What is (or will be) faster and better : SATA/eSATA or USB 3.0

I just read one article about this (see pic)
What do you think guys it can be better than current usb 2.0 flash disk or future USB 3.0 ?

 

USB 3.0 is suppose to be 5.0 GB/s.

 

No, it's 5Gb/s (4.8 actually) which is only 600MB/s theoretical max (8 bits per byte); however, with overhead, I doubt it will clear much more than 400MB/s. The new revised eSATAp will have power and be capable of up to 600MB/s in theory and around 550MB/s in reality. USB 3.0 would be my pick since USB is already so popular and it's backwards compatible. But eSATA won't go away since all the hard drives and solid state drives will still run off of SATA/600, so it won't be much to convert any extra connectors to an external one.

 

So if usb 3.0 gonna be 600MB/s and hdd's ssd's are from 100 to 250 the rest 350MB/s speed of usb 3.0 will be waisted 'cos hdd/ssd is main in laptop and usb 3.0 transfering will have to wait for slow hdd/ssd ?

 

Not really.

You realize that a Hard Drive will more than likly never reach SATA2 limits (they barely break SATA1 limits on the best drives) Where as SSD's are really only limited by the SATA 2 Connection. As soon as USB3 and SATA3 come out Solid State memory drives will increas in speed to accomidate it. Might take about a year, but it will reach it quickly IMO

 

Yeah I got it... usb 3.0 must wait to go on market it's very high class right now
all things must be balanced ..

 

SSDs can already hit that speed. In desktops, they have SSDs in PCIe slots that can hit 1GB/s.

 

Dont forget USB has very high CPU overhead compared to eSATA

 

Not really...

 

uuuuu Yes it does....USB has HUGE cpu overhead. This is common knowledge.

 

Well theoretically nothing should be faster than something that is internal.

So even if USB 3.0 is faster than current SATA/esata connections future sata connections will be even faster than that.

 

See previous post - 400MB/s for USB 3.0 vs. 550MB/s for eSATAp.

 

one of the USB 3.0 spec changes is a fix for the huge cpu overhead.

so, while common knowledge for the past, it won't be for the future.

 

Pure bandwidth might be higher on the USB 3.0, but SATA will likely be faster in the real world because USB is designed to be more flexible and compatible while SATA is for exclusively for HDDs and probably have lower latency. USB also runs on a software stack while SATA doesn't, adding CPU overhead no matter how small that may be.

 

well, but usb3 is designed f.e. for hdd style devices, providing low overhead for accessing them. so they will both, sata and usb, reach their own limits long before the system will be affected by cpu usage, or interupts, or what ever.

so the only thing that matters is the max bandwidth minus the communication protocol overhead.

 

Well, I guess you can think of it as software RAID vs. add-in hardware accelerated RAID. Probably in very HDD intensive apps USB 3.0 might be significantly slower.

 

I have read that USB3 will drop voltage from 4.4V to 4V.
and technology is similar to PCIe 2.0

 

no, it won't ever be significantly slower. maybe usb3.0 on an atom netbook, yes, but else, there won't, or shouldn't ever be a huge difference, except the 500MB/s to 600MB/s bandwidth, and different protocol overheads on both. but else, there isn't that much difference. both are lowlevel and allow bulk-datatransfers without interrupts. the only cpu overhead in both cases will be the file system handling.

 

LOL. USB is replacing everything!

 

well, sata3 can die anyways. usb3 is good enough for most, and where it isn't, sata doesn't deliver much more.

so i'd suggest to drop all connections except usb3, as all including gigabit lan and such can be run over usb3 (obviously still internal and all, but just from how it's connected). all the stuff that needs more performance goes pcie. that is, gpu's, high end ssds, and, well, that's mostly it