Would you pay extra for USB 3.1 Gen2 for office PC?

[steffeeh]

I'm planning a build for my dad, which will be a home/office PC. And right now I've come to the point where I need to decide if it's worth investing extra money in getting a mobo with USB 3.1 Gen2 for the sole purpose of future proofing?

My dad currently have no user case scenario that currently would benefit from USB 3.1 Gen2 speeds, but the build is a lot about giving him a PC that will be reliable for years to come, and I have no idea if we're moving towards an era where you pretty much want a Gen2 port on the PC, even for home/office usage?

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[21rkosta]

how much extra, i mean if its like 10 bucks id say ya, but if its like 50 i would say no

[ProjectBox153]

Not worth it. USB 2 is good enough for office tasks.

[PenPoint]

In my opinion USB 3.1 Gen1 is enough.

[paddy-stone]

If it also has USB 3.1 gen 2 USB type C, then it might be worth it when they finally get around to having decent USB c ports on phones.. but if your dad isn't into phones/tablets then I can't forsee any usage where it would matter to him... and USB 3.0 is good enough for transference of data generally.

[Drak3]

If it's a few bucks now, perhaps. If It isn't. I would probably get a board with either a x1 slot above the x16 slot, or a board with two x16 slots and leave the second empty, then get a USB 3.1 G2 controller later.

[NumLock21]

Your dad's only benefit from getting USB 3.1 Gen 2 is only if he needs to do weekly backups on to a external HDD and is running late for dinner.

[JoostinOnline]

6 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Your dad's only benefit from getting USB 3.1 Gen 2 is only if he needs to do weekly backups on to a external HDD and is running late for dinner.

Wouldn't make any difference then anyway. Even USB3.0 has far more bandwidth than any hard drive (or SATA SSD) can make use of. 

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Wouldn't make any difference then anyway. Even USB3.0 has far more bandwidth than any hard drive (or SATA SSD) can make use of. 

USB 3.0 = 5Gb/s

SATA III = 6Gb/s

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

USB 3.0 = 5Gb/s

SATA III = 6Gb/s

Try putting a SATA drive in an enclosure and transferring a file sometime. 

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Try putting a SATA drive in an enclosure and transferring a file sometime. 

For HDD it won't make any difference. SSD on the other hand will. Running directly without a middle man is the best option. That middle man is the USB controller.

[Leonard]

Not unless it solved say a security issue, one of which i can't fathom but....

[JoostinOnline]

21 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

For HDD it won't make any difference. SSD on the other hand will. Running directly without a middle man is the best option. That middle man is the USB controller.

Running through an enclosure cuts down the transfer speed down by like 30%.  I've tested it out with multiple drives, multiple enclosures, and multiple computers. 

[mealto]

4 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

USB 3.0 = 5Gb/s

SATA III = 6Gb/s

This is what I never understood when I see these specs. SATA III drives even when connected internally transfer files at 60-100MB/s. External USB 2 docks used to max out at roughly 30MB/s. 5Gbps = 625MB / sec. I have not seen any harddrive internal or external reach this type of speed, not even close.

 

 

If the difference is $10-$20, you may consider it. Anything more, just leave things as is and expand later.

 

[dizmo]

Absolutely not. There's also no point in future proofing something like that, as I imagine the PC is an business expense and will soon have reached it's end of usefulness from a costing perspective before that standard is even needed.

 

Honestly, I'd say if you're even asking that, your office build is likely about twice what you should be paying.

10 hours ago, paddy-stone said:

If it also has USB 3.1 gen 2 USB type C, then it might be worth it when they finally get around to having decent USB c ports on phones.. but if your dad isn't into phones/tablets then I can't forsee any usage where it would matter to him... and USB 3.0 is good enough for transference of data generally.

Or, you know. Buy a cable that goes from USB A to USB C.

[steffeeh]

Thanks for the thoughts! Well I guess it's pretty obvious then that this isn't something to worry about.

 

On the contrary, the reason why it's not twice as much as what I should be paying is because I ask these questions and get your feedback.

The basic build is pretty much already complete and reviewed, I'm just asking if there are any features I shouldn't miss out on, and then edit the build if there would be something that should be added

[paddy-stone]

10 hours ago, dizmo said:

Absolutely not. There's also no point in future proofing something like that, as I imagine the PC is an business expense and will soon have reached it's end of usefulness from a costing perspective before that standard is even needed.

 

Honestly, I'd say if you're even asking that, your office build is likely about twice what you should be paying.

Or, you know. Buy a cable that goes from USB A to USB C.

