Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 40.34

-2.6%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: rudedog who wrote (63412)	8/26/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) of 186894

rudedog, I was basing my USB statement on empirical analysis of the capability of a moderately loaded USB system, where the best numbers we could achieve were 1 to 1.2 MBps. Okay, sounds fair to me. The point behind my statement of 1.5MBps was so that we could keep thing "simple" for those who didn't understand the difference between the two. While there is overhead with any bus system (even in SCSI as you stated) the conversion of raw numbers shouldn't be changed. I was just trying to help avoid confusion with those folks who didn't understand the basic conversion. I think we can some the whole damned thing up like this: USB has a theoretical maximum through-put of 1.5MBps. However, due to the overhead involved with the protocol, real world performance will likely max-out somewhere in the 1.1 to 1.2 MBps range. Sound good? <G> BTW I think USB is fine for its intended use, just not anything like a good mass storage connection. It is kind of like early IDE in performance characteristics with mass storage. Agree 100% Steve

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next