Internal Reader or Firewire, Need Speed !!!

mghaner

My internal card reader is very slow when I am downloading these 4 gig CF cards. I know I can get faster cards (I am using the ultra 2 sandisc) but am wondering how much faster the Firewire readers are over the internal readers. Anyone that has direct knowledge about this would be a great help. I hate to go and drop the $$ on a FW reader if it is not going to be faster then the internal I am running right now. BTW, I am on a PC if that makes a diff.

Thanks......... mike

wxwax

Firewire won't work on a PC unless you add a special Firewire card. Do you have one?

How long does it take to download your 4GB CF card, on average, right now?

colourbox

On a Mac, the FireWire readers kick some serious...over any other reader interface. Blows me away. On the PC, it's not so clear cut, it seems to depend on the FireWire hardware installed on the PC. I was hoping this page had updated their report on them (see notes at bottom of that page), but it's still dated July 2006.

gluwater

What type of USB connection does your computer use? I have a cheap USB 2.0 $20 all in one reader and can transfer a 2Gig card in 3 minutes.

pathfinder

I agree with Nick, that a USB 2 card reader should be pretty fast, but ...a USB 1.0 port will be glacial with a 4 Gb card........ Mike did not specify type of USB used.

claudermilk

wxwax wrote:

Firewire won't work on a PC unless you add a special Firewire card. Do you have one?

How long does it take to download your 4GB CF card, on average, right now?

Not necessarily. My mobo has on-board Firewire support. Besides, from what I read USB 2.0 and Firewire run about equal speed. I know my USB 2.0 readers (external and built-in) both run very fast.

Pupator

claudermilk wrote:

Not necessarily. My mobo has on-board Firewire support.

Correct. Most PCs made or sold in the last several years have firewire built in. (Rabbit trail: There are also PC notebooks, and have been for years, with built-in webcams - contrary to the newest Apple commercial - though it is quite funny.)

Besides, from what I read USB 2.0 and Firewire run about equal speed. I know my USB 2.0 readers (external and built-in) both run very fast.

Also correct. There isn't much difference in speed between USB 2.0 and Firewire (USB 2 is a bit faster, actually) - except in the case of streaming video. When dealing with video FireWire performs faster than USB (usually).

As far as what the OP should do:

If you're currently using USB 1.1; go buy a PCI USB 2.0 card. It will be far more useful to you than a FireWire card and you'll get great speed on your transfers.

If you're currently using USB 2.0; you can buy a FireWire card and see what the results are, but I'll bet they're about the same if not a bit slower.

colourbox

Pupator wrote:

There isn't much difference in speed between USB 2.0 and Firewire (USB 2 is a bit faster, actually) - except in the case of streaming video. When dealing with video FireWire performs faster than USB (usually).

USB has a very slightly higher theoretical max rate, but every study I've seen says Firewire 400's lower system overhead gives it a higher real-world sustained rate than USB. And if you throw FireWire 800 into the mix, USB falls way behind.

That said, for such short transfers as a camera card, it's probably not worth it to add FireWire 400 to a machine that already has USB 2.0. If you are talking about Photoshop scratch disks and no internal drive bays are available, then FireWire (especially FW800) might be worth adding, because now you're talking long-term sustained read/writes.

Pupator

colourbox wrote:

USB has a very slightly higher theoretical max rate, but every study I've seen says Firewire 400's lower system overhead gives it a higher real-world sustained rate than USB. And if you throw FireWire 800 into the mix, USB falls way behind.

You are correct. This is what I was alluding to with the statement about video, without getting in to the whole discussion. My own personal tests at transferring photos from sD card to PC have shown very similar speeds for 2.0 and FW400. I had completely forgotten about FW800 though - thanks for reminding me!

claudermilk

Pupator wrote:

Correct. Most PCs made or sold in the last several years have firewire built in. (Rabbit trail: There are also PC notebooks, and have been for years, with built-in webcams - contrary to the newest Apple commercial - though it is quite funny.)

Oh, don't even get me started on those stupid ads. :splat Suffice it to say they have succeeded in eliminating me as a possible customer, ever.

mghaner

I have Firewire on both the laptop and desktop PC's. I guess that the internal card reader is the same as an external hooked up to the USB port. I just wanted to know if the external firewire would be faster. I dont have USB 2.0, jus the older one I think. It takes me about 50 mins to download a 4 gig card with about 150 RAW+Fine images on it. I just moved up to the 4 gig cards as I was one of the lucky ones to jump on the $63 a piece sale B&H had on the Ultra 2 Sandisc ones. Before picking up 6 of those 4 gig cards I rad with 1 gig cards and would download one of those in about 10 min or so. I like doing slideshows at the reception and just freaked on the time needed for the big card. unless I can find a faster solution I will have to be more selective on what I download for my slideshow and just pull the shots I want off o fthe card and download the rest when I get home.

Pupator

If you have USB 1.1 (as your download time seems to indicate) then you certainly want to get a firewire external card reader!

Ric Grupe

USB bus?
Your internal reader may be hooked up to a USB 1.1 even though your computer has USB 2.0.

Why? Manufacturing concerns (saving a buck).

I bought an HP PC that was like this and it (the internal reader) was slower than molasses in January.

I have a new Dell XPS 410 now and the internal reader screams, at least 10 times faster! (really!) It is 5 times faster than my Sandisk external reader hooked up to USB 2.0.

I suspect it is do to internal bus speeds of a higher performing motherboard. More knowledgeable people can speak to this better than I.