Probably within the coming year; and maybe before the release of Windows Seven, we’ll be seeing a new standard of USB connection emerging into the marketplace. USB 3.0 is set to theoretically be ten-times faster than the currently-used USB 2.0 connection. Whether or not that is actually the case in reality remains to be seen; but the figures say so at least.

Does that mean that USB devices will suddenly become faster? No; it means that if you use a future motherboard equipped with USB 3.0 ports, or use a USB 3.0 card fitted to a PCI or PCIe slot, along with future devices which are USB 3.0 compatible, you’ll theoretically be able to transfer data at ten times (4.8 gigabits per second (Gbps)) the current speed of 480 megabits per second. (60 megabytes/second) (Also six times faster than FireWire 800.*)

All this works out fine in theory; but I’ve clocked USB 2.0 working in real-time in the real-world; and the fastest I’ve seen it go on one occasion was just under 30 megabytes/second when transferring a huge file from a USB external drive to a computer with an Asus motherboard fitted with 2GB RAM + a dual-core CPU, and running a SATA 2 7200RPM HDD. Realistically then you’d be lucky to achieve a 2.4 Gbit/sec transfer rate with USB 3.0 : That’s still fast; but more realistic in terms of practical application.

(Typo fixed.)

Why the difference between the theoretical transfer rate and the real-world transfer rate? Well the example I used had a number of bottlenecks placed in the path of the data: The first of these being the external HDD itself along with its USB interface circuitry. What exits the USB interface travels via the USB 2.0 cable to the computer and through the USB 2.0 interface on the motherboard, including the South Bridge. The South Bridge is also handling all the other USB and whatever else traffic flowing through it, then a bus line to the RAM and CPU. – The CPU regulating the USB interface and controlling the data throughput, then on to the computer’s HDD via the SATA controller, the disk’s read/write cache, and finally the disk itself. ‘Not quite as simple as you might have imagined possibly.

Imagine yourself in a car: The car is capable of travelling the 3 miles it needs to go in about 1 1/2 minutes IF it were travelling completely unobstructed and in a straight line. The reality is, though, that there’s a number of bends and roundabouts in your path as well as other random traffic: There is no way you’ll make the trip in 1 1/2 minutes even though the car is capable of doing so.

The blog wired.com, linked to earlier as well as here, is of the opinion that USB 3.0 will kill off FireWire. But, and there is a big but here, there is something that the author didn’t consider:-

    FireWire 3200

Since 1995, when it was introduced, IEEE 1394 or FireWire has been what everyone has looked to for high-bandwidth data transfer. No matter how much USB has tried to keep up with it, FireWire has always had the upper hand. With the coming advent of USB 3.0, however, FireWire is starting to lose the race:

The IEEE has approved the IEEE 1394-2008 specification, adding support for bandwidth up to 3.2Gbps: It’s fast, it’s not as fast as USB 3.0. Will it be good enough? In some cases perhaps so; in fact in some cases it may well be the preferred choice despite 3.0. Here’s why:-

USB 3.0 will still be processor-reliant with regard to the control of the data throughput; therefore USB 3.0 won’t be able to achieve its theoretical speeds and will probably at best be only as fast as FireWire 3200. Added to that is the fact that, despite the higher current-output of USB 3.0; at 900mA (0.9A), it doesn’t quite have the current-output capabilities of FireWire. – Neither, for that matter, does it have the voltage capabilities:-

FireWire is able to supply between 8 up to around 25 volts under certain conditions. USB 3.0 will still be able to only supply a single voltage: 12 Volts.

Using Ohm’s Law: 12 Volts multiplied by 0.9 Amps equals 10.8 Watts,  over three times the power supplied via USB 2.0 and just enough to power a small USB external hard-drive at a push perhaps; but nothing compared to the 24 Volts multiplied by 1 Amp equals 24 Watts capable of being delivered by FireWire.

If I were a camcorder designer presented with the choice of using a USB 3.0 interface or a FireWire 3200 interface for my device I’d instantly see that 10.8 watts would be more than enough to power the camera itself, but would be insubstantial for powering the camera, the onboard disk-drive motor, and the USB or FireWire interface all at the same time: That would mean that I’d have to include a rechargeable battery onboard which charged from the USB power. The battery would mean extra weight and extra circuitry to be included. That would mean extra cost. It would take up extra space and make the design more bulky. However the users of my device wouldn’t want to use it connected to the computer at all times; so I’d have to include a rechargeable battery whichever connection method I used.

The advantages of using FireWire would be that the battery could charge at any time the camcorder was connected to the computer, even whilst it was being used to film and record on its internal disk drive, whereas the USB model would only be able to charge whilst the camcorder was connected and idle. Also the FireWire model would have a faster charge-time, and probably a very slightly faster data throughput compared to its USB rival.

It would seem, then, that I would design and manufacture a camcorder capable of interfacing by means of both USB 3.0 and FireWire 3200. The user could choose which one they wanted to use at a given time. This gives the user extra choice and also keeps FireWire very much alive.

All things considered, at least as far as this round of advancements is concerned, FireWire is here to stay. I don’t see it vanishing into obscurity for some years yet, if at all.

Do you see it differently? If so please do explain by means of a comment below.