Mac Mini --> Usb 2 Or Firewire 400? Options

[bcatcho]

When looking for an audio input card of any sort for a Mac Mini should i look for a USB 2 device or a Firewire device? Frankly i'm not sure if there is much of a difference or which is faster.

Thanks

[shaneblyth]

firewire 400 is considerably faster than USB 2.0 on the surface it appears that USB 2.0 is faster but I can assure you it isn't
400 in actuallity is way faster and the cpu on a firewire divice is alot lower than USB 2.0 and thats a big difference..
I would always go for a Firewire device over USB anyday.
I cant remeber the sites I read this on but if you do a web search you will find this has been tested by pros many times and is born out in their results

[bcatcho]

Ah, i shall look fo rthat research, thanks.

[shaneblyth]

There is a copy and post form one comparison

shane


Question: Hold on...USB 2.0 is a 480 Mbps interface and FireWire is a 400 Mbps interface, how can FireWire be faster?
Answer: Raw throughput rating numbers alone don't tell the whole story, as explained below.

The throughput numbers would lead you to believe that USB 2.0 provides better performance.  But, differences in the architecture of the two interfaces have a huge impact on the actual sustained "real world" throughput.  And for those seeking high-performance, sustained throughput is what it's all about (reading and writing files to an external hard drive for example).
 
Architecture - FireWire vs. USB 2.0


 



FireWire, built from the ground up for speed, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer
 


USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower, less-efficient data flow control)




 
Performance Comparison - FireWire vs. USB 2.0

 
Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and then USB 2.0 show:
 
    Read Test:

 

5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0

160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0



 
    Write Test:

 

5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0

160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0



 
FireWire - Still the Performance King!
As the performance comparison shown above confirms, FireWire remains the performance leader.  And is the best choice for DV camcorders, digital audio and video devices, external hard drives, high-performance DVD burners and any other device that demands continuous high performance throughput.

[nickmonster]

if the card is firewire 800... then go with that over usb....

[shaneblyth]

yes 800 is faster BUT 400 is alot faster too.. but if you read the article it is a no brainer...
if it was just midi it would make no difference but with anything like audio evn firewire 400 is way way faster

[_T2k_]

yes 800 is faster BUT 400 is alot faster too.. but if you read the article it is a no brainer...
if it was just midi it would make no difference but with anything like audio evn firewire 400 is way way faster

It's just plain wrong . Threre many cases when USB is way faster - there's no obvious answer. A simple hard drive can be faster on USB already.
Stop confusing people, please.

[shaneblyth]

yes 800 is faster BUT 400 is alot faster too.. but if you read the article it is a no brainer...
if it was just midi it would make no difference but with anything like audio evn firewire 400 is way way faster

It's just plain wrong . Threre many cases when USB is way faster - there's no obvious answer. A simple hard drive can be faster on USB already.
Stop confusing people, please.

and what do you base this on...? I base it on research posted on numerous sites comparing all forms of USB Firewire on any from a hard drive to opther periperals. I have not seen ANY reseach done that shows the contrary.. did you look at the link I posted?
that was just one of many out there.. please post the sites with comparisons that show what you say to be true please... I wouls appreciate reading and comparin them to the sites I have been pointwed to by some who are alot more of an expert that i am..
thanks

[lepetitmartien]

USB is overall bad at streaming situations and pseudo real time (real real time computing is a real problem)

You can use a USB2 peripheral, but under stress the FW will behave better, even if on paper some of the specs of USB2 are better than FW400.

[dfxx]

Quote shaneblyth ,Feb 11 2005, 00:19 >>>>>>>>>
" yes 800 is faster BUT 400 is alot faster too.. but if you read the article it is a no brainer...
if it was just midi it would make no difference but with anything like audio evn firewire 400 is way way faster "
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>It's just plain wrong . Threre many cases when USB is way faster - there's no obvious answer. A simple hard drive can be faster on USB already.
Stop confusing people, please. "<

From all the tests I've seen, "480Mbits" USB 2 has a peak throughput of about 240-260Mbps (but can be under 200), whereas "400Mbits" FireWire has a max throughput of about 360-370Mbps (usually about 320-340). This is because FireWire was designed to handle continuous data (esp audio and video) and does so by itself with very little overhead, but USB relies on the computer's processor, which can often be caught up doing other things (such as processing all those audio streams). This means that for high-throughput, processor-intensive work (such as audio and video) FireWire is a much better choice.