# SATA 6 vs USB 3 speeds



## idahosurge

I have read that USB 3 is faster than SATA 6, but using HD Tune Pro Sata 6 is faster than USB 3. Below are *read* benchmarks and the 2TB HD's plugged into a Sata 6 port is faster by far than a 2TB USB 3 WM My Passport plugged into a USB 3 port.

LaCie d2 Quadra 2TB eSATA HD (this is also USB 3.0, but I am using it as eSATA)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1J20UC1358


WD Black 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB cashe STAT 6 HD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136792


WD 2TB USB 3.0 My Passport HD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236187


According to HD Tune Pro the USB 3 HD plugged into a USB 3 port is a lot slower than HD's plugged into SATA 6 ports, is what I am seeing correct?


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

The SATA III (what you're calling SATA 6) Standard has a top end speed of 6.0Gbps. Most MOBOs with SATA III ports (including e-SATA) run them at 5 or 6Gbps, depending on the chip being used. HDDs have barely saturated SATA II speeds, if at all.

USB 3.0 tops out at 5Gbps. Most MOBOs with USB 3.0 haven't been running at the full rated speed (to qualify as USB 3.0, it only has to run faster than USB 2.0). Adding insult to injury, many, if not most, USB 3.0 devices don't run at full USB 3.0 speeds. In theory, since HDDs don't run much faster than USB 2.0 speeds, they should be just as fast on USB 3.0 as they would be on SATA III but, in actuality, it hasn't worked out that way yet.


----------



## FastMHz

The only truly good USB3 chipset are the NEC/Renesas ones. The others are pretty junky, especially those eTron ones.

If you want the best USB3 performance with external drives, get a PCI-E card with an NEC chip on it, and save the onboard USB3 ports for lower bandwidth stuff.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> The only truly good USB3 chipset are the NEC/Renesas ones. The others are pretty junky, especially those eTron ones.
> 
> If you want the best USB3 performance with external drives, get a PCI-E card with an NEC chip on it, and save the onboard USB3 ports for lower bandwidth stuff.


Can you suggest any? Especially any that use more than one PCI-e lane?


----------



## FastMHz

I'm not aware of any that use more than 1 lane, but any of these fit the bill.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> I'm not aware of any that use more than 1 lane, but any of these fit the bill.


What I can't understand is why manufacturers are making cards that have more than one USB port per PCI-e lane. On a card that uses only one PCI-e lane, all the USB 3.0 ports will have a combined bandwidth of one port. If you have four ports actually being used at the same time, each port will be able to run at only 1/4 speed.

I've found only one card that has one PCI-e lane for each port: Syba Model SI-PEX20148.



I would love to get a card like that runs on four PCI-e lanes and has two USB 3.0 ports on the rear and an internal 20 pin USB 3.0 header (even better would be one that runs on eight lanes and has six ports and a 20 pin header). I checked with Syba and they said they had no plans to make anything like that.


----------



## dukeReinhardt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> The only truly good USB3 chipset are the NEC/Renesas ones. The others are pretty junky, especially those eTron ones.
> 
> If you want the best USB3 performance with external drives, get a PCI-E card with an NEC chip on it, and save the onboard USB3 ports for lower bandwidth stuff.


Am I missing something? OP has a Haswell system, so his onboard would use the best possible USB3 chipset - Haswell (native).


----------



## FastMHz

I'm not familiar with the Intel controllers. I was referring to the add-on chips found on many motherboards and cards to provide USB3 functionality. If an add-in card is needed in OPs case, the NEC chipset is the only way to go - and may still be better than the Intel one, but we need benches and such to determine that.


