max out between 35-45 MB/sec. (And that's NOT the sustained transfer rate...) Sure, you can use a faster drive (faster RPM), but even then the results are not significantly faster.
Lets look at the 3 technologies:
(- Remember there's 8 mbit's in 1 MB...)
Firewire800 = 800 mbit/sec = 100 MB/sec
Firewire400 = 400 mbit/sec = 50 MB/sec
USB2.0 = up to 480 mbit/sec = up to 60 MB/sec
(Please correct me if I'm wrong...) But I was told that USB 2 functions at between 12 mbit/sec - 480 mbit/sec, but most of the time (at its best) it works slightly below the 400 mbit/s speed. It is for this reason that video editors preferred Firewire400 over USB 2, because Firewire400 was generally faster. I've just noticed that Apple have removed the Firewire800 port on the new Macbook Pro - which is interesting cos' "Firewire" is an Apple owned technology... Hmmm.
Anyway, my current need for speed is satisfied by an (now unsupported) Adaptec 39160 dual channel SCSI card - each channel operating at 160 MB/sec. My boot drive is a 3rd generation 15,000rpm Maxtor SCSI drive. Even with this beast of a hard drive - the max transfer rate (NOT sustained) is about 90 MB/sec, and sustained output at about 60-65 MB/sec. I also have a RAID setup with two 10,000rpm SCSI drives that achieves a sustained output of 100 MB/sec with large files (the single 15Krpm drive is faster with smaller files...)
So in answer to your question; "What is faster?", well it depends on the setup... If you aren't going to install a RAID setup or a super, fast drive - there will be very little difference between Firewire400 and Firewire800. In fact, there may be little difference between all 3 technologies!
As suggested above, Firewire400 may be "continually" faster, but USB 2 can often be more reliable. If you're getting an external drive enclosure (take the advice that was offered earlier) = get one that supports both!!!
ElDiabloConCaca said:
Yes, I just used the wrong finger when I typed it out. I never heard of 411, etc., either. Sorry about that. Speaking of bootability, I had an Iomega Hd with a Prolific FW chip (early 2006), it booted OK but didn't reliably mount (in FW mode) after sleep or shut down, had to unplug its power and replug it to get it to mount sometimes. But it worked OK in USB mode. So I gave it to my son-in-law for his Dell PC, which has only USB. Dale Meyn.
tumbleguts said:
Firewire has a higher sustained transfer rate than USB 2.0 does, which is why it's more popular for video work or anything requiring long transfers of data. FW800 is really nice in that regard...which is why I'm glad I have the HD Powerbook and not a MacBook Pro.
It'd be nice if they (Apple) gave us an external connection for SATA on the computers (laptops particularly).
Matsaki
Registered
Hmm,
Wait here now. A quick question following Oxford chip. I have an old FW 400 External harddrive (LaCie) with a IDE hard drive and a Oxford chip (don't know model) but I understand that this chip limits my size of the hard drive I can put to 120 Gb. Do they have such limits on the Oxford chip's?
Wait here now. A quick question following Oxford chip. I have an old FW 400 External harddrive (LaCie) with a IDE hard drive and a Oxford chip (don't know model) but I understand that this chip limits my size of the hard drive I can put to 120 Gb. Do they have such limits on the Oxford chip's?