Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
Thread started 16 Dec 2011 (Friday) 09:30
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

USB 2.0 vs 3.0 comparsion

 
EmaginePixel
Goldmember
Avatar
1,944 posts
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2008
Location: So Cal
     
Dec 17, 2011 12:18 |  #31

Thanks Wilt and Diman. I think I'll do the jump.


"Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That’s why its called the present” - Kung Fu Panda
EmaginePixel.com website (external link) ----- SportsShooter profile (external link) ----- Facebook page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Dec 17, 2011 12:43 |  #32

Wilt wrote in post #13559102 (external link)
true effective speed is likely to be limited by the computer, its I/O processor and I/O bus, and also the interface to the harddrive as well as the harddrive speeds themselves

That's why I suggested CDM as this doesn't write anything to the hard drives. Doing a test by timing a transfer of data from card to PC will be affected by the hard drive's ability to eat data. And, unless you're feeding an SSD, it's quite possible that the PC-HDD step would be the bottleneck.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 17, 2011 12:49 |  #33

hollis_f wrote in post #13559212 (external link)
That's why I suggested CDM as this doesn't write anything to the hard drives. Doing a test by timing a transfer of data from card to PC will be affected by the hard drive's ability to eat data. And, unless you're feeding an SSD, it's quite possible that the PC-HDD step would be the bottleneck.

I just did a quick test, the copying speed from card to PC (2 HDDs in RAID0) was 5-10 MB/s less than read speed with CDM. I agree with you that CDM is the best way to do this comparison since it eliminates the PC storage bottleneck.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben_r_
-POTN's Three legged Support-
Avatar
15,894 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Dec 17, 2011 14:54 |  #34

Ill run this test when I get my new reader as well and let you guys know what I find.


[Gear List | Flickr (external link) | My Reviews] /|\ Tripod Leg Protection (external link) /|\
GIVE a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lauderdalems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Dec 17, 2011 15:27 |  #35

Regardless of whether I get the 'claimed' or 'advertised' speed with a 3.0 port, what matters to me is the results I get on my system using my data. You just can not complain about these results.


using 2.0 connection it takes about 7 minutes and 20 seconds
using 3.0 connection it takes 1 minute and 15 seconds

And the facts that I use the 3.0 port for other connections beside a card reader.


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,780 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2561
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 17, 2011 15:45 |  #36

lauderdalems wrote in post #13559773 (external link)
Regardless of whether I get the 'claimed' or 'advertised' speed with a 3.0 port, what matters to me is the results I get on my system using my data. You just can not complain about these results.

using 2.0 connection it takes about 7 minutes and 20 seconds
using 3.0 connection it takes 1 minute and 15 seconds

And the facts that I use the 3.0 port for other connections beside a card reader.


at least you are achieving a 4.6x improvement in speed, while the test by DiMAn0684 showed only very modest 1.75x improvement...speed increase is limited by the most restrictive element in the chain of data passing.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 17, 2011 16:09 |  #37

Wilt wrote in post #13559851 (external link)
at least you are achieving a 4.6x improvement in speed, while the test by DiMAn0684 showed only very modest 1.75x improvement...speed increase is limited by the most restrictive element in the chain of data passing.

28.95 MB/s -> 76.67 MB/s increase is not exactly 1.75x....more like 2.65x. Depending on the card, readers and the system lauderdalems is using it is quite possible to see the difference he's seeing. In fact I'd say that in real-life usage the speed increase I see is closer to 4-5x than to 2x.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,780 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2561
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 18, 2011 10:53 |  #38

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #13559963 (external link)
28.95 MB/s -> 76.67 MB/s increase is not exactly 1.75x....more like 2.65x. Depending on the card, readers and the system lauderdalems is using it is quite possible to see the difference he's seeing. In fact I'd say that in real-life usage the speed increase I see is closer to 4-5x than to 2x.

I am now confused...Post #28 shows 42 vs 24


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 18, 2011 11:30 |  #39

Wilt wrote in post #13563220 (external link)
I am now confused...Post #28 shows 42 vs 24

I see, you've decided to do a comparison between the speed increase I see writing to the card vs. the speed increase lauderdalems sees reading from the card...you're most definitely confused my friend.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,780 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2561
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 18, 2011 11:34 |  #40

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #13563354 (external link)
I see, you've decided to do a comparison between the speed increase I see writing to the card vs. the speed increase lauderdalems sees reading from the card...you're most definitely confused my friend.

