Home
http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20081028085631
In order to further illustrate the performance level obtained from USB2.0, we have run a test wit ha new MacBook Pro and an external HD featuring a triple interface: USB2.0, Firewire 400 and Firewire 800, thanks to an Oxford bridge. Results obtained from benchmarking with the SpeedTools suite are available below:
As shown on those graphs there are almost no difference in reading and writing speeds between USB2.0 and FW400. The clear winner is the FW800 offering up to 53 MB/s in writing mode and stable 60MB/s in reading mode.
We then performed a second test based on duplication of a 156 MB folder include 2000 small files, it will demonstrate the impact of the interface of the HD access time. In USB2.0, it took 15.1 seconds to complete the task, vs. 14.3 seconds with the FW400 and 11.4 seconds in FW800. Again, the difference between USB2.0 and FW400 remains small.
We do not want to give support to Apple to justify the lack of Firewire 400 in the new MacBook models, as having the choice between several interface would also give more choice for peripherals, this experiment shows that the performance gain in transfer speed from FW400 over USB2.0 is minimal or absent. So, the FW400 will be missing for users already having FW peripherals, but should not be a real problem for users having only USB2.0 peripherals, or being new to the Mac.
In order to further illustrate the performance level obtained from USB2.0, we have run a test wit ha new MacBook Pro and an external HD featuring a triple interface: USB2.0, Firewire 400 and Firewire 800, thanks to an Oxford bridge. Results obtained from benchmarking with the SpeedTools suite are available below:
As shown on those graphs there are almost no difference in reading and writing speeds between USB2.0 and FW400. The clear winner is the FW800 offering up to 53 MB/s in writing mode and stable 60MB/s in reading mode.
We then performed a second test based on duplication of a 156 MB folder include 2000 small files, it will demonstrate the impact of the interface of the HD access time. In USB2.0, it took 15.1 seconds to complete the task, vs. 14.3 seconds with the FW400 and 11.4 seconds in FW800. Again, the difference between USB2.0 and FW400 remains small.
We do not want to give support to Apple to justify the lack of Firewire 400 in the new MacBook models, as having the choice between several interface would also give more choice for peripherals, this experiment shows that the performance gain in transfer speed from FW400 over USB2.0 is minimal or absent. So, the FW400 will be missing for users already having FW peripherals, but should not be a real problem for users having only USB2.0 peripherals, or being new to the Mac.