----------



## FastMHz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> What I can't understand is why manufacturers are making cards that have more than one USB port per PCI-e lane. On a card that uses only one PCI-e lane, all the USB 3.0 ports will have a combined bandwidth of one port. If you have four ports actually being used at the same time, each port will be able to run at only 1/4 speed.
> 
> I've found only one card that has one PCI-e lane for each port: Syba Model SI-PEX20148.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to get a card like that runs on four PCI-e lanes and has two USB 3.0 ports on the rear and an internal 20 pin USB 3.0 header (even better would be one that runs on eight lanes and has six ports and a 20 pin header). I checked with Syba and they said they had no plans to make anything like that.


That card has an Etron chip.


----------



## dukeReinhardt

idahosurge, it's absolutely normal for USB speed to be lower than SATA speed. It just isn't as efficient for data transfer. Besides this, SATA6's max speed is higher than USB3's theoretical max, and also the portable USB3 drive that you listed at the bottom would be an inherently slower drive than the other two anyway, having a slower rotational speed







. However I did find this review:

http://techgage.com/article/western_digital_my_passport_2tb_portable_hard_drive_review/3/

in which the speed you achieved seems consistent with the drive running on a USB 2.0 port. Are you certain that your drive is connected to a USB 3.0 port?

Edit: As ShortySmalls says, it's SATAIII, not Sata6 (no doubt you were thinking of 6Gbps, and I just had a brainfart)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> I'm not familiar with the Intel controllers. I was referring to the add-on chips found on many motherboards and cards to provide USB3 functionality. If an add-in card is needed in OPs case, the NEC chipset is the only way to go - and may still be better than the Intel one, but we need benches and such to determine that.


OP's problem isn't the USB3 implementation. I couldn't find benches, but I did find this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3-uas-turbo,3215-2.html

where they clearly mention that the Intel implementation is best. It makes sense too, since Intel helped define USB3, and its implementation doesn't require workarounds or extra hardware. The general consensus around the 'net seems to agree that native beats out third party.


----------



## ShortySmalls

Where ever you read that Sata III (Your calling it sata 6) is slower then USB 3 is horribly wrong. Quite the opposite


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> That card has an Etron chip.


True that. Still, being able to utilize four PCI-e lanes will make it faster when running multiple devices at the same time.


----------



## FastMHz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> True that. Still, being able to utilize four PCI-e lanes will make it faster when running multiple devices at the same time.


I beg to differ. Etron chips suck - I have personal experience.

Read this thread for more reasons.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> I beg to differ. Etron chips suck - I have personal experience.
> 
> Read this thread for more reasons.


Thanks for that. Good to know.


----------



## lacrossewacker

You'll never get the full bandwidth of usb 3.0

A. Both devices need to have "native" usb 3.0 components. Not crap that can just accept the interface but ultimately consist of usb 2.0 compliant components within.

B. A good 10% (at least) of bandwidth is lost to overhead.

C. You can still get some drives that are faster over usb 3.0

Example:


----------



## idahosurge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dukeReinhardt*
> 
> in which the speed you achieved seems consistent with the drive running on a USB 2.0 port. Are you certain that your drive is connected to a USB 3.0 port?


Yes, the USB 3.0 drive was plugged into the USB 3.0 ports on the back motherboard I/O panel of the Sabertooth Z87.


----------



## rui-no-onna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> I'm not familiar with the Intel controllers. I was referring to the add-on chips found on many motherboards and cards to provide USB3 functionality. If an add-in card is needed in OPs case, the NEC chipset is the only way to go - and may still be better than the Intel one, but we need benches and such to determine that.


Intel is faster and more stable than 3rd party solutions. That said, the numbers the OP is getting for the WD Passport 2TB is most definitely not normal. Those are pretty much USB 2.0 speeds. Just a thought, I seem to recall needing to install chipset/motherboard USB 3.0 drivers to get USB 3.0 speed so make sure all the necessary drivers are installed.

Don't have access to my Intel Q77 build but here's what I got with that same drive connected to a NEC/Renesas PCIe 1.0 x1 card (alas, there weren't a lot of options 3 years ago).


----------



## idahosurge

I installed the USB 3 drivers off the motherboard CD and they show up in device manager.


