the extra speed. If, for example, you are capturing DV video, the
bandwidth needed is under the limit for 400, so switching to 800
doesn't make the process any faster. The big difference that I
encounter is when I copy files from one drive to another. Then, I
believe, the process does go twice as fast.
The project I'm working on needs super fast drives, so we are using a
RAID Array that connects to the computer using Serial ATA -- which
gives us faster lift-off of the data from the drive platters, and then
a faster connection to the computer. Firewire 800 doesn't do this --
you are right, there are bottlenecks elsewhere: a single drive can only
read data so fast, etc...
On Jun 2, 2006, at 5:14 PM, André Sala wrote:
> Has anyone every really compared performance between FW400 & 800? I
> have an 800 drive plugged into the 800 port on my G5, and I honestly
> do not see any better performance than with my other 400 drives.
> Seems to me there's a bottleneck elsewhere that doesn't let the entire
> system really take advantage. Instead of calling it Firewire 800, I
> think they should have called it Firewire 430nc. nc stands for "new
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.