speed of common technologies

[supernova777]

i believe these are "theoretical top speeds" not real world..

100BASE-T         12.5 mb/s
FW400      50 MB/s
gigabit ethernet   125 MB/s
ISA 8-bit      2.39 MB/s
ISA 16-Bit      8.33 MB/s
EISA 32bit          33.32 MB/s
NuBus 10 MHz   40 MB/s
NuBus90 20 MHz   80 MB/s
32bit CardBus 1   66.66 MB/s   
32bit CardBus 2   133.33 MB/s
PCI 32bit/33MHz   133.33 MB/s  (most short pci cards)
PCI 32bit/66MHz   266.7 MB/s
PCI 64bit/33MHz   266.7 MB/s (most mac pci slots)
AGP 1×           266.7 MB/s
AGP 2×           533.3 MB/s (sawtooth/gigabit)
PCI 64bit/66MHz   533 MB/s
PCI 64bit/100MHz   800 MB/s
AGP 4×            1.067 GB/s (digital Audio / Quicksilver  / MDD)
PCI-X 133       1.067 GB/s
PCIE 1.0 (×8)     2 GB/s
PCIE 2.0 (×4)     2 GB/s
AGP 8x      2.133 GB/s
PCIE 1.0 (×16)    4 GB/s
PCIE 2.0 (×8)     4 GB/s
PCIE 2.0 (×16)    8 GB/s
PCIE 3.0 (×16)    15.75 GB/s

[supernova777]

ATA-66 : 66MB/s
ATA-100: 100MB/s
ATA-133: 133MB/s

[MacTron]

In my experience real speed are usually 80% of theoretical speed. Usually alongside the "visible data" a lot of other data is transferred (control data ,check data etc

[supernova777]

In my experience real speed are usually 80% of theoretical speed. Usually alongside the "visible data" a lot of other data is transferred (control data ,check data etc

^^ agreed.. in my experience.. 60-70%
if you get 80% you are lucky + blessed

its also interesting to note the NUBUS superiority over conventional PC technologies of the same time.. ISA
pretty easy to see why pro tools was on mac only;)

i just realized this chart is missing an entry:
PCI 64bit/66MHz   533 MB/s
maybe u can edit this in, because im unable to modify this post

didnt we discuss some g4 xserve having pci64/66mhz slots?

[MacTron]

i just realized this chart is missing an entry:
PCI 64bit/66MHz   533 MB/s
maybe u can edit this in, because im unable to modify this post

Ok, it is done.

didnt we discuss some g4 xserve having pci64/66mhz slots?

Yes, it is.

[supernova777]

few other additions here and ive sorted by speed
as we can see the best technologies for mac os 9 i will bold;)

ISA 8-bit      2.39 MB/s
ISA 16-Bit      8.33 MB/s
100BASE-T         12.5 mb/s
ATA-33: 33MB/s *** (powermac g3/g4 yikes disk interface)
EISA 32bit          33.32 MB/s
NuBus 10 MHz   40 MB/s
FW400      50 MB/s *** (real world: 33 MB/s)
USB2.0 60 MB/s  *** (real world: 25MB/s)
ATA-66 : 66MB/s *** (most powermac g4 disk interface)
32bit CardBus 1   66.66 MB/s
NuBus90 20 MHz   80 MB/s
FW800 80 MB/s ***  (real world: 45MB/s)
ATA-100: 100MB/s ***
gigabit ethernet   125 MB/s
32bit CardBus 2   133.33 MB/s
PCI 32bit/33MHz   133.33 MB/s  (in most pcs + most short pci cards for mac)
ATA-133: 133MB/s ***
SATA150 150MB/s *** (real world burst:115MB/sec ... sustained: 58 MB/sec )
PCI 32bit/66MHz   266.7 MB/s
PCI 64bit/33MHz   266.7 MB/s (most mac pci slots)
AGP 1×           266.7 MB/s
SATA300 (sata2) 300 MB/s ***
AGP 2×           533.3 MB/s (sawtooth/gigabit)
PCI 64bit/66MHz   533 MB/s
SATA600 (sata3) 600 MB/s ***
USB3.0 600 MB/s ***
PCI 64bit/100MHz   800 MB/s
AGP 4×            1.067 GB/s (digital Audio / Quicksilver  / MDD)
PCI-X 133       1.067 GB/s
thunderbolt 1.250 GB/s ***
PCIE 1.0 (×8)     2 GB/s
PCIE 2.0 (×4)     2 GB/s
AGP 8x      2.133 GB/s
PCIE 1.0 (×16)    4 GB/s
PCIE 2.0 (×8)     4 GB/s
PCIE 2.0 (×16)    8 GB/s
PCIE 3.0 (×16)    15.75 GB/s

so u can get better performance using a network fileserver then u can with a firewire drive (use your rotational drives here?)
but the best transfer speed will be sata/esata 150 (best used with SSD) which kicks the crap out of FW400 or FW800
but this is not TOO TOO much better then using ATA100/ATA133 (addon card) with SSD (ide ssd or via sata converter)
(aga133 vs sata150 isnt much different, real benefit is ssd access times + fast writing flash ram)

