Firewire vs. USB (PC)
[204 byte] By [dietrite] at [2007-11-9 19:16:36] 
question: i ordered my ipod mini already and am patiently waiting, but my question is... how fast are firewire transfers compared to usb transfers? can someone please post facts. :confused: thanks! :cool:
# 1 Re: Firewire vs. USB (PC)
USB 2.0's theoretical top speed is 480Mb/s, while FireWire 400's top speed is 400Mb/s.But USB 2.0 is supposed to have additional overhead that causes it to actually be slower than FireWire.
Both are fast enough to make the iPod mini's hard drive write at full speed, so it doesn't really matter which one you use.
after-life at 2007-11-15 14:44:25 >
# 2 Re: Firewire vs. USB (PC)
I was worried about the same thing before I got my mini. Would USB be so much slower than firewire? I can't compare the USB performance to that of firewire, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it only took about 15 minutes to download 450 songs. I found it took around 2-5 seconds per song. About a second for every MB. Don't worry about, I wouldn't recommend buying a firewire card if you already have USB 2.0.pagoodle at 2007-11-15 14:45:24 >
# 3 Re: Firewire vs. USB (PC)
just a matter of personal opinion, i'm running my mini on a PC, and my dad bought me a firewire port for my 27th b-day. :)it is REALLY fast... much faster IMO than the USB 2.0 (As far as my system goes...)
i'm glad my dad was in town to install it as well, 'cause i've generally got bad luck with that stuff. :eek:
redorange at 2007-11-15 14:46:23 >
# 4 Re: Firewire vs. USB (PC)
What everyone said up there ^. I'll give you an example it took me 10 seconds to load an 50MB .mpeg file from my computer through firewire to my 'Pod. Its going to be about the same, but not really faster.john5516 at 2007-11-15 14:47:28 >
# 5 Re: Firewire vs. USB (PC)
Main difference is, Firewire has its own logic chip that governs the data transfer, where USB 2.0 relies on the system CPU to do it. Which means while you're performing other tasks, the USB 2.0 connection will slow down a bit.It is also less adaptable at handling huge file transfers, and tend to get slower and slower over time.. then speed up.. then slower.. it's not a very consistent transfer speed. So the theoretical "burst" rate is higher, but the overall throughput for large files over time is much slower.
lindrone at 2007-11-15 14:48:32 >
[an error occurred while processing this directive]