Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share


Table of Contents

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

USB 2.0 interface has become an inalienable part of any contemporary computer, but the device connected to this port will not always perform at its maximum. The reason for this phenomenon is most frequently the use of various USB 2.0 controllers designed by different manufacturers, which actually demonstrate different efficiency in real life. They are exactly the ones to blame in most cases, when your super-fast external storage device, for instance, doesn’t show the desires speed.

In this situation it is necessary to make sure that the USB 2.0 controller in your system will not act as a limiting factor for the performance of your external device. Since the manufacturers roll out new USB 2.0 controllers every now and then, it makes sense to compare the performance of the newcomers with the already selling models. This is exactly what we are going to do today: we will check out the performance and efficiency of the new USB 2.0 solution from VIA.

Not so long ago there appeared a new USB 2.0 controller from the Taiwanese VIA Company. It was VT6212. This solution is intended to replace its predecessor known as VT6202. We have already devoted a lot of time to the performance investigations of USB 2.0 controllers by different manufacturers and of course, we couldn’t leave out the new solution from VIA. Especially, since VT6202 appeared a little bit below our expectations in the previous test session.


So, what is so special about VT6212. In our case it was a PCI controller card. In order to give it a more detailed description I would like to draw a few parallels with the older product, VT6202. Just like its predecessor, VT6212 supports 4 ports (downstream). Here there is nothing unexpected. And regarding all the rest, I would like to point out a few positive changes. The manufacturer claims that the new controller consumes less power, boasts higher actual interface bandwidth and supports PCMCIA Cardbus, which makes it suitable for mobile and low-profile computer systems.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]


Comments currently: 19
Discussion started: 03/05/04 06:14:54 AM
Latest comment: 12/16/15 10:26:48 PM

View comments

Add your Comment