ATA66 is very much worth spending $$ on upgrading to ATA133 and using a pci slot - especially at low cost of ata133 pci cards
(ata66 is in every powermac g4 practically, so this means sawtooth,gigabit,digital audio, quicksilver models -  the mdd adds 1xATA100 but still has 1xATA66 port - make sure u are running your os drive off ata100+ speed connection port) but this mostly applies worst of all to the G3 powermac + yikes g4, which have only ATA-33 speed disk interface.. the worst of all - so adding ata133 or sata150 is a HUGE improvement!!!!!! for these pci graphics macs to jump from 33 to 133+

we can also see that lacking of gigabit ethernet is the biggest handicap (ie: 10-base t network speed SUCKS!)
so everyone with a pre-gigabit ethernet mac should 100% invest in a gigabit ethernet pci card
http://www.everymac.com/mac-answers/mac-os-9-classic-support-faq/gigabit-ethernet-for-macos-9-wireless-pc-cards-macos-9-compatible.html
this article helped me - i have 2 of these cards and they work well under mac os 9
im sure there are other cards if anyone knows of one please share that info!

http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-sort/ can be handy when looking up these facts

[supernova777]

another thing i see here is the similarities between PCI-X + AGP

PCI 64bit/33MHz == agp 1x

pci-x 66 == agp 2x,

pci-x 133 == AGP 4x

pci-x 266 == AGP 8x

which makes me think AGP doesnt even really exist..
but this is just a renamed PCI-X slot for graphics purposes;)
because they are exactly the same bandwidth wise
they are parallel in bandwidth these technologies

[supernova777]

according to this chart gigabit ethernet is faster then fw400 by a great deal..

it was briefly brought up by protoolsleguy ..
maybe it needs more thought?
could recording to a network drive be dependable?

[Knezzen]

according to this chart gigabit ethernet is faster then fw400 by a great deal..

it was briefly brought up by protoolsleguy ..
maybe it needs more thought?
could recording to a network drive be dependable?

Probably if you use a more stable protocol. Like iSCSI. Hence my question in the other thread

[MacTron]

according to this chart gigabit ethernet is faster then fw400 by a great deal...

Yes it is. But there is something weird about this...
Gigabit ethernet (1000 mbits/sec) should be 60% faster than FW 400 (400 mbits/sec). But accordingly to my tests with file transfers, it is just 20% faster than FW 400...

[MacTron]

another thing i see here is the similarities between PCI-X + AGP

PCI 64bit/33MHz == agp 1x

pci-x 66 == agp 2x,

pci-x 133 == AGP 4x

pci-x 266 == AGP 8x

which makes me think AGP doesnt even really exist..
but this is just a renamed PCI-X slot for graphics purposes;)
because they are exactly the same bandwidth wise
they are parallel in bandwidth these technologies

Yes it is. AGP is just a 32 bits PCI with increase clock speed. But the AGP 1 is 66 Mhz not 33. AGP 2 is at 133 Mhz and AGP 4 is 266 Mhz.

The main thing about AGP is that it has a privileged connection to the uninorth chip. Allowing really fast transfers between CPU and main memory to video cards.

[supernova777]

forgot to add:
usb 1.1 = a beastly.. 1.5Mb/s

LOL!!!

[blemk]

according to this chart gigabit ethernet is faster then fw400 by a great deal...

Yes it is. But there is something weird about this...
Gigabit ethernet (1000 mbits/sec) should be 60% faster than FW 400 (400 mbits/sec). But accordingly to my tests with file transfers, it is just 20% faster than FW 400...

What sort of tests and what do you have on the remote side (server)?

1000 mbits/sec should come come out to approx 125 megabytes per second.. On a destination system/server capable of over 500 megabtyes per second with gigabit network interfaces in between and fairly substantial gigabit switch, seen approx 111 megabytes per second as actual peek throughput. (which is pretty much right on with max of 100 mbit/sec forced link speed (resulting in about 11 megabytes per second instead of theoretical approx of 12.5).

This is going to depend highly on everything in between though. There are less than stellar gigabit nic chipsets out there and far from ideal gigabit switches. After all of that, you still have to have a storage system on the remote end fast enough to deal with the IO (random or sequential) to max out the 1gb interface. Sequential, with any decent sata chipset and sata ssd of relative modern age should be able to max out 1 gigabit nic connection if sequential access. Random... Well.. Then you might see far less than FW400's max across a 1gb nic link under the right conditions.

