USB 3.0 vs eSata 3 Gb/s (disappointing results)

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
Sadly it looks as if current eSata is the better choice. I wonder how well eSata 6Gb/s would do?

USB 3.0 vs eSATA

2095.png


2093.png



----
 
Last edited:

Arsynic

Senior member
Jun 22, 2004
410
0
0
Those benchies seem meaningless to me as far as USB3 vs eSATA is concerned. If they aren't testing the same devices with the different mediums, then we have no idea why there's a difference in transfer rates. It could be the controller, the cache or the RPMs. There are just too many variables. A more scientific test would suffice.
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
Those benchies seem meaningless to me as far as USB3 vs eSATA is concerned. If they aren't testing the same devices with the different mediums, then we have no idea why there's a difference in transfer rates. It could be the controller, the cache or the RPMs. There are just too many variables. A more scientific test would suffice.


The test was done with equipment you can buy in the real world to get an idea of what results to expect. He did use SSD drives for both read and write drives so no RPMs.

Anyways I will laugh at the whole USB 3.0 5Gbps marketing hype.
 

Arsynic

Senior member
Jun 22, 2004
410
0
0
The test was done with equipment you can buy in the real world to get an idea of what results to expect. He did use SSD drives for both read and write drives so no RPMs.
Who really cares if the "test" isn't indicative of USB3.0's benefits. Serious system builders didn't build USB3 systems for today, but for tomorrow.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
More than twice as fast as USB2, and just as fast as eSATA for large file transfers such as music and media files. Sounds like an excellent upgrade from USB2 to me.

I'm curious how often people will transfer large amounts of data made up of small files. That is:
- If small files are usually in small total transfers, the speed difference doesn't matter (4 seconds vs. 2 for nnn MB, eek, 2 extra seconds!)
- If large total transfers are dominated by large files, there is no speed difference.

This is for external storage, so it's not like booting or running Windows where thousands of small files are read and written.
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
More than twice as fast as USB2, and just as fast as eSATA for large file transfers such as music and media files. Sounds like an excellent upgrade from USB2 to me.

I'm curious how often people will transfer large amounts of data made up of small files. That is:
- If small files are usually in small total transfers, the speed difference doesn't matter (4 seconds vs. 2 for nnn MB, eek, 2 extra seconds!)
- If large total transfers are dominated by large files, there is no speed difference.

This is for external storage, so it's not like booting or running Windows where thousands of small files are read and written.

I mostly move large files like .tib's but sometimes move my mp3 collection.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
MP3 files are at least a MB or two each (4-6 for decent bitrate) so I'd expect those to be counted as large files too.