1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Intel backtracks on USB 3

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Claave, 7 Sep 2010.

  1. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!

    About time Intel gained some sense!
    Yep.
    Most of those implementations make single GPU setups lose PCI Express x16, it reverts to PCI Express x8.
     
  2. crazyceo

    crazyceo New Member

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    563
    Likes Received:
    8
    All Intel are doing here is exactly the same as AMD. Reading the topic AMD have gone to Renesas. The current and new versions of boards have already gone to a third party. So how is this any different? How are we disadvantaged?
     
  3. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!
    Define "We"...

    Most of the implementations of USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps chips on current Intel chipseted MBs make single GPU configuations work at PCI Express 8x, the rest of the bandwidth is used for USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps.
    AMD is puting USB 3.0 directly on the chipset*, bypassing that limitation. And it seems Intel is following the same path after having insisted on LightPeak.

    PS:
    * - AMD is currently in talks with Renesas Electronics, which was merged with Japan-based NEC, about the licensing of USB 3.0 technology, and is considering integrating USB 3.0 support in its upcoming Hudson D1 southbridge chipsets, according to sources from notebook makers.
     
  4. crazyceo

    crazyceo New Member

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    563
    Likes Received:
    8
    We, as in the general public.

    But we have seen boards here with USB3/Sata6Gbps and GPU configurations working at PCIe 16X and multiple sockets as well.

    I really don't see how we (and not the royal we) have been disadvantaged all this time by Intel when I can't see how.
     
  5. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    As far as I know the fastest BR recorder is Pioneer's 12 speed deck, with a maximum theoretical throughput of 432 Mbit/s, i.e. within the 480 Mbit/s rated speed of USB 2. I doubt BR recorder's are going to get much quicker (famous last words??) as adoption seems to have been pretty lackluster so far, at least in the consumer space. I for one don't have a BR recorder, and can't remember the last time I burned a CD or DVD - why bother with cheap big flash drives (physically much smaller, reusable, don't need a drive at the other end, more robust and more convenient) for moving files and external HDDs for backup?

    Otherwise, I agree - external HDDs and SSDs will benefit from USB 3 or Light Peak, but to be honest the backwards compatibility of USB 3 is likely to see it win mass adoption. I see Light Peak going the way of Firewire - lots of love from video pros, otherwise limited adoption.
     
  6. Altron

    Altron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    3,186
    Likes Received:
    61
    Fiber home networking or fiber HD-video streaming, or fiber home backups, it makes sense.

    The advantages of fiber is that it's more robust and has less attenuation. You can fit a lot more data onto a single fiber strand than you can a single copper conductor, and you can go miles and miles before attenuation hits, or you become dispersion-limited.

    If you have very long arms, and want your mouse to be 50m from the PC instead of the usual 5m limit of USB, then optical might be nice. But for the short distances that most peripherals are, you're not running into problems with copper.
     
  7. murtoz

    murtoz Busy procrastinating

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    205
    Likes Received:
    8
    Because the board manufacturers (NOT intel) add additional chips to the board next to the intel chipset to enable this.
    For which WE the consumer have to pay. Someone above said it very well... board manufacturers have to decide whether they want lower BOM costs & more redisgn work - or higher BOM costs but no redesign.

    My guess is they will mostly redesign... (fingers crossed)
     
  8. crazyceo

    crazyceo New Member

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    563
    Likes Received:
    8
    So all Intel are doing is adding USB3 to their chipset and cutting out the third party providers or are they just linking up with a third party like AMD have done? It isn't exactly clear what they are doing.

    How much of a difference will this make to the overall cost to us? or will the manufacturers just absorb that into their profits and not pass it on to us? Making no difference to us at all.
     
  9. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!
    USB 3.0 capable motherboards will be cheaper to us once Intel motherboard reference designs incorporate USB 3.0 via chipset. There will be no need for motherboard manufacturers to create their own USB 3.0 solutions.
     
  10. crazyceo

    crazyceo New Member

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    563
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm not convinced it will to be honest. If a Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H costs £73 currently on Aria and the Gigabyte GA-H55M-USB3 is £85 on Aria, would we really see that drop with Intel incorporating USB3 via their chipset? Wouldn't Intel just increase their cost to the manufacturer?

    (I know it's not an exact comparison but it's pretty damn close)
     
  11. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!
    Sure, Intel would increase its chipset price to the manufacturer, compared to the USB 2.0 chipset.
    But the manufacturer wouldnt have to buy a USB 3.0 from NEC (or whatever...) and would not have to redesign the MB layout.
    So the price would sit between 73 and 85.
     
  12. Fusioncat

    Fusioncat New Member

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guys, humbly forget USB 3.0. Why?
    Lightpeak has speed
    eSATAp (eSATA/USB) has compatibility, speed, economical
    Implementing eSATAp simply requires a ZERO driver USD 12 Delock bracket
    eSATAp can be Hotswap! (Freeware)
    99% of machines/HDD/SSD/DVD/Blueray have SATA port
    50% of the notebook/pc now have eSATAp
    80% of the NAS have eSATA (port multiplier)
    eSATAp can operate in IDE mode, no need BIOS ahci or OS registry tweak
    NCIX and Crunchgear have proven eSATAp is as fast if not faster than USB 3.0
     
  13. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    Great, but are they going to put eSATA on phones or MP3 players or those stupid little USB fans, or those really cool USB dart launchers?

    As you point out, USB3 has it's disadvantages for large data transfers, but it has the big advantage of being, well, universal. Unless a lot of things change, you're not going to unplug your external hard drive from your eSATA port and plug in your new mouse. eSATA is only good for one thing, moving lots of data fast, USB is good for lots and lots of things, even if it is a little slower.
     
  14. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!
    And lets not forget it is compatible with previous USB versions.
     
  15. Horden

    Horden New Member

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    USB 3.0 should lead the way until Intels Light Peak without a doubt.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page