back to article SuperSpeed USB 3.0 spec finalised

USB 3.0 is complete, the group of companies behind the project announced last night. The specification is now officially at version 1.0. Also known as SuperSpeed USB, the device-connection technology has a peak throughput ten times greater than USB 2.0's 480Mb/s. SuperSpeed uses new ports to deliver the greater bandwidth. But …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Jason Togneri

    Yay! But 1394?

    Glad to hear it, and it's about bloody time we got a bandwidth upgrade for local devices, but what will Firewire be looking like by the time this is released? Will the battle for supremacy never end?

  2. Simon

    Soooooooo yeah......

    So what do we need usb 3 for exactly?

  3. Thomas

    Any news on CPU usage?

    i.e. can USB ports at last act for themselves with direct memory access or whatever, or are they still likely to be very limited in real-world speeds when compared to Firewire (even just mid-90s FW400 in my experience) and eSATA?

  4. Stu

    Oh no he dit-unt. *waves finger*

    He didn't just say USB 3.0 v1.0!? I sincerely hope the USB tech group didn't come up with that double versioning thing and it was just the author.

    Let us please not have the same old misnomer that afflicted the famous MP3 format! MP3, or MPEG3 is actually MPEG V1 layer 3.

    Do you remember with the advent of DVDs and MPEG2, that MP3 didn't make much sense seeing as the audio format clearly pre-dated DVDs, and possibly the MPEG2 spec itself. The whole reason we now have MPEG4 because it was deemed too confusing to call it v3!

    I understand fully that you are just emphasising the exiting of its beta status, but lets just call it USB 3.0 to avoid the catchphrasing? Then when theres a change, we can do the old 3.1 or 3.2 trick? Just like how we had USB 1.0 then USB 1.1 etc.

    Just so long as we dont get USB27 prior to USB4 thats fine!


  5. h4rm0ny


    So what I want to know is will USB 3.0 still be the same CPU-munching interface that USB 1 & 2 were. If it is, I'll stick to the undervalued and technically superior Firewire. It's been faster than USB in the previous versions in sustained transfers. And come to think of it, that's another question: This vaunted 10x the speed of USB 2.0... is that sustained or a burst speed like with USB 2.0. Given that the speed of an externally connected USB device is normally only a factor when transferring large amounts of data, e.g. to an external hard drive, the sustained speed is much more important. More technical details, please.

  6. Richard Sloan

    Power to the people

    Did they finally add a 12v line?

  7. Paul Stephenson
    Thumb Down


    USB 3.0 is now 1.0 - who thought that up??

    Surely the specification should be just "USB" version 3.0

    Maybe I should be less pedantic.

  8. Philip Cheeseman

    What next?

    USB 4.0 SuperDuper Speed USB?

    USB 5.0 UltraSuperDuper Speed USB?

    USB 6.0 MegaSuperSuper Speec USB?

    Do I need to continue?

  9. Graeme McKeague

    USB 4.0

    Will USB 4.0 be called Super-Duper Speed USB??

  10. Nic



    While we are at it, do we really need more than 512K of Memory?

  11. Colin Millar

    USB 3.0 - meh

    Just so long as the mobo people keep ps/2 support going we should be ok

    USB - what is that used for anyway - oh I know - those toy missiles, um, cup-warmers? Not WiFi dongles thats for sure.

  12. David Kelly


    Firewire 3200 was announced nearly a year ago, and will probably be faster for continuous transfers than USB 3.

  13. Robert Grant

    USB networking

    Yes please.

  14. Neil Alexander

    Sustained speeds?

    No, thanks. I'll stick with FireWire.

  15. Anonymous Coward

    The next one will be ...

    ... Ludicrous Speed.

  16. Chris C

    Next version

    Nah, you "Super-Duper" guys are missing the obvious next implementation -- EXTREMEspeed (oh, sorry, XstreamSpeed). I'm surprised they didn't use the term for this implementation.

    As for the question of whether it will have direct memory access... Didn't we already determine that giving an external device direct access to your memory, bypassing any security controls, is a bad thing?

  17. David Gillies

    @Chris C

    Yeah, it's a bad idea to give external devices truly direct access to memory. So map it through virtual memory. Or you can disable the OHCI hardware mapping, albeit with an efficiency penalty. Of course if you're close enough to a machine to be plugging things into it, security is somewhat moot (unless someone cons you into hooking up a trojan device, but that's a bit too Mission Impossible to be plausible).

    The real problem with USB vs 1394 is that USB is master/slave and 1394 is P2P. Unless that's going away, and I can't see how it would, real world 1394 performance is always going to exceed USB at a given nominal data rate. What does USB 2.0 really give you? Around 40-45% of nominal bandwidth in my experience. Firewire pledges to give you 97%. 45% of 4800 Mbits/s is less than 97% of 3200 Mbits/s.

  18. Anonymous Coward

    What a bunch...

    of moaning tossers you get on these pages these days.

    Oh bloody hell, look it's better and faster , but my dad is still harder than yours....


    Can we trawl back the archives...

    USB1.0 is lauched.


    I'll stick with my 9 pin serial thanks at least I can screw that in.

    Pah! it will never supersceed parrallel.

    Serial? who want's serial?

    Remove my RS232 port over my dead body.

    33600 kps is fast enough for anyone, what's the point?

    etc etc...

    Get over it kiddies....

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @stu reeves

    exactly :)

This topic is closed for new posts.