USB three.0 vs. eSATA: Is faster better?

While USB 3.0 is good, the question of whether information technology's better than eSATA is not every bit simple as "Whoever's the fastest wins." Let's accept a closer await at these new and improved ports on our PCs.

ITworld |

Up-to-engagement computers at present include external ports that, in theory, can handle data at rates of up to 5 Gigabits per second. Just which is better, eSATA or USB three.0?

If you've been in the reckoner business for whatsoever length of time you tin probably painfully remember when serial RS-232 ports could barely handle 28 Kilobytes per 2d. And, calculation insult to injury, the standard was loose enough that you could have 'compatible' devices that you could never physically connect. How things have changed! Now, eSATA tin handle 300 MBps (MegaBytes per second) and USB 3.0 tin can wheel and bargain upward to 625 MBps.

[ Also on ITworld: Thunderbolt: Beyond USB and eSATA | USB 3.0: Separating hype from reality ]

And then that makes USB 3.0 improve right? Well, while USB three.0 is practiced, it's not as simple as "Whoever's the fastest wins." Let's take a closer look at these new and improved ports on our PCs.

ESATA (External Serial Advanced Technology Zipper) is the external version of the technology, SATA, that your estimator is probable already using for its hard drive. While SATA and eSATA are both older than USB 3.0, its proponents would withal merits that information technology's meliorate than USB 3.0.

They can make this argument considering the about common use for eSATA is for external hard drives. Internally, these drives are still using SATA fifty-fifty if you're connecting to these devices with USB or FireWire on the outside. Thus, the argument goes, these devices must utilize a bridge chip to translate from the ATA protocol to USB or the FireWire IEEE 1394 protocol.

In that location are 2 ways to do this. The first is to encapsulate the SATA protocol-borne data into USB or FireWire. The other is to really convert the data into one of the external data transmission protocols. In either case, this requires actress steps and processing, which slows down the effective throughput.

Various benchmarking tests support this claim. In detail, eSATA has clearly been shown to be faster than USB 2.0.

That was so; this is now.

Today, USB iii.0's SuperSpeed 5 Gbps (Gigabits per second) is more than ten times faster than USB 2.0's top theoretical speed of 480 Mbps (Megabits per second). In addition, USB iii.0 supports asynchronous data transfers, which means that, unlike USB 2.0, it doesn't need to wait to poll a USB device every time information technology wants to start shipping information ane way or the other.

[ USB three.0: The new speed limit ]

In addition, USB 3.0 includes a new transfer method chosen Bulk Streams. With Bulk Streams, USB now supports multiple data stream transfers. The net effect of this is that the protocol will practice much better with huge information transfers such as those required past viewing an HD pic that's residing on an external hard drive.

Withal, on those aforementioned external drives, USB iii.0 must deal with the SATA to USB protocol conversion slowdown. So, who wins when it comes to raw read and write speeds? We still don't know.

I did, withal, run some rough benchmarks to become an thought of what we're dealing with. For my devices I used a Western Digital My Book Studio Edition Ii 1TB 7,200 RPM external hard drive with its eSATA port and ran information technology against a Western Digital My Volume three.0 with a similar drive within. I attached these to a Gateway SX2802 PC with a ii.5GHz Intel Core ii Quad Q8300 CPU and 6GBs of DDR2 retentiveness. On this organization I was running Windows 7 Ultimate. To enable it to handle USB 3.0, I installed a StarTech 2 Port PCI Limited SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Card Adapter.

With this setup, USB tends to be well-nigh 20% faster than eSATA at reads, while eSATA was virtually xx% faster at writing data to the deejay. While I brand no claims for these to exist definitive benchmarks (I used the freeware Crystal DiskMark iii.0 programme for my tests), I do think the results betoken what you can expect to see from today's eSATA and USB three.0 drives.

In both cases the existent world results were quite a fleck slower than their theoretical bests. With reads, my USB drive averaged 90 MBps, while the eSATA drive came in at 75 MBps. When it came to writing to the disk eSATA nonetheless candy information at 75 MBps while the USB drive dropped to 62 MBps.

This kind of departure between real world and theoretical results is quite mutual. Nothing in your office or home, or even the test demote, volition e'er run as fast as its design specifications call for.

That said, I was surprised to see USB 3.0 do as poorly every bit information technology did. Listen you lot, it'southward still much faster than USB 2.0 and somewhat faster than eSATA in information reads. I had expected better from it. I strongly suspect that as USB 3.0 devices and drivers mature, it's speed will significantly amend.

USB three.0 does accept some other advantages over eSATA. For case, like USB 2.0, you tin can power devices through a USB 3.0 connection, while you'll need another power connection for external eSATA devices.

In addition, USB 3.0, which can handle upwards to 50% more power than USB 2.0, should be thriftier with energy than 2.0. Alas, it's not. As Brian Nadel reported in ITworld's sis publication Computerworld, current USB iii.0 implementations will bleed your laptop'south battery faster than their equivalent USB ii.0 devices. Again, the adjacent generation of devices and drivers should handle this better.

Some other noteworthy point is that while USB iii.0 is backwards compatible with USB 2.0 cables and devices, you can't use a USB 3.0 cable with a USB 2.0 or before device. In addition, you can't apply any USB three.0 device with a USB 2.0 cable. That's because while the flat USB Type A plug, the one that goes into your PC, is compatible with USB 2.0 ports even though information technology has an extra pair of connectors, the other end is a different story entirely. The Blazon B plug, which is the one that you utilise to connect devices to the calculator, comes in two different varieties. Neither of these volition fit into a USB two.0 B port.

So, what should you do? If I were you lot, I'd stand up pat for now. USB 3.0 is the wave of the future. Later this yr, equally the applied science matures, USB three.0 devices should be consistently faster than today's eSATA devices, simply we're not there still.

In addition, for now, you'll nonetheless pay a premium for USB iii.0 devices, boards with USB iii.0 ports, and even PCs with USB iii.0 built-in. Towards the year'southward end though USB 3.0 will become the default on almost all PCS and peripherals. Much equally I similar USB three.0, I don't run across any reason to bustle up and adopt it today. I'd advise yous to look likewise.

This story, " USB 3.0 vs. eSATA: Is faster amend?" was originally published by ITworld .

Copyright © 2010 IDG Communications, Inc.