4 Replies Latest reply on May 19, 2010 7:37 AM by the_wine_snob

    SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0 any better for CS5?

    moroccodriver Level 1

      I can't find it now, but I think I read somewhere that these two new formats might not have any advantage over existing SATA 3 Gb/s RAID 0 arrays when using CS5.  True?  I'll be using mostly R3D 4k footage.

        • 1. Re: SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0 any better for CS5?
          JCschild Level 3

          if buying new drives then i would buy the sata 600.

          bear in mind onbord is only 2 ports so 1 set of raid 0 can be that, or you would need to buy a good controller card to have more.


          its really a mixed bag as they are all first gen.

          i have nmbers all over the place some showing good others showing the Seagate 32meg sata 300 wining.

          depends on number of drives onboard vs controller etc.


          if you have existing drives that are Sata 300 then its pointless to replace unless they do not have 32meg cache or higher.


          conversely the Sata 600 drives preform well even on sata 300 controllers.

          thinking the 64meg cache is helping the benchmarks.




          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0 any better for CS5?
            Bill Gehrke Most Valuable Participant

            Now if you had to have need for an external drive like on a laptop USB 3.0 now makes all the difference and it is potentially a very practical editing drive.  I have to say potentially because I remember testing some external USB 2.0 drives years ago and the performance varied all over the place.  There were some USB external enclosures that had really terrible performance.

            1 person found this helpful
            • 4. Re: SATA 6 Gb/s and USB 3.0 any better for CS5?
              the_wine_snob Level 9



              Going Off-Topic for this thread, but I tested USB 2.0's externals on several machines and a few NLE's, and found issues. First, speed was poor, and probably due to that connection, there were scary read/write errors, including the dreaded Delayed Write Failure. I used 3 makes, and all were very similar. I did not observe that much variation in the speed, but this was "seat-o-the-pants" observation, not empirical benchmarking. I know that I am talking to the "Benchmark Guru" here.


              FW-400's were better, and I never encountered any read/write errors, but they were still too slow for me.


              FW-800's were at last fast enough for me, with no errors.


              Have not tested beyond, eSATA, etc., but would assume that things are much better yet. I am just so heavily invested in FW-800's, that I have not looked beyond.


              Now, back On-Topic - I will be watching this thread, as the time is approaching to build the new box, so both internals and externals will be on my mind.