----------



## Techie007

I don't know if this will help, but it may be worth a try: Go to Device Manager and click View -> Devices by connection. Then look for your USB controllers, and expand them (click the [+] sign) one by one until you find the one that the HDD is connected to. Each USB controller has a hub, where multiple devices can share bandwidth from one controller. It is the controller's name that matters:


Universal USB Host Controller = USB 1.0 capable
Open USB Host Controller = USB 1.1 capable
Enhanced USB Host Controller = USB 2.0 capable
Extensible USB Host Controller = USB 3.0 capable
 Looking through the properties of the controller and/or hub may also give information as to which speed it is actually running. On this computer here, I'm getting "Full Speed" for USB 1.1 hubs, and "High Speed" for USB 2.0 hubs.


----------



## idahosurge

I reinstalled the Intel USB 3.0 drivers and HD Tune Pro shows a great improvement in the benchmark of my WD My Passport.


----------



## Hmm888

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I was looking for some SSD info and this thread popped up.

If using a PCI-e card (1.0), you are only going to get maxium 250 MB/sec for a SATA III device. Whereas ATA signaling is 1.5, 3.0 and 6.0GHz (150, 300 and 600MB/s) on supported devices. Therefore, unless you need additional USB ports or need additional HD storage without needing much speed, I don't see how a PCIe card is helpful?


----------



## mudz78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hmm888*
> 
> Therefore, unless you need additional USB ports or need additional HD storage without needing much speed, I don't see how a PCIe card is helpful?


I suppose that is true if you purchase PCIe Rev. 1 (x1 connector) add-on cards. However, there is no reason why you couldn't buy a PCIe Rev. 3 card, or a card that uses more PCIe lanes for additional bandwidth.


----------



## GeneO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dukeReinhardt*
> 
> idahosurge, it's absolutely normal for USB speed to be lower than SATA speed. It just isn't as efficient for data transfer. Besides this, SATA6's max speed is higher than USB3's theoretical max, and also the portable USB3 drive that you listed at the bottom would be an inherently slower drive than the other two anyway, having a slower rotational speed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . However I did find this review:


Sorry, this is rubbish for hard drives. It doesn't matter whether SATA6 can do a bit better than USB 3.0 ( 550 MB/s vs around 500 MB/s). Hard disks can only go at about 190 MB/s, and that is on goo drives on the outer part of their platter.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> In theory, since HDDs don't run much faster than USB 2.0 speeds, they should be just as fast on USB 3.0 as they would be on SATA III but, in actuality, it hasn't worked out that way yet.


This not very inaccurate. USB 2.0 tops off about 40 MB/s at its very best and hard disks can do 160+ MB/s average on SUB 3/.0 (see below). Tha is a big difference.

The OP USB speed is showing that is it operating at USB 2.0 speed, not 3.0. Since it is flat across the drive, it is not even running at the minimum speed of the drive, it is being throttled at USB 2.0 speed.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastMHz*
> 
> The only truly good USB3 chipset are the NEC/Renesas ones. The others are pretty junky, especially those eTron ones.


The best is the Intel chipsets for Haswell and later. And they need to support UASP to be good in my book - both the host chipset and device chipset must support it.

Here are my HDTune results for a USB 3.0 enclosure (that supports UASP) with a 2 TB black drive connected to the Haswell USB 3.0 port.



and here it is with the same type of USB 3.0 enclosure with a 2TB 5400 rpm green drive. You see that it is not that much slower than a 7400 rpm drive.


----------



## GeneO

Here is a neat little StarTech SATA-6 to USB 3.0 adapter which supports UASP and it only costs $13.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HJZJI84?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00

I had an m4 laying around so I purchased this to use it as an external drive:



and it performs pretty good. The sequential speeds are what I got with the m4 on internal SATA 6gb/s. The random i/o and access times are nothing to write home about but they are pretty good considering (compared to other similar adapters they are great!). Been using it as an encrypted drive for backups just for fun and I haven't had one problem using it over the 4 months I have had it.


