Making the claim for the “first certified SuperSpeed USB 3.0 storage devices” is Western Digital with its new My Book 3.0 external desktop hard drive. Available as standalone models or in a kit form, which includes a USB 3.0 PCIe card, these 1TB and 2TB drives promise to raise the bar for external storage transfer speeds. …
Review incomplete -- CPU utilization
The transfer figures look nice, but what was the CPU utilization? I have read elsewhere that USB 3 will use substantially more CPU than eSATA, and was hoping for a comparitive set of numbers....
Well then, go buy one and do a nice graph for us all to read. I'd hardly call the review worthy of a fail. Unlike your post...
@ AC 15:17 - totally disagree
The charts show that esata was nearly as fast except for reads. CPU utilization of USB 3.0 is completely relevant as USB 2.0 alone can drive some major CPU time.
However, I still believe that USB 3.0 is a good path forward compared to that LightPeak garbage Intel was trying to propagate in its place. (Since when has fiber optic ever been resilient or cheap?)
Intel wins either way
either licensing from LightPeak, or extra CPU cores just for USB!
Need a WIN! sign
Second vote for FAIL
The main problem for USB2 is indeed the CPU killing nature of it. Any self respecting geek is already extremely well aware of that.
To do one of the first reviews of an actual in the flesh device replete with performance graphs with not even a passing mention of the CPU impact smacks of schoolboy ignorance at best, despite what some knobhead AC might think
Can Anyone Explain
How a SATA drive connected via a USB3 HBA could POSSIBLY be faster than that same drive connected natively over eSATA?