Mailing Lists: Apple Mailing Lists

Image of Mac OS face in stamp
 
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE:CPU Overhead compared to USB



Yes the statement is correct.

As to whether you would be better off with FireWire vs USB will be determined by factors like
a. Number of isochronous streams.
b. The sample rate, bit depth of the streams.
c. Price point your company wants the device at.


David
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:39:42 -0600
From: Thane Heninger <email@hidden>
Subject: CPU Overhead compared to USB
To: Apple <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

One developer who has worked with audio streaming on USB and FireWire
reported that USB needed much more CPU attention compared to FireWIre.

Can anyone comment on the truthfulness or falsehood of that statement?

We anticipate that we may be sending both isochronous and
asynchronous data in both directions on the bus, streaming multiple,
high frequency audio channels, while at the same time, running CPU
intensive software on the host. Would we be better off with FireWire
compared to USB? Would it make a big difference?

Thank you for your insight!

Thane Heninger
Harman Music Group



_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Firewire mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/firewire/email@hidden

This email sent to email@hidden


Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
1-800-MY-APPLE

Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.