----------



## GeneO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> What I can't understand is why manufacturers are making cards that have more than one USB port per PCI-e lane. On a card that uses only one PCI-e lane, all the USB 3.0 ports will have a combined bandwidth of one port. If you have four ports actually being used at the same time, each port will be able to run at only 1/4 speed.


It is just for convenience I think. Typically people are not using All USB 3 ports at once. If they only supplied you with one port that users had to unplug one device and plug in another - at the back of the computer - they wouldn't be very happy.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> ...
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> In theory, since HDDs don't run much faster than USB 2.0 speeds, they should be just as fast on USB 3.0 as they would be on SATA III but, in actuality, it hasn't worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> 
> This not very (accurate). USB 2.0 tops off about 40 MB/s at its very best and hard disks can do 160+ MB/s average on SUB 3/.0 (see below). Tha is a big difference...
Click to expand...

You are correct. I was thinking SATA II when I read USB 2.0.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> What I can't understand is why manufacturers are making cards that have more than one USB port per PCI-e lane. On a card that uses only one PCI-e lane, all the USB 3.0 ports will have a combined bandwidth of one port. If you have four ports actually being used at the same time, each port will be able to run at only 1/4 speed.
> 
> 
> 
> It is just for convenience I think. Typically people are not using All USB 3 ports at once. If they only supplied you with one port that users had to unplug one device and plug in another - at the back of the computer - they wouldn't be very happy.
Click to expand...

I think it's more that the manufacturers being cheap, especially since so few do make four port cards that use four PCI-e lanes, not to mention fraudulent since they do not point out the 5.0Gbps obtained from the single PCI-e lane is shared by all the ports.


----------



## parityboy

*@thread*

Since we're on the subject of USB 3.0 cards, can someone tell me what the edge connector is on the back of this card? It looks like a SATA power connection but I don't think that it is.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *parityboy*
> 
> *@thread*
> 
> Since we're on the subject of USB 3.0 cards, can someone tell me what the edge connector is on the back of this card? It looks like a SATA power connection but I don't think that it is.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


It's a male SATA power connector. You connect a female SATA power cable connector from your PSU to it.

That card is exceptional in that it uses the proper number of PCI-e lanes per port to achieve proper bandwidth.


----------



## parityboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> It's a male SATA power connector. You connect a female SATA power cable connector from your PSU to it.


Thanks, at least my eyes are working properly.


----------



## mudz78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> Here is a neat little StarTech SATA-6 to USB 3.0 adapter which supports UASP and it only costs $13.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HJZJI84?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00


I just ordered a two of those a couple of days ago along with this:



http://www.lian-li.com/en/dt_portfolio/uc-01/

I want to mount a couple of SSD's internally on my server and I am out of SATA ports. There are only for caching and some Docker files, but still glad to know the performance is up to scratch.


----------



## crashnburn_in

I am glad to see someone did an SSD test over USB 3.0 with UASP - Would love to see a comparison of SATA 6 with USB 3.1
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> Here is a neat little StarTech SATA-6 to USB 3.0 adapter which supports UASP and it only costs $13.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HJZJI84?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00
> 
> I had an m4 laying around so I purchased this to use it as an external drive:
> 
> 
> 
> and it performs pretty good. The sequential speeds are what I got with the m4 on internal SATA 6gb/s. The random i/o and access times are nothing to write home about but they are pretty good considering (compared to other similar adapters they are great!). Been using it as an encrypted drive for backups just for fun and I haven't had one problem using it over the 4 months I have had it.


