backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by atlmann10.. on Oct 27 at 12:07 AM

Delay will greatly impact USB 3.0 adoption in 2010

When it comes to backing up large amounts of data, many computer users will agree that USB 2.0 speeds are simply not fast enough. This has led to eSATA and other connectivity solutions that can provide more bandwidth than USB 2.0 is capable of for the storage industry.

Those looking forward to the wide rollout of USB 3.0 will be saddened to hear that the specification has been dealt a setback. This summer, expectations were that USB 3.0 devices and computers supporting USB 3.0 would be available before 2010.

A source at a top-tier computer maker has confirmed to EETimes that USB 3.0 support in key Intel chipsets has been postponed until 2011. Support for USB 3.0 was expected to show up in early 2010 for Intel chipsets. The same top-tier PC maker source also told EETimes that wireless USB was effectively dead. Rather than moving to wireless USB, which has had many supporting startups and interest groups close up shop, the industry buzz is now focusing on 60 GHz technology.

With Intel not offering wide support for USB 3.0 in its chipsets in 2010, adoption of the specification will reportedly be limited to a few high-end graphics workstations and consumer PCs. The makers of these systems will be forced to buy discrete host controllers for their boards, which will make the parts high-cost items.

The unnamed source added, "It's hard to commit to an emerging technology like this (USB 3.0) when the key silicon enablers are not making it a priority. You get into a chicken-and-egg situation." USB 3.0 "won't get real traction until it gets integrated in the chip sets," said the source.

As for why USB 3.0 was postponed after a big showing at IDF, the source told EETimes, "Tech and strategy groups (at Intel) are not always aligned with the product development teams that are in the mode of trying to make revenue and prioritize what to integrate."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

AMD!
By smilingcrow on 10/22/2009 10:40:54 AM , Rating: 3
What are AMD’s plans?




RE: AMD!
By MikeMurphy on 10/22/2009 10:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
And here I was waiting until USB3 and SATA 6gbs to upgrade my mobo and cpu. :(


RE: AMD!
By micksh on 10/22/2009 11:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4 should be available this year.
http://en.expreview.com/2009/10/17/gigabyte-preps-...


RE: AMD!
By semo on 10/22/2009 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
ooh this looks tasty. wonder if it is worth waiting for and how good those first gen controllers would be


RE: AMD!
By micksh on 10/22/2009 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 5
I guess this may be too expensive and may be delayed. Even GA-P55-UD4 - previous version without new SATA and USB is not widely available yet.
SATA 6 Gbps is too young, there are no available SSDs utilizing it so it's hard to tell if there will be compatibility problems or not. For example, do the first controllers support TRIM?

I think a safer and less expensive buy now is a motherboard with PCIe x4 slot that doesn't take bandwidth from main PEG x16 slot. Then when we have SATA 3.0 devices we can buy SATA 3.0 PCIe x4 card that will have been tested by that time. And PCIe x1 card should be good enough for USB 3.0

There is another ASRock P55 MB on the market with SATA 3.0 but it's a joke. SATA 6 Gbps is connected through PCIe 1x - slower speed than SATA 3 Gbps.
Asus constantly delays its SATA 3.0 MB - there must be some problems with the first implementations.


RE: AMD!
By semo on 10/22/2009 6:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
buy now is a motherboard with PCIe x4 slot that doesn't take bandwidth from main PEG x16 slot
If i understand correctly that counts all P55 mobos out since they only have 16 PCIe lanes?

Also, I think it will be hard to find any decent SATA 3 cards out there since even today i don't really know of a decent discrete sata controller that doesn't cost more than a top of the range mobo.


RE: AMD!
By micksh on 10/22/2009 6:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If i understand correctly that counts all P55 mobos out since they only have 16 PCIe lanes?

No. P55 chipset has its own 8 PCIe 1.0 lanes (apart from Lynnfield CPU which itself has 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes).
Some motherboards have a separate PCIe x16 (x4 electrical) slot that connects to P55 and it's independent from slot you use for video card. Like this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
This is the search that gives all such motherboards:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub...


RE: AMD!
By semo on 10/22/2009 7:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
good to know thanks!i think soon we might have to take a deeper look at motherboards and count the number of pci lanes rather than just slots. that is if pci ssds become more popular (mass storage without the wires... mmmmmm).sata2/3 is ideal for a couple of big hdds but full duplex PCIe is where SSDs should go i think.


RE: AMD!
By atlmann10 on 10/27/2009 12:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and ASUS also has a board released right now with 6 sata2 and 2 sata3 ports on board. From what I understand this board is active and shipping although it does not have USB3 the sata3 is there. I think Intel is going to loose on this really. I mean both sata3 and usb3 are spec'd, developed, and ready. Sata3 is being rolled out by some manufacturers now, I bet someone else will throw some usb3 somewhere at least before 2011. I understood Intel was not solo on this development anyway. In the current economy an add on like this (usb3) adds to a product, and many organizations don't have the time to wait that Intel does as well. So I think someone will talk some sense into someone, or go rogue and drop it themselves.


RE: AMD!
By TomZ on 10/22/2009 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think AMD would be able to signficantly increase marketshare by adding USB 3.0 support a few months before Intel, if that's what you're getting at. USB 3.0 isn't a key purchasing decision for most of the market. That is why it is being delayed.

I don't like the decision, but I can understand it.


RE: AMD!
By Karandar on 10/22/2009 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 3
The AMD SB850 supposedly supports SATA 3 6gb, but no mention of AMD supported USB 3 yet from the roadmaps I have seen.

