USB 1.1 vs. USB 2.0 question

SVan · Jun 2, 2003

I have a new computer which has USB 2.0. My old USB 1.1 card reader takes 22 seconds to download 10 highest quality jpeg images from my CF card taken in my 10D.

My new Dazzle 2.0 "high speed" card reader, which is supposedly 40 times faster than 1.1 USB, takes 13 seconds rather than 22 seconds. Can anyone explain this? Not exactly 40 times faster.

RichW · Jun 2, 2003

and not the USB interface. Not much you can do about that. 40 times is a theoretical speed of the interface, nothing to do with reading CF cards.

Rich

SVan said:
I have a new computer which has USB 2.0. My old USB 1.1 card reader
takes 22 seconds to download 10 highest quality jpeg images from my
CF card taken in my 10D.

My new Dazzle 2.0 "high speed" card reader, which is supposedly 40
times faster than 1.1 USB, takes 13 seconds rather than 22 seconds.
Can anyone explain this? Not exactly 40 times faster.

MarkQ · Jun 2, 2003

First off, no practical (real-world) test has ever demonstrated that USB 2.0 (high speed) is actually 40 times faster than USB 1.1. Usually the tests seem to max out about 10 times or so faster.

Secondly, the USB connection isn't the only bottleneck. There's the USB drivers & implementation, the card reader and the card itself which all have bottleneck/limitations and interactions that can add to the mess.

SVan said:
I have a new computer which has USB 2.0. My old USB 1.1 card reader
takes 22 seconds to download 10 highest quality jpeg images from my
CF card taken in my 10D.

My new Dazzle 2.0 "high speed" card reader, which is supposedly 40
times faster than 1.1 USB, takes 13 seconds rather than 22 seconds.
Can anyone explain this? Not exactly 40 times faster.

Keith Dodson145047 · Jun 2, 2003

SVan said:
I have a new computer which has USB 2.0. My old USB 1.1 card reader
takes 22 seconds to download 10 highest quality jpeg images from my
CF card taken in my 10D.

My new Dazzle 2.0 "high speed" card reader, which is supposedly 40
times faster than 1.1 USB, takes 13 seconds rather than 22 seconds.
Can anyone explain this? Not exactly 40 times faster.

If your card reader is a USB 1.1 device you shouldn't see any difference in speed. The difference you are seeing may be due to your reader being more compatible with the new card or the new card/drivers using less overhead than the old one.
--
Keith

(See my profile for gear)
'Where ever you go, there you are'
Austin Powers

Keith Dodson145047 · Jun 2, 2003

Like someone else stated, the bottleneck may be your card or the reader it self. Any stated speeds for the USB 2.0 standard are theoretical and are subject to many things.
--
Keith

(See my profile for gear)
'Where ever you go, there you are'
Austin Powers

javamahnn · Jun 2, 2003

Is the card reader connected directly to the computer and to a native or motherboard USB connector (not a pci slot card).

Hubs need to be 2.0 compliant and cables that SPECIFY true 1.1 compliance are 2.0 compliant as well (most cables are not ).

USB 1.1 max speed is 12 megabits/sec, 2.0 is 480 Megabits sec.

Now i don't know if this would be true, but if you are using an Sandisk Ultra which is a 24x card (24 * 150,000 bytes sec * 8bits/byte) you could get 28,000,000 bits/sec out of your card. This value is about twice as fast as usb 1.1 would give you and it might be that the CF is your limiting factor

just my two cents worth

rgojr · Jun 2, 2003

The Dazzle card readers are NOT USB 2.0... I got suckered into the same thing... they are 1.1 and 2.0 COMPATIBLE... take it back and get a 2.0 from some other manufacturer.... I wrote a long letter to Dazzle about their deceptive packaging and got nowhere with them, but it is definitely a 1.1 reader

Keith Dodson said:
SVan said:

I have a new computer which has USB 2.0. My old USB 1.1 card reader
takes 22 seconds to download 10 highest quality jpeg images from my
CF card taken in my 10D.

My new Dazzle 2.0 "high speed" card reader, which is supposedly 40
times faster than 1.1 USB, takes 13 seconds rather than 22 seconds.
Can anyone explain this? Not exactly 40 times faster.

Click to expand...

