Review & Benchmarks: eSATA-II + MacBook Pro

But what about the Firewire 400 setup that scored the same as the eSATA?

Bot

    +4

Can you make some more reliable test then Xbench? Something like dd in the terminal? Here are the commands:

time bash -c “dd if=/dev/zero of=/Volumes/Clone/bigfile bs=8k count=500000 && sync”

for writing and

time dd if=/Volumes/Clone/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=8k

Use the appropriate Volumes to get the result from the drive. I get around 65MB/sek from a WD MyBook connected with Firewire 800 to a 17″ MBP. Good enough for me.

    +0

These tests don’t make any sense:

First, it’s a given that the internal drive is slower, its 5400 rpm with a smaller 8 MB cache than the drive you used with the eSATA-II;

Second, the it’s also a given that the external USB drive is slower, its 5400 rpm with a smaller 2MB cache (I looked it up) than the drive you used with the eSATA-II;

Three, the drive used with the Firewire 400 is also probably slower overall, since it has a 8MB cache vs. the 16MB cache of the eSATA-II’s drive. But if you notice the Firewire drive has the same over all score as the eSATA-II because it kicks the crap out of it on the Random writes, probably because the eSATA-II’s drive has more area to cover with 750GB of storage space.

Your testing methodology is flawed. With the exception of the MacBook Pro’s internal drive to use as a base comparison, you should have used the same drive to test all three interfaces, in order to eliminate the drive’s performance as a variable.

(subscribed to comments)     +2

Also, there are other tests using Firewire 800 and eSATA each using an identical drive (identical to each other), which shows Firewire 800 reaching 50-75 Megabytes per second. This is still well below the 95 Megabytes per second of the eSTAT interface in that test, but much higher than the 32 Megabytes per second that you grabbed from the Xbench’s database (I assume).

Bottom of page…
http://www.barefeats.com/hard91.html

Its also worth mentioning that the theoretical speed of eSATA-II is 3Gbps, not 3GB/s: Gbps is “gigabits per second” and GB/s is “gigabytes per second”, which are two entirely different speeds. Firewire 800 is 800mbps and Firewire 400 400mbps and dead last is USB 2.0 with 480mbps: Mbps is “megabits per second” and MB/s is “megabytes per second”. If you understand how Firewire and USB 2.0 works yes USB 2.0 is still slower despite is extra mbps.

On the other hand the theoretical speed of Firewire is actually 3.2Gbps. Speed that is set to be implemented in Firewire 1600 and 3200, which I believe use the same interface (plug) as Firewire 800.

(subscribed to comments)     +2

Its also a shame that eSATA is becoming more popular than Firewire 800, since Firewire does not labor under the limitations that eSATA does, when it come to daisy-chaining devices; Firewire can have 63 vs. one per port with eSATA.

Firewire also supplies power to devices and does not use CPU cycles like USB 2.0 to perform data transfers, which becomes crucial when more than one device is attached. Firewire 800 can also be used with CAT-5 networking cable and carry an IP address. Try all that with eSATA!

In truth, eSATA was design for “consumer” not professional use but like USB 2.0, an inferior standard, it will become popular because the Firewire consortium messed up licensing by charging a dollar per port fee, way back when. But considering that the average PC today probably has 4 USB ports, because it cannot be daisy chained, a dollar would have been a bargain, not to mention the space savings on laptops. Did I mention that Firewire 800 and Firewire 400 can be daisy chained together with a simple $5 cable adapter (not a converter)?

Too bad eSATA is dragging us back down that same damn hole as USB. Firewire could have replaced USB and eSATA, and complemented CAT-5 networking.

(subscribed to comments)     +2

@doc logic:

as everyone else has already pointed out, leave the benchmarking to the big boys @ bare feats etc: u obviously are totally unqualified to create testing methodologies.

also: any fool that doesnt know the difference between BITS and BYTES - that represents one order of magnitude difference, for those of you keeping score at home - is someone who should not be allowed to post his _opinion_ on anything let alone something purporting to be _analysis_

@ james: yes & no …

a) yes, it is a shame that apple screwed up every chance for firewire to succeed

the interesting question isL where the hell is the 1600/3200 chipsets?! —

after steve job’s axed the R&D dept at apple upon his return, he had to meekly go out & buy the major independent firewire merchant silicon house in order (which included one of the original firewire architects who left apple); the high-speed chips (not to mention the RF/wifi; and the optical; and the copper MAN version) - none have never seen the light of day!

while it is no surprise the firewire would wither given apple’s withdrawal of support, it is PERVERSELY sick for apple not to provide a substitute - namely e-sata!

b) no, the stumbling block for the royalty price was not $1 … it was $5.

and this was apple’s doing, not the firewire consortium’s fault (or even microsoft’s fault for not shipping firewire drivers or intel in chipping integrated firewire chipsets).

it is the consequent long delay in changing the royalty regime that derailed the oem & general marketplace momentum for firewire.

nearly 100% apple’s fault.

NOTICE THE PATTERN:

* steve (the “genius”) destroys a core piece of apple technology & competitive advantage (just like shutting down the ‘useless’ newton);
* then steve (the “genius”) does a “my bad” and tries to buy his way out of his dufus error (just like the offer to acquire Palm, the ex-apple founded pda);
* then steve (”the genius”) backtracks with a last-minute brilliant defensive maneuver (ipod/iphone)

SAME PATTERN WITH FIREWIRE and lots of other apple tech that has been “steved.”

steve jobs is second only to bill gates as a serial destroyer of intellectual property.

all this “only steve could have saved apple” genuis-talk vastly over-states his talent.

steve jobs 2.0 “success” is more likely a reflection on how god-awful the previous management was rather than a tribute to the singular brillance that is uniquely steve jobs.

hell, even michael dell could have probably rescued apple in the 90’s - given the stunning DNA at apple which any newcomer would have had at his disposal (though even Jobs’ hatchetry did not manage to completly purge).

so: firewire is orphaned but we are left in limbo for years without e-sata ….this is business-as-usual with Jobs 2.0: all we get is half measures (just like the perennially broken Finder TEN (10) YEARS after NeXTstep arrives at apple!) … so many flashes of brilliance almost fatally tainted with compromise.

sigh.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

@ zahadum

I think your wrong about the $5 per port cost, it was $1. No wait you are wrong.

Apple To Charge “Per-Port” Licensing On FireWire
January, 15th, 1999
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/january/990115/firewire.html

As far as the chip sets, with Firewire adoption slowing they’ve been slow to develop FW 1600/3200 but it’s still underway from what I’ve read recently, but I don’t remember where I read it.

As for Steve Jobs I think you have it all wrong. It was the work he did at Next that saved Apple. OS X came from Next and thats been central to Apple’s resurgence. OS X runs not only the Mac but the Apple TV, the iPod, and the iPhone.

Sure Jobs makes mistakes, but he brings true innovation to the computing industry, unlike Bill Gates. Gates’ only accomplish was to make PCs as common as house hold phones via an illegal monopoly.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

hey. can someone take a look at my esata-II results and let me know if i am way under?

everything should be sata-2 capable, the pci express card, enclosure and 750gb disk. here are my results:

(subscribed to comments)     +0

I guess this site doesnt like html tags..

my results:

Results 31.21
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.4.10 (8R4061a)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro3,1
Drive Type Hitachi HDS721075KLA330
Disk Test 31.21
Sequential 48.64
Uncached Write 32.70 20.08 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 38.02 21.51 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 54.08 15.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 145.70 73.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 22.97
Uncached Write 7.45 0.79 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 44.43 14.22 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 96.14 0.68 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 143.85 26.69 MB/sec [256K blocks]

(subscribed to comments)     +1

@ Alexey

Can’t you see they’re in the middle of a pissing contest. How dare you bring up something on-topic.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

bf6c525a002c…

bf6c525a002c890b54f3…

    +0