USB 3.0- Worth it?

[JEDI]

just bought a new budget cpu/mobo (AMD 960T + mobo for $90 total) for Diablo III.
it does not come w/usb 3.0.

i saw this usb 3.0 PCI-E card for $10:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...58&retainProdsInSession=1&numProdsPerPage=60#

it takes up a pci-e x1 slot??? (there's actually a use for that slot?!)

anyway, i dont have any usb 3.0 devices yet but probably will get some flash drives in a year or 2 if it's cheap.

1) will usb 2.0 flash drives xfer any faster with this card?
2) does the usb front panel connections on my case have to be usb 3.0 compatible?
3) dont bother and wait till my next budget computer refresh cycle in 2-3 years?

 

[Charlie98]

I did a comparo with my Seagate GoFlex external HDD... a 2.0 USB port, and a 3.0 USB port...

I don't know about the add-on 3.0 cards, but I think it's worth it if you are transferring a lot of data that way.

 

[JEDI]

I did a comparo with my Seagate GoFlex external HDD... a 2.0 USP port, and a 3.0 USP port...

I don't know about the add-on 3.0 cards, but I think it's worth it if you are transferring a lot of data that way.

wow.. your xfer rate on your 2.0 harddrive doubled using a usb 3.0 port?!

now for the obvious question-> WHY?!


edit:
or is it a 3.0 hard drive? in which case it's only 2.5x the xfer rate of a 2.0 port?

 

[Blain]

wow.. your xfer rate on your 2.0 harddrive doubled using a usb 3.0 port?!

now for the obvious question-> WHY?!


edit:
or is it a 3.0 hard drive? in which case it's only 2.5x the xfer rate of a 2.0 port?

You do realize how much faster the USB 3.0 interface is over 2.0, correct?
USB 3.0 allows spinning platter drives to breathe.

 

[shortylickens]

You do realize how much faster the USB 3.0 interface is over 2.0, correct?
USB 3.0 allows spinning platter drives to breathe.

The INTERFACE is faster, but theres like 5 other potential bottlenecks which usually override it.
I have a USB 3 card and hub and card reader and none of my newer USB thumb drives or memory cards move data any faster. For hard drives we've already had eSATA a long time. For a big ass RAID array I'd prefer NAS.

 

[Blain]

Is your USB hub a 3.0 version?
If so, what model are you running?

 

[vailr]

1) will usb 2.0 flash drives xfer any faster with this card?
2) does the usb front panel connections on my case have to be usb 3.0 compatible?
3) dont bother and wait till my next budget computer refresh cycle in 2-3 years?

1) Probably: yes
2) The blue USB 3.0 connectors include extra contacts & associated wiring that enable the faster speed. If it isn't blue in color, you'll drop back to USB 2.0 speeds.
Here's what you'd really need for FRONT USB 3.0, but only IF your motherboard has a USB 3.0 HEADER:
http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url...0058NN1A0/ref=gno_cart_title_1&user=u00000687http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058NN1A0
If there's no onboard USB 3.0 header, you'd need this instead:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0079XWPDQ
3) Depends on your budget, I guess.

 

[sandorski]

USB 2 = 3gbps
USB 3 = 6gbps

Essentially double theoretical throughput.

 

[corkyg]

Not until I get a new computer. The only things that would be really used would be external HDDs. But, mine are already running on eSATA, and the USB3 benefit is insignificant.

 

[vailr]

Having USB 3.0 would be useful if you own USB 3.0 flash drives and want to use those to transfer large files (such as movie files) from one machine to another. Also for USB 3.0 external hard drives, which often don't have eSATA connectivity.

 

[Blain]

1) will usb 2.0 flash drives xfer any faster with this card?

1) Probably: yes

How could a 2.0 device transfer any faster than it designed and built for?

 

[jaydeee]

USB 3.0 is really worth it...
This is the future, so this will suggest.

 

[vailr]

How could a 2.0 device transfer any faster than it designed and built for?

Only because someone online described such a speed increase when using a USB 2.0 flash drive connected to a USB 3.0 port. And then compared the speed with the same USB 2.0 flash drive, when connected to a USB 2.0 port on the same machine.
I'd guess that USB 2.0 ports must be somewhat/somehow speed reduced, compared to the official USB 2.0 spec?

 

[mfenn]

1) will usb 2.0 flash drives xfer any faster with this card?

How could a 2.0 device transfer any faster than it designed and built for?

It is weird, but check out Anandtech's initial USB 3.0 reviews. They found this behavior to be true.

 

[mfenn]

USB 2 = 3gbps
USB 3 = 6gbps

Essentially double theoretical throughput.

Actually, it's:

USB 2.0 = 480mb/s
USB 3.0 = 5gb/s

So USB 3.0 is over 10 times faster (theoretically).

 

[sandorski]

Actually, it's:

USB 2.0 = 480mb/s
USB 3.0 = 5gb/s

So USB 3.0 is over 10 times faster (theoretically).

Really? Damn.

 

[mfenn]

Really? Damn.

Yep.

 

[Charlie98]

wow.. your xfer rate on your 2.0 harddrive doubled using a usb 3.0 port?!

now for the obvious question-> WHY?!


edit:
or is it a 3.0 hard drive? in which case it's only 2.5x the xfer rate of a 2.0 port?

It is a 3.0 USB...

 

[fstime]

I don't see much to think about here......

A) Do you own (or plan to own) a USB 3.0 capable external storage device?

B) Do you frequently transfer large files >5 GB to these said devices?

Your front port may or may not be USB 3.0, you have to check your cases spec sheet for that. I believe USB 3.0 ports are blue while 2.0 ports are black.

 

[Blain]

It is weird, but check out Anandtech's initial USB 3.0 reviews. They found this behavior to be true.

So it's not that the USB 2.0 devices run faster (than their designed capability), on USB 3.0, but operate at their rated speeds due to some overhead holding back the original USB 2.0
ports?

 

[Charlie98]

So it's not that the USB 2.0 devices run faster (than their designed capability), on USB 3.0, but operate at their rated speeds due to some overhead holding back the original USB 2.0
ports?

I tested my 2.0 8GB thumb drive in both ports and got, basically, the same speeds... :\

 

[mfenn]

So it's not that the USB 2.0 devices run faster (than their designed capability), on USB 3.0, but operate at their rated speeds due to some overhead holding back the original USB 2.0
ports?

I believe that to be the case, yes. Effectively they run faster than they do on USB 2.0 ports.