Yes I am confused by the illustration that you included in that post...which shows 41.8 vs. 23.9 values for USB3 vs. USB2 write speeds. Did you not really intend to compare the two because they were apples vs. oranges values in the illustration? :confused:

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #13559070 (external link)
Here's the speed difference I'm seeing with Lexar Professional 16GB 400x CF card. The card has been formatted in camera, and had some images during the test. Maybe the results would be different for a card formatted in the PC?

First reader: Lexar Professional USB 3.0
Second reader: Cables Unlimited USB 2.0 (non-UDMA, as I understand)

Edit: wanted to point out that my results are in line with Rob Galbraith's test (Link)
[Illustration]


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 18, 2011 11:41 |  #41

Wilt wrote in post #13563369 (external link)
Yes I am confused by the illustration that you included in that post...which shows 42 vs. 24 for USB3 vs. USB2 write speeds. Did you not really intend to compare the two because they were apples vs. oranges values in the illustration?

To be honest that data is not significantly relevant as most people who're considering USB 3.0 card readers are primarily concerned with increase in read speed...I personally don't know anyone who uses card reader to write on their cards.

In your analysis you've compared 4.6x read speed increase observed by another user with 1.75x write speed increase observed my me...not exactly a valid way to compare things if you ask me, but if that comparison somehow helps you make up your mind on whether the upgrade is worth it I'm glad I was able to help.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,780 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2561
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 18, 2011 12:41 |  #42

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #13563391 (external link)
To be honest that data is not significantly relevant as most people who're considering USB 3.0 card readers are primarily concerned with increase in read speed...I personally don't know anyone who uses card reader to write on their cards.

In your analysis you've compared 4.6x read speed increase observed by another user with 1.75x write speed increase observed my me...not exactly a valid way to compare things if you ask me, but if that comparison somehow helps you make up your mind on whether the upgrade is worth it I'm glad I was able to help.

OK, I failed to stop and realize that one figure was Read, the other numbers were Write.
But using your Read numbers of 77 vx. 29 in Post 28, that is still only 2.66x improvement, is it not?... and still a long way off from the theoretical 10x defined by the standards.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 18, 2011 13:05 |  #43

Wilt wrote in post #13563572 (external link)
OK, I failed to stop and realize that one figure was Read, the other numbers were Write.
But using your Read numbers of 77 vx. 29 in Post 28, that is still only 2.66x improvement, is it not?... and still a long way off from the theoretical 10x defined by the standards.

In my particular case I can tell you that the source (400x CF card) and the interface between the USB 3.0 controller and the motherboard (PCI-E x1) are slower than the max throughput of USB 3.0 standard, so expecting 10x speed increase wouldn't be reasonable. I'm guessing that if I were to do the same test with a system with native USB 3.0 support and a card with higher speed rating (600x or faster) I could see better results with the same Lexar reader. You can look at my results as the least speed increase you'll see from an upgrade to USB 3.0 as my PC is 2+ yrs. old and the CF cards I use are not the fastest available.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,780 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2561
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 18, 2011 13:09 |  #44

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #13563665 (external link)
In my particular case I can tell you that the source (400x CF card) and the interface between the USB 3.0 controller and the motherboard (PCI-E x1) are slower than the max throughput of USB 3.0 standard, so expecting 10x speed increase wouldn't be reasonable. I'm guessing that if I were to do the same test with a system with native USB 3.0 support and a card with higher speed rating (600x or faster) I could see better results with the same Lexar reader. You can look at my results as the least speed increase you'll see from an upgrade to USB 3.0 as my PC is 2+ yrs. old and the CF cards I use are not the fastest available.

That insight is an important one, as it proves the point that merely replacing USB2 with USB3 on an existing computer may well not result in what one thinks should the be amount of improvement to be seen. They might then blame false marketing claims of the USB3 reader, when the true bottleneck is within their system. Your circumstance of a 2+ yr. old PC is not all that atypical, but probably represent what the average person would experience -- unless they were someone driven to be always at the bleeding edge of the improvements in computer hardware that come out constantly.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 18, 2011 13:32 |  #45

Wilt wrote in post #13563673 (external link)
That insight is an important one, as it proves the point that merely replacing USB2 with USB3 on an existing computer may well not result in what one thinks should the be amount of improvement to be seen.

Did we really need to prove that expectations of ignorant people often don't correlate with reality? :D

Let's get back on track and gather some actual data from people who upgraded from USB 2.0 to USB 3.0 readers.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,375 views & 0 likes for this thread
USB 2.0 vs 3.0 comparsion
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Accessories 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sandyn1024
1278 guests, 229 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.