I am curious if there is any way to check for this before buying a MoBo? One primary purpose for my new Slave Box will be Drive tasks -
I guess this PCIe sharing/ saturation does not affect SATA 6 ports?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> It is just for convenience I think. Typically people are not using All USB 3 ports at once. If they only supplied you with one port that users had to unplug one device and plug in another - at the back of the computer - they wouldn't be very happy.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> It's a male SATA power connector. You connect a female SATA power cable connector from your PSU to it.
> 
> *That card is exceptional in that it uses the proper number of PCI-e lanes per port to achieve proper bandwidth.*


Which card is that? And how do we find/ check for Cards and Mobos that implement this paradigm.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mudz78*
> 
> I just ordered a two of those a couple of days ago along with this:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lian-li.com/en/dt_portfolio/uc-01/
> 
> I want to mount a couple of SSD's internally on my server and I am out of SATA ports. There are only for caching and some Docker files, but still glad to know the performance is up to scratch.


What kind of a Port/ Adapter is this?


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crashnburn_in*
> 
> ...
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> It's a male SATA power connector. You connect a female SATA power cable connector from your PSU to it.
> 
> *That card is exceptional in that it uses the proper number of PCI-e lanes per port to achieve proper bandwidth.*
> 
> 
> 
> Which card is that? And how do we find/ check for Cards and Mobos that implement this paradigm.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mudz78*
> 
> I just ordered a two of those a couple of days ago along with this:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lian-li.com/en/dt_portfolio/uc-01/
> 
> I want to mount a couple of SSD's internally on my server and I am out of SATA ports. There are only for caching and some Docker files, but still glad to know the performance is up to scratch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of a Port/ Adapter is this?
Click to expand...

You would have to ask parityboy to find out what card it is. Each PCI-e lane has 5Gb of bandwidth, same as USB 3.0 (which got renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1 sometime in 2015, a rather misleading and dastardly move, in my not so humble opinion). With two USB 3.0 ports, you need at least PCI-e x2 to get the full bandwidth for both ports. For four USB 3.0 ports, to get full bandwidth on all ports, you need at least PCI-e x4 on the card. Usually, the specs of the card will tell you how many PCI-e lanes (the number after the x) the card requires.

The adapter that mudz78 illustrated plug into a USB 3.0 MOBO header to provide two female USB 3.0 type A ports. Apparently, he is going to mount two USB 3.0 external SSDs inside his server and connect them to the adapter. It's a clever way to get two more drives when out of SATA ports. Those adapters were originally used to connect the header to the USB 3.0 pass through cables that many older cases had for the front USB 3.0 ports.


----------



## epic1337

keep in mind that using USB ports for high-speed devices could cause a lot of interrupts in the system's OS.
one main indicator of an overly used USB ports is high DPC latency.


----------



## parityboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> You would have to ask parityboy to find out what card it is.


Just follow the link behind the image.







It's made by Syba.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> Each PCI-e lane has 5Gb of bandwidth, same as USB 3.0 (which got renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1 sometime in 2015, a rather misleading and dastardly move, in my not so humble opinion).


So...._technically_, *USB 3.0* no longer exists?


----------



## crashnburn_in

Do elaborate on that "move" INYHO







How do SATA 6, eSATA, USB 3.0 & 3.1 with UASP/B actually fare real life performance?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> Each PCI-e lane has 5Gb of bandwidth, same as USB 3.0 (which got renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1 sometime in 2015, a rather misleading and dastardly move, in my not so humble opinion). With two USB 3.0 ports, you need at least PCI-e x2 to get the full bandwidth for both ports.
> 
> For four USB 3.0 ports, to get full bandwidth on all ports, you need at least PCI-e x4 on the card. Usually, the specs of the card will tell you how many PCI-e lanes (the number after the x) the card requires...


So, if a card requires more PCI-e lanes, does that mean the MoBo needs to provide those many lanes? Doesnt look like it needs more than one PCIe slot, So, how does it constrain the performance/ capacity of MoBo's PCIe bus physically & operationally?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *parityboy*
> 
> Just follow the link behind the image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's made by Syba.
> So...._technically_, *USB 3.0* no longer exists?


