de Fresz wrote:

>>> AFAIR w FW dane lecą tylko przez kontroler, a w USB jeszcze przez
>>> procek, więc jeśli ten akurat ma co robić...
>>
>> Taaaa, nie no uwielbiam takie informacje "jedna pani drugiej pani"...
>
> Gugiel się Ci zepsuł?
>
> Za Wiki:
> Although high-speed USB 2.0 nominally runs at a higher signaling rate
> (480 Mbit/s) than FireWire 400, data transfers over S400 FireWire
> interfaces generally outperform similar transfers over USB 2.0
> interfaces. Typical USB PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of
> 280 Mbit/s, with 240 Mbit/s being more typical. This is likely due to
> USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol,
> whereas FireWire delegates the same tasks to the interface hardware.
> For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped
> devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the
> host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations.
>
> Jak ruszysz dupę, to na pewno dowiesz się na ten temat dużo więcej.
de Fresz wrote:

> Gugiel się Ci zepsuł?
>
> Za Wiki:
> Although high-speed USB 2.0 nominally runs at a higher signaling rate
> (480 Mbit/s) than FireWire 400, data transfers over S400 FireWire
> interfaces generally outperform similar transfers over USB 2.0
> interfaces. Typical USB PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of
> 280 Mbit/s, with 240 Mbit/s being more typical. This is likely due to
> USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol,
> whereas FireWire delegates the same tasks to the interface hardware.
> For example, the FireWire host interface supports memory-mapped
> devices, which allows high-level protocols to run without loading the
> host CPU with interrupts and buffer-copy operations.
>
> Jak ruszysz dupę, to na pewno dowiesz się na ten temat dużo więcej.

Ale rozumiesz to co zacytowałeć?

--
pozdrawiam
Mikołaj Tutak

--
pozdrawiam
Mikołaj