If your card reader is a USB 1.1 device you shouldn't see any
difference in speed. The difference you are seeing may be due to
your reader being more compatible with the new card or the new
card/drivers using less overhead than the old one.
--
Keith

(See my profile for gear)
'Where ever you go, there you are'
Austin Powers

--

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so

TnSkiDude · Jun 2, 2003

My 1.0 Gb Transcend downloads in about 2 min vs. 20 min for my usb1.1 at work. It may not be 40x, but I sure dread downloading on 1.1 after getting used to 2.0. You may see more difference if you do larger downloads.

Mark.

Rich007 · Jun 2, 2003

... my downloading directly from camera (10D, USB 1.1. Don't have USB 1.1 cardreader.) and my Lexar FireWire reader (almost. as fast as USB 2.0 in theoretical terms, 400 vs. 480 Mbps) is about 7 to 9 times faster, depending on my CF/MD (fully loaded 512MB or 1GB with RAWs).

SVan said:
I have a new computer which has USB 2.0. My old USB 1.1 card reader
takes 22 seconds to download 10 highest quality jpeg images from my
CF card taken in my 10D.

My new Dazzle 2.0 "high speed" card reader, which is supposedly 40
times faster than 1.1 USB, takes 13 seconds rather than 22 seconds.
Can anyone explain this? Not exactly 40 times faster.

--
Regards,

Rich
http://www.pbase.com/rich007

For my Equipment, check Profile

Bob Graham rvg · Jun 2, 2003

Some products are 2.0 compliant, sometimes labeled deceptively '2.0 Full Speed', which, believe it or not, does not mean it operates at the full 2.0 speed. 'Hi Speed 2.0' does operate at the 480mbs speed, which the newest Dazzle products do. "Full Speed" is an officially recognized term for a usb devices, but does not mean what it sounds like.

Bob

RGOJR said:
The Dazzle card readers are NOT USB 2.0... I got suckered into the
same thing... they are 1.1 and 2.0 COMPATIBLE... take it back and
get a 2.0 from some other manufacturer.... I wrote a long letter to
Dazzle about their deceptive packaging and got nowhere with them,
but it is definitely a 1.1 reader
Keith Dodson wrote:

Jason Hutchinson · Jun 2, 2003

RGOJR said:
The Dazzle card readers are NOT USB 2.0... I got suckered into the
same thing... they are 1.1 and 2.0 COMPATIBLE... take it back and
get a 2.0 from some other manufacturer

Lots of good answers, but as I understand it this above is the most likely reason for the poor performance. Dazzle may actually have some real USB 2.0 gear out now, but the market is flooded with these "USB 2.0 compatible" pieces of junk that run at 1.1 speeds.

I have an inexpensive PQI Travelflash 2.0 (reviewed on Tomshardware.com) that runs about 3.3MB or so on transfers from purely mediocre cards. This is about 10x faster than direct from camera downloads, and about 4x faster than the best USB 1.1 devices. You need to find yourself a true USB 2.0 device most likely.

Jason

rgojr said:
.... I wrote a long letter to
Dazzle about their deceptive packaging and got nowhere with them,
but it is definitely a 1.1 reader
Keith Dodson wrote:

SVan · Jun 2, 2003

javamahnn said:
Is the card reader connected directly to the computer and to a
native or motherboard USB connector (not a pci slot card).

Hubs need to be 2.0 compliant and cables that SPECIFY true 1.1
compliance are 2.0 compliant as well (most cables are not ).

USB 1.1 max speed is 12 megabits/sec, 2.0 is 480 Megabits sec.

Now i don't know if this would be true, but if you are using an
Sandisk Ultra which is a 24x card (24 * 150,000 bytes sec *
8bits/byte) you could get 28,000,000 bits/sec out of your card.
This value is about twice as fast as usb 1.1 would give you and it
might be that the CF is your limiting factor

I am using a Sandisk Ultra 512
just my two cents worth

Search

USB 1.1 vs. USB 2.0 question

SVan

Well-known member

RichW

Veteran Member

MarkQ

Guest

Keith Dodson145047

Leading Member

Keith Dodson145047

Leading Member

javamahnn

Member

rgojr

Veteran Member

TnSkiDude

Well-known member

Rich007

Leading Member

Bob Graham rvg

Veteran Member

Jason Hutchinson

Veteran Member

SVan

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts