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 ----
The transfer rates for eSATA and USB3 are very close. A really good eSATA setup should win by a narrow margin. For me, it is not disappointing - just as advertised. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/esata_still_faster_usb_30
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.
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.
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.
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.