It goes to this link/ image:

http://cdn.overclock.net/5/5f/5f56c0eb_SD-PEX20200-PT02-500x500.jpeg

Could you please post a product name / product link?


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *parityboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> You would have to ask parityboy to find out what card it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Just follow the link behind the image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's made by Syba.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> Each PCI-e lane has 5Gb of bandwidth, same as USB 3.0 (which got renamed to USB 3.1 Gen 1 sometime in 2015, a rather misleading and dastardly move, in my not so humble opinion).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...._technically_, *USB 3.0* no longer exists?
Click to expand...

The only link I found was to the picture itself.

Technically, USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore. However, not all manufacturers and vendors have gotten onboard with that yet (assuming they ever will). The change has created a morass of confusion and some unscrupulous vendors have taken advantage of the misleading name change to peddle hardware with Type C connectors as USB 3.1 without mentioning they are actually USB 3.1 Gen 1, which is only 5Gbps instead of the 10Gbps people still associate with all USB 3.1 and Type C connectors (Type C is not synonymous with USB 3.1).


----------



## parityboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crashnburn_in*
> 
> Do elaborate on that "move" INYHO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do SATA 6, eSATA, USB 3.0 & 3.1 with UASP/B actually fare real life performance?
> So, if a card requires more PCI-e lanes, does that mean the MoBo needs to provide those many lanes? Doesnt look like it needs more than one PCIe slot, So, how does it constrain the performance/ capacity of MoBo's PCIe bus physically & operationally?
> It goes to this link/ image:
> 
> http://cdn.overclock.net/5/5f/5f56c0eb_SD-PEX20200-PT02-500x500.jpeg
> 
> Could you please post a product name / product link?


Ooops.







Try this.


----------



## GeneO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> The only link I found was to the picture itself.
> 
> Technically, USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore. However, not all manufacturers and vendors have gotten onboard with that yet (assuming they ever will). The change has created a morass of confusion and some unscrupulous vendors have taken advantage of the misleading name change to peddle hardware with Type C connectors as USB 3.1 without mentioning they are actually USB 3.1 Gen 1, which is only 5Gbps instead of the 10Gbps people still associate with all USB 3.1 and Type C connectors (Type C is not synonymous with USB 3.1).


What do you mean it doesn't exist.? I should throw out my USB 3.0 drives? LOL. Of course it exists. Just like SATA 2.0 does


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> The only link I found was to the picture itself.
> 
> Technically, USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore. However, not all manufacturers and vendors have gotten onboard with that yet (assuming they ever will). The change has created a morass of confusion and some unscrupulous vendors have taken advantage of the misleading name change to peddle hardware with Type C connectors as USB 3.1 without mentioning they are actually USB 3.1 Gen 1, which is only 5Gbps instead of the 10Gbps people still associate with all USB 3.1 and Type C connectors (Type C is not synonymous with USB 3.1).
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean it doesn't exist.? I should throw out my USB 3.0 drives? LOL. Of course it exists. Just like SATA 2.0 does
Click to expand...

Technically, the _term_ USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore; it's been replaced with USB 3.1 Gen(eration) 1. It's the same standard, just a new, insane name.


----------



## crashnburn_in

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *parityboy*
> 
> Ooops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this.


Thanks - Found it on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Syba-10Gbps-Type-C-Controller-SD-PEX20200/dp/B019LHXZOA

*How do all of the following compare?*

They say, they support UASP.

http://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-PUSB31P2A-2-Port-Express-Adapter/dp/B010PNUALA/

http://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-PU31-1A1C-Type-C-Express-Adapter/dp/B0157BS5D0/

I'd prefer a 4/5 port one like one of these:
http://www.inateck.com/products/pcie-to-usb-3-0-card.html/

On Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_1?srs=9123884011&fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A%21493964%2Cn%3A541966%2Cn%3A193870011&bbn=541966&ie=UTF8&qid=1457444953&rnid=541966

They do use UASP, or *But it's not clear whether they have Multiple PCIe lanes/ channels.

