It will be hobbled by the speed of the hard drive it's copying from. As always. All these theoretical speeds are meaningless when you factor in the slowest part of the equation - the hard drive.

Does this mean we can ditch the traditional internal HDD in favour of a thumbstick in an internal USB3 socket?

I've seen plenty of USB2 cards with an internal socket for WiFi / Thumbsticks you want to keep internal.

So they send out a press release with a computer-rendering of a USB key, announcing that they'll move to USB3 eventually. (Well duh, all manufacturers will move to USB3 eventually). And you write an article as if this is news?

I mean, if they actually demo'd the product then that would be news. But this is just mindless PR.

How does a December release date and something akin to hard data on transfer rates equate to vapourware?

You did read the article, right?

WRT the transfer rates, being limited by the source is quite right - but if you have a mutli-disk array, then a USB3 SSD drive would be handy for backing up media servers, or at least shuffling HD content around if your network isn't too hot.

Roll on USB3 being standard, I could do with a quicker way to image/build PCs without all that tedious mucking about with PXE servers.

Steven R

"It should be ten times faster than USB 2.0, which runs at up to 480Mb/s, and this will make a big difference to large data transfers."

That bit was for IT directors, right? The ones who don't actually know anything about computers.