PDA

View Full Version : USB 3.0 standard in the works


nekrosoft13
09-19-07, 04:24 PM
With the good old USB (2.0) port starting to show its limits, Intel has decided on rounding-up a few companies and getting together a new standard that would better serve the needs of future computer users. The recently-formed USB 3.0 Promoter Group includes Intel, HP, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, NEC and NXP Semiconductors and it set on bringing a USB standard that would be more than 10 times faster than USB 2.0 (480Mb/s) and more energy efficient.

The USB 3.0 standard would be compatible with 2.0 ports and will become the logical choice when transferring large files. The development of the USB 3.0 standard is in full swing and we should see the final specs in the first half of 2008. Finally.

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=16113&catid=6

Monolyth
09-19-07, 04:30 PM
Yay finally faster USB! Took long enough...

bob saget
09-19-07, 04:39 PM
good to hear i guess

Tuork
09-19-07, 05:42 PM
Wonder if this would make way for future external GPU's...
As far as I researched, the main limitation is that there is no current port with enough bandwidth to support PCIe.
:)

retsam
09-19-07, 05:49 PM
With the good old USB (2.0) port starting to show its limits, Intel has decided on rounding-up a few companies and getting together a new standard that would better serve the needs of future computer users. The recently-formed USB 3.0 Promoter Group includes Intel, HP, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, NEC and NXP Semiconductors and it set on bringing a USB standard that would be more than 10 times faster than USB 2.0 (480Mb/s) and more energy efficient.

The USB 3.0 standard would be compatible with 2.0 ports and will become the logical choice when transferring large files. The development of the USB 3.0 standard is in full swing and we should see the final specs in the first half of 2008. Finally.

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=16113&catid=6what devices now push the 2.0 limits?..and when they say energy efficient does it mean now that devices arent going to be able to pull power off the line?

Rakeesh
09-19-07, 06:05 PM
Wonder if this would make way for future external GPU's...
As far as I researched, the main limitation is that there is no current port with enough bandwidth to support PCIe.
:)

Actually there is, PCIe x16 in fact, just AFAIK nobody has produced any hardware that uses it.

Monolyth
09-19-07, 06:08 PM
what devices now push the 2.0 limits?..and when they say energy efficient does it mean now that devices arent going to be able to pull power off the line?

They can't push the limits on an interface that is not built for speed. Sure USB 2.0 is miles ahead of USB 1.1 in terms of speed, but it cannot touch 1394 in transfer speeds. It really depends on what the interface is designed to do, USB was initially designed around simple peripherals: Mouse, keyboard, scanner, printer. Basically items that don't necessarily require faster transfer speeds. 1394 was designed around having fast transfer speeds.

With the wide-acceptance of USB now for large capacity devices hopefully 3.0 will spec it for faster x-fer speeds on 3.0 devices, one can only hope.

Rakeesh
09-19-07, 06:17 PM
They can't push the limits on an interface that is not built for speed. Sure USB 2.0 is miles ahead of USB 1.1 in terms of speed, but it cannot touch 1394 in transfer speeds. It really depends on what the interface is designed to do, USB was initially designed around simple peripherals: Mouse, keyboard, scanner, printer. Basically items that don't necessarily require faster transfer speeds. 1394 was designed around having fast transfer speeds.

Eh? 1394 does 400mbps bandwidth vs USB's 480mbps bandwidth.

jolle
09-19-07, 06:23 PM
Eh? 1394 does 400mbps bandwidth vs USB's 480mbps bandwidth.
Firewire 800 is 800mbps.
Altho I think Firewire 400 is often faster in realworld application then USB2.0, even tho it has a lower theoretical max speed.
Its more like peer to peer, when USB has to go via CPU or somesuch.

nekrosoft13
09-19-07, 06:49 PM
Eh? 1394 does 400mbps bandwidth vs USB's 480mbps bandwidth.

that has nothing to do with real speed

USB 2.0 would give you abour 30-34mb/s while firewire will give constant 40mb/s

Monolyth
09-19-07, 06:54 PM
Firewire 800 is 800mbps.
Altho I think Firewire 400 is often faster in realworld application then USB2.0, even tho it has a lower theoretical max speed.
Its more like peer to peer, when USB has to go via CPU or somesuch.

Exactly there's much more overhead with USB then with Firewire (even Firewire 400, 1394a). Going by the numbers alone is often-times causes a large misconception that FW400 is "slower" then USB 2.0, which I'm afraid just isn't true.

Monolyth
09-19-07, 06:56 PM
that has nothing to do with real speed

USB 2.0 would give you abour 30-34mb/s while firewire will give constant 40mb/s

Aye that is why FW is popular for high-end digital recording since many applications allow you to actually work with the content from the source rather then x-ferring it over then working with it. It just so happens that it's a boon for high-speed storage devices as well.

nV`andrew
09-19-07, 07:20 PM
firewire ftw
its good to see a new usb though

skank
09-19-07, 07:39 PM
Another reason Firewire 400 is faster than USB 2.0 is that Firewire is full duplex whereas USB 2.0 is only half duplex. ie Firewire can transmit and receive at the same time whereas USB 2.0 can only do one or the other, not both at the same time.

nekrosoft13
09-19-07, 10:13 PM
but if you have firewire like me, that for some f-ed up reason i'm only getting half the speed.

instead of 40mb/s i'm getting 20mb/s and only in vista

Joe Public
09-20-07, 12:19 PM
I'm looking to eSATA for external harddrives in the future. My mobo already has one of these ports, so I'm planning to make use of it.

nekrosoft13
09-20-07, 12:22 PM
I'm looking to eSATA for external harddrives in the future. My mobo already has one of these ports, so I'm planning to make use of it.

what controller you have? silicon image is giving me problems