I believe both USB 2.0 and Firewire costs CPU time in data transfer.
Firwire 800 has a maximum throughput of 800mbps whereas USB 2.0 is 480mbps.
I'm not sure the bottle neck will still be the harddrive since the external
enclosure I have is a RAID 0 enclosure and it supports 1394a and 1394b
standard. No USB 2.0.
Thanks
Taky
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenny Stokes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: [AP] Firewire 800
If I understand it correctly, Firewire Activity requires CPU time.
It is highly recommended to stick with the USB 2.0 standar which does not
bog down your CPU.
Even though Firewire 800 seems faster, when you drag your CPU down,
it may not benefit you at all.
I don't think you won't see any noticeable difference between a Firewire 800
and a USB 2.0 regardless the application,
due to system hardware bandwidth limitations.
But, the Firewire will slow down your CPU.
If anyone has a differing opinion, I would love to hear it.
Sorry it's a little bit off topic...
I bought an external Firewire 800 enclosure as a video drive. Now i'm
connecting it to the onboard 1394a firewire port. Does anybody know if I buy
a 1394b firewire card, will it benefits the maximum data throughput?
Thanks
Taky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