[MacTron]

What sort of tests and what do you have on the remote side (server)?

I have used two MDDs connected via Gigabit Ethernet and Firewire (TCP/IP). I've transferred a few real files and I've measured the transfer speed ...
Gigabit is faster than FW400, but I was really surprised of the great results of Firewire 400.

[supernova777]

I think fw400 could present a faster handshaking + initiation of the transfers... and this is where it makes up the extra speed!

[blemk]

I think fw400 could present a faster handshaking + initiation of the transfers... and this is where it makes up the extra speed!

Could see it depending on chipset and driver design/efficiency for chipset of the nic.  Way back in the day I remember when generic realtek 8139 driver was released for pre-x mac os versions (pre-x for that matter).. Driver was horrible compared to win/lin version.

Not advertising/selling, but think the guy on ebay still has a bunch of usb 2.0  fw400/800 enclosures for $12 (approx.) each if anyone is interested I will post link or pm and I can send. They did work well on the fw400/800 (at 400) ports under os 9 on my MDD.  Haven't had a chance to flat out benchmark from Mac perspective the onboard gb nic but got to view stats a bit from my server.

[supernova777]

so on my own personal network i get 40MB/s consistantly to my fileserver..
but it spikes up + above that sometimes i see speeds up to 80MB/s

it would be amazing to consistantly get 80MB-100MB/s on gigabit ethernet..
while the speed is listed here as 125MB/s thats a theoretical max..

i wish it was my real world speed tho;)

firewire 400 + gigabit ethernet seems to be about the same speed for me
at least the speeds that i manage to get..

maybe if i was copying from SSD->SSD then id get 80MB/s speeds..

whats everyone elses top speed (consistant) for gigabit ethernet?

[Ozfer]

100BASE-T is 100Mb/s not 12.5 maybe you were thinking MB/s? I see how you seem to be trying to measure everything in BYTES but people typically measure gigabit and 100 megabit in bits as its easier to keep track of and more people recognize it. This is also because internet companies sell plans based on bits and not bytes because it looks like they are giving you 8x more to the normal untrained eye

I myself personally have actually had a record of 1.2Gb/s on gigabit internet (short amount of time) and can easily average at 800Mb/s. This speed is highly influenced by everything including all of your network equipment (routers, Ethernet card, switches)  to your cable companies equipment, and then all the hops to get to whatever web server you are going to never mind the hard drive of the computer your connecting to has to be able to read at 80MBs+ and not all old hard drives can do this. (I do have raid-0 SSDs so this is probably why I got such high speeds)

AGP is considerably different from PCI on systems. PCI bus is different from the AGP graphics bus. AGP bus connected directly to Northbridge while pci bus is on the southbridge. Furthermore they have their own bandwidths. You can saturate the PCI bus and still not be using all of the AGP bus. The pci-x bus enhances the PCI bus and uses 4 times the clock speed but is very similar to the regular PCI bus and was developed to replace the already slow bus. The AGP bus connects directly to the northbridge of a system to help with speed and it can directly interact with system ram using GART unlike PCI bus where a pci graphics card would have to copy system ram to its own ram instead of reading it directly. AGP is specifically designed for graphics cards and no other components can use it while PCI/PCI-X have other uses and are real buses (if you want to be technical AGP is NOT a bus it is just connecting two nodes only for use by graphics subsystems). To get further into this and become more technical the AGP bus has pipelining and sideband addressing, and AGP would not share bandwidth like PCI-X would. AGP also makes multiple requests for data while PCI makes only one request and doesn't make another until data is transferred. AGP uses transfers that are also 8 bytes in length while PCI uses 4 bytes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northbridge_(computing)#/media/File:Motherboard_diagram.svg

Sorry for rambling on about that for a long time but the general idea is AGP is not the same as PCI-X or PCI.

[geforceg4]

bits vs bytes.. whats the difference? 1 vs 8



that means that 100MegaBITS per second really means
in actuality (real life use) it is divided by 8 = 12.5 megaBYTES per second

[macStuff]

100BASE-T is 100Mb/s not 12.5 maybe you were thinking MB/s?

i did my research from google. googled it and got this:

100 megabits (100baseT) has a theoretical speed of 12.5 megabytes per second but usually sustained transfers are about 3-4 megabytes per second.Oct 16, 2002 https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/whats-the-real-world-performance-of-100baset-over-10baset.906585/

one of the biggest "os 9 take-aways" for anyone reading this thread should be that sata150 + gigabit ethernet vastly outperform firewire 800.