Can you help guide determine that/ choose a Card? Looking to get one for a Dell T410 Server without USB 3.

PS: I'd prefer buying on amazon and hope to determine which support UASP - unless all 3.0 ones already do?

PPS: Also that "Fresco Chipsets" are best.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A//www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/which-usb-3-0-chipset-is-the-best-638809/*


----------



## GeneO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> Technically, the _term_ USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore; it's been replaced with USB 3.1 Gen(eration) 1. It's the same standard, just a new, insane name.


Well, it is only a name. You don't see Intel saying their Z170 chipset supports USB 3.1 Gen 1. It sort of makes sense, the older USB 3.0 is s subset of the 3.1 spec, since 3,.1 fully supports it.


----------



## epic1337

well, when people talk about USB 3.0, they mean USB 3.1 since they either aren't aware of 3.1, or they just make it simple to understand.
speaking of USB 3.1, its like a service pack, e.g. when people talk about WinXP, they meant WinXP SP1/2/3.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> Technically, the _term_ USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore; it's been replaced with USB 3.1 Gen(eration) 1. It's the same standard, just a new, insane name.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it is only a name. You don't see Intel saying their Z170 chipset supports USB 3.1 Gen 1. It sort of makes sense, the older USB 3.0 is s subset of the 3.1 spec, since 3,.1 fully supports it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's only a name; that's what I've been saying all along (and I agree it's insane; the bozos that came up with that idiotic idea should be banned from ever working again at anything other than cleaning out cesspools). However there are vendors who are now using the USB 3.1 Gen 1 designation for their 5.0 Gbps devices (just because Intel supposedly doesn't do so doesn't mean no one else does). Some are even using just USB 3.1 only but mention that it's only 5Gbps somewhere else. A few just use USB 3.1 without specifying the speed anywhere but are actually Gen 1 (a giveaway is when a USB 3.1 Type C expansion card connects to only 1 PCI-e lane).


----------



## crashnburn_in

How about helping me pick something that is better than the Bozos







? Are any of these multi lane? Any multi lane 4 port or 2 port + 30 pin for total 4 i.e. 2 front + 2 back?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crashnburn_in*
> 
> Thanks - Found it on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Syba-10Gbps-Type-C-Controller-SD-PEX20200/dp/B019LHXZOA
> 
> *How do all of the following compare?*
> 
> They say, they support UASP.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-PUSB31P2A-2-Port-Express-Adapter/dp/B010PNUALA/
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Ableconn-PU31-1A1C-Type-C-Express-Adapter/dp/B0157BS5D0/
> 
> I'd prefer a 4/5 port one like one of these:
> http://www.inateck.com/products/pcie-to-usb-3-0-card.html/
> 
> On Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_1?srs=9123884011&fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A%21493964%2Cn%3A541966%2Cn%3A193870011&bbn=541966&ie=UTF8&qid=1457444953&rnid=541966
> 
> They do use UASP, or *But it's not clear whether they have Multiple PCIe lanes/ channels.
> 
> Can you help guide determine that/ choose a Card? Looking to get one for a Dell T410 Server without USB 3.
> 
> PS: I'd prefer buying on amazon and hope to determine which support UASP - unless all 3.0 ones already do?
> 
> PPS: Also that "Fresco Chipsets" are best.
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A//www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/which-usb-3-0-chipset-is-the-best-638809/*


----------



## Megahertz07

I have a HDD USB 3.0 dock with a SATA 2 HDD. It begins with 220 b/s transfer rate (to disk ram cache) and slows down and stabilize at 35 b/s. The results are the same if I use USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 port. The bottle neck isn't the USB. The The bottle neck is the device (SATA 2 HDD). USB 2.0 has a 480 M bits per second transfer rate, or 60 M Bytes per second transfer rate. So, even USB 2.0 transfer rates are faster than most HDD can handle.


----------

