BaldrSkies said:
Cobretti2 said:
BaldrSkies said:
The problem with the specific case of the Wii U is that it uses USB 2.0, which is just outrageously slow for the large data transfers required of modern games. Had Nintendo gone with USB 3.0 there would be no such issue. The fact of the matter is, combined with the lack of an ethernet port, it was a total cheap out that would have only slightly increased the cost of manufacture, but causes the console and the consumer suffering.
Also, the Xbox360 and PS3 both use 2.5" SATA drives, the same drives used in laptop computers. Not exactly difficult, although I believe it's necessary to do some modifications for the 360 drive. |
USB 2.0 is fine. Fifa Demo is like 1.2gb and took about a minute or so to copy from internal memory.
But I agree would be nice to have USB 3.0 for the small increase in cost
|
Well 1.2gb is small first off, there's portable games larger than that. But I mean in terms of the ability to load data while playing a game. USB2.0's maximum rate of 480Mbit is slow compared to even ancient SATA 1.0 at 1.5Gbit, let alone the more modern SATA2.0 and 3.0 at 3Gbit and 6Gbit respectively. In practice USB2.0 can only effectively throughput about 300Mbit, and in many cases may even run slower depending on the drive. It's just a terrible system to load huge games like LEGO City onto.
|
I'm thinking the same thing, the difference is after they said the disc drive was 22MB/s, USB2 sounded fine afterwards, since it'd still mean that the HDD's faster on transfer speed than the optical drive while providing better seek and access times in the end anyhow, no harm felt really.
Another thought is, how fast is your internet? While install time might take longer, the download speed is most likely not capping the HDD speed in most users' homes, so the only thing the users really are suffering from is a few more minutes of install time but doesn't effect gameplay. O_O;
Kinda moot now that we go into how it works in reality instead of basing on raw spec numbers isn't it?