Yes, but the way I understood his question to mean, if he's getting USB 3.1 Type A, he would probably be looking at boards that had USB 3.1 A and C... so I was just making a point that if it had USB 3.1 type C, IF phones finally start using type C to their full advantage then it might be worth it. I wasn't trying to say necessarily that he SHOULD get that at all... I was trying to think of any scenario where it would be useful.

[ProjectBox153]

17 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Wouldn't make any difference then anyway. Even USB3.0 has far more bandwidth than any hard drive (or SATA SSD) can make use of. 

If this was true, then why doesn't everyone just run Windows from a USB drive and why do we have SATA?

[Coaxialgamer]

Realistically, how many usb 3.1 drives do you own that can actually saturate a usb 3.0 link? 

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Jamiec1130 said:

If this was true, then why doesn't everyone just run Windows from a USB drive and why do we have SATA?

1) Because only special versions of Windows run via USB 

2) Because it runs slower through USB. I think maybe it doesn't enable AHCI, but I'm not sure.

3) Because external sucks. I'd rather have a slower internal drive than a faster external one. It's especially bad if you use a hard drive that needs extra power. 

 

In short, because SATA is better. However, we are nowhere near USB3.1 being something necessary for the average consumer. It's for external storage, not internal. My fastest flash drive, which cost $90 (before sales), gets roughly 100MB/s maximum R/W speeds. 

[ProjectBox153]

42 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

1) Because only special versions of Windows run via USB 

2) Because it runs slower through USB. I think maybe it doesn't enable AHCI, but I'm not sure.

3) Because external sucks. I'd rather have a slower internal drive than a faster external one. It's especially bad if you use a hard drive that needs extra power. 

 

In short, because SATA is better. However, we are nowhere near USB3.1 being something necessary for the average consumer. It's for external storage, not internal. My fastest flash drive, which cost $90 (before sales), gets roughly 100MB/s maximum R/W speeds. 

1) Not true. I run Windows 7 all the time via USB 2 and it's faster than my SATA 2 HDD. 

2) Not true. It runs better through USB than a lot of SATA drives I have (and that's a lot).

3) USB powered drives and flash drives are what I use. The USB HDD is faster. 

[JoostinOnline]

7 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

1) Not true. I run Windows 7 all the time via USB 2 and it's faster than my SATA 2 HDD. 

2) Not true. It runs better through USB than a lot of SATA drives I have (and that's a lot).

3) USB powered drives and flash drives are what I use. The USB HDD is faster. 

Run a benchmark on the drive when it's connected via USB and SATA. You should notice a difference. 

 

And did you run any sort of hacks to install Windows via USB? 

[ProjectBox153]

Just now, JoostinOnline said:

Run a benchmark on the drive when it's connected via USB and SATA. You should notice a difference. 

 

And did you run any sort of hacks to install Windows via USB? 

I don't care about benchmarks. They're just numbers. What I care for is real-life performance. It's not hard to do. You can use UUI (I think they've recently added that feature, but I haven't tried it yet) or WinToUSB (which I've used a LOT). It's not hard and works really well. I use it to have my own portable copy of Windows to use at places like school. 

[JoostinOnline]

32 minutes ago, Jamiec1130 said:

I don't care about benchmarks. They're just numbers. What I care for is real-life performance. It's not hard to do. You can use UUI (I think they've recently added that feature, but I haven't tried it yet) or WinToUSB (which I've used a LOT). It's not hard and works really well. I use it to have my own portable copy of Windows to use at places like school. 

That's my whole point. Other than a few special versions of Windows, you need to use hacks for a portable Windows. 

 

And no, they're not just numbers. Performance is lower via USB than via SATA. Just because other drives are slower, that doesn't mean that the one you're using wouldn't be faster via SATA. I'm a computer technician, I know what I'm talking about. 

 

This whole thing is beside the point. USB3.1 bandwidth won't be necessary for a long time. 

[ProjectBox153]

6 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's my whole point. Other than a few special versions of Windows, you need to use hacks for a portable Windows. 

 

And no, they're not just numbers. Performance is lower via USB than via SATA. Just because other drives are slower, that doesn't mean that the one you're using wouldn't be faster via SATA. I'm a computer technician, I know what I'm talking about. 

 

This whole thing is beside the point. USB3.1 bandwidth won't be necessary for a long time. 

Sorry to ruin your day, but I know what I'm doing also. You're right in the sense that USB 3.1 won't be necessary for a long time to come. But i'm just telling you that Windows runs fine with no issues from a USB drive. It's not a hack, merely another form of installation because the native Windows installer doesn't support USB drives.