• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

What is the faster connection: USB 2.0, Ultra Wide SCSI, SCSI-2??

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

squale

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Mainly I am concerned between USB 2.0 and Ultra Wide SCSI, or even Ultra3 or Ultra320 SCSI? I am looking at fast high end scanners and most use Ultra SCSI or USB 2.0 or SCSI 2, so I need to know what the fastest and then next fastest is?

I don't know if it is worth the price of buying a SCSI card? or maybe I should just get a USB 1.0 or USB 2.0 scanner?


Finanally, what is faster, SCSI-2 or USB 1.0?

Thanks
 

Como

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2003
Location
Maine
all i know is that usb2.0 should be faster than Ultra320, and probably cheaper too, as you dont need a card. ultra 320 transfers at 320 mbs, while i believe usb2 is over 400.

The real question would be within the scanners themselves, as the speed would be more limited by the scanner itself than the way the data is transferred.
 

attack

Member
Joined
May 23, 2002
I'd go USB 2.0...U320 may be faster (yes in theory usb 2.0 is, but in reality U320 is much faster), but the added cost, anoyance, arn';t worth it. Also your scanner can't even scan close to 400mb/s worth of data, I would guess 50mb/s would still be more than a scanner can scan.
 

Xaotic

Very kind Senior
Joined
Mar 13, 2002
Location
Greensboro NC
The rate on USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, NOT 480 MB/s. This is a factor of 8 difference. The rate for comparison is about 60MB/s and will be faster than either Ultra SCSI or SCSI-2.
 

Illah

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Location
San Francisco
Xaotic said:
The rate on USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, NOT 480 MB/s. This is a factor of 8 difference. The rate for comparison is about 60MB/s and will be faster than either Ultra SCSI or SCSI-2.

Doesn't 60MB/s make it much slower, not faster?

And yeah, I was going to say that USB2.0 being faster than high end SCSI sounded funny...

--Illah
 

tom10167

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Location
Phoenix. YOUR HAIR IS GOOD TO EAT
ajrettke said:
I'd go USB 2.0...U320 may be faster (yes in theory usb 2.0 is, but in reality U320 is much faster), but the added cost, anoyance, arn';t worth it. Also your scanner can't even scan close to 400mb/s worth of data, I would guess 50mb/s would still be more than a scanner can scan.

Why is USB2 only faster in theory?

Off Topic! What's faster, Firewire or USB2?
 

Xaotic

Very kind Senior
Joined
Mar 13, 2002
Location
Greensboro NC
USB 2.0 is slower than SCSI U320 in both theory and practice, as noted above. Both the SCSI-2 and SCSI Ultra are narrow, 8bit, protocols and are much slower, rated at 10MB/s and 20MB/s respectively.

With respect to Firewire and USB 2.0, the USB is faster, in theory, at 480Mb/s(60MB/s) than the Firewire, 400Mb/s(50MB/s). Both protocols have overhead and the USB packet overhead is higher than the firewire version. As a practical matter, use whatever you have, though the USB may be more accepted. The performance is very similar.
 

FireMogle

Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2001
Location
Lawrence, KS
Xaotic said:
USB 2.0 is slower than SCSI U320 in both theory and practice, as noted above. Both the SCSI-2 and SCSI Ultra are narrow, 8bit, protocols and are much slower, rated at 10MB/s and 20MB/s respectively.

But SCSI-2+ comes in Wide and Narrow

I personally think the limiting factor in all this will be the scanner, and not the interface.