From what I have read the SB850 chip should be out as early as 1st of the year.

I want SATA3 and a SATA3 SSD. They can actually use some of the extra bandwidth :)

Our best hope to get usb3 will be from the likes of ASUS and Gigabyte adding in the 3rd party NEC chip or the like on their motherboards.

I think you will see 3rd parties one up Intel yet again next year...


RE: AMD!
By micksh on 10/22/2009 1:47:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the SB850 chip should be out as early as 1st of the year

1st day, week, month, quarter, or, perhaps, first half of the year?


RE: AMD!
By Operandi on 10/22/2009 2:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
I had a NEC USB2.0 chip way back on one of my VIA chipset Athlon machines and it always worked without a hitch.


RE: AMD!
By hyvonen on 10/22/2009 2:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
I loved the NEC USB card! Back then when I was still using AMD CPUs (w/ VIA chipsets), the Via USB2.0 just WOULD NOT WORK. Ever. Probably a driver issue.

NEC was flawless. Worked every time. Fast.

Of course, since I switched to Intel, USB2.0 has been flawless. Works every time. Fast.


Just wanted to know
By amanojaku on 10/22/2009 11:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
How many of us actually care? I don't see this affecting anyone other than mobile users and people who use USB as backup. I've long since switched to network storage for both, so for me USB is just for a mouse, keyboard, and the occasional optical disc. I'm not being an ass, I'm just curious what people are using high speed USB devices for these days.




RE: Just wanted to know
By fleshconsumed on 10/22/2009 11:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
I have external hard drive for backup, plus I occasionally need to pull info from old drives/broken computers, in which case I once again use external enclosure. Transferring big amounts of data over USB 2.0 is plain painful. I have eSATA port on motherboard, but for some reason it's finicky on both Vista and Win7, maybe my regular hard drive doesn't spin fast enough because Win7 has trouble recognizing eSATA enclosure when I turn it on. Plus VMWare doesn't support eSATA, but does support USB devices, so when I need to connect external enclosure to VMWare machine, I have to use USB connection.


RE: Just wanted to know
By bissimo on 10/22/2009 11:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, external HDD's are the only economical backup solution for video editing. I cycle through 1TB projects monthly and have to have every one of them instantly available for revisions. Network storage isn't an option when you've got 50+ TB and growing of backups.
USB 3.0 sounds nice, but for now, eSATA is doing the job for us.


RE: Just wanted to know
By aapocketz on 10/22/2009 1:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I have a NAS for document backup but I still use eSATA for fast bulk storage and archiving. I do wish eSATA delivered power on the same connector, I have a eSATA drive docking station (thermaltake) but it has an AC adapter for power, and it doesn't power down the drives when not in use, which is annoying.

One important thing to remember when comparing USB to eSATA, USB is used to connect various devices and not just bulk storage media.


RE: Just wanted to know
By jonmcc33 on 10/22/2009 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
The people that use USB for backup outweigh those that use network (gigabit) by about 100,000 to 1. Well, at least home users. NAS boxes are still pricey and most people would be oblivious on how to even connect it to their network...as evident of how many people running unsecured wireless networks or wireless with WEP encryption.

I'm looking forward to USB 3.0 as eSATA has never been appealing to me. In the end I might end up getting a PCIe USB 3.0 card instead if they aren't going to integrate them into chipsets yet.


RE: Just wanted to know
By Silverel on 10/22/2009 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 3
This nicest thing about using USB/Sata backups over a network backup is the amount of safety involved. Your external drive is no longer plugged into anything, used very sparesly, and can be locked up in a fireproof safe. There's 0 chance for data corruption in a fire-proof safe while disconnected from the world. Leave that NAS running 24/7 (like most do), and relative chances are infinitely higher for loss.

That being said, I just give my stuff to Google. If they run into massive data corruption, the whole internet is screwed anyway.


RE: Just wanted to know
By mindless1 on 10/25/2009 5:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
You have that totally, totally backwards. External drives are far more prone to corruption from a PC OS crash/disconnect cache loss on USB and SATA, connecting to the PC means potential infection from malware because the client system has higher exposure rate than a server only accessible on the lan rather than wan, external power supplies are much lower quality on average than internal ones.

There was even a very high infection rate recently from a virus that specifically targets removable storage.

Trust me on this, my 10 year old fileserver has never lost a bit of data but I constantly hear of external drives failing.

Maybe the worse possible option is giving it to someone else online, then you have no control at all over what happens and recent news of a certain storage provider losing massive data should remind of this.

No, the best storage isn't some tacked-on cheap external enclosure, it is an independent full system build from and coded for the exact purpose. Of course that also means RAID redundancy and if you are serious about the potential for fire don't bother with the fireproof safe, your hard drive's PCB is soldered together (fire safe cannot guarantee contents stay below that melting point or the actual HDD max storage spec which is even lower!) and a safe can't keep it cool enough, you then need to maintain an off-site backup of the on-site file server.


Why is USB3.0 needed again?
By namechamps on 10/22/2009 11:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
eSATA works, is cheap, and is becoming more common on motherboards.

USB3.0 has the advantage of power but it doesn't have enough capped at 4.5W that isn't enough to run all 3.5" drives. The 15W firewire provides would be more universal.

SATA 6Bps will provide more than enough bandwidth. Simply update the eSATA spec to have a backwards compatible connector & cable that supports data & power.




RE: Why is USB3.0 needed again?
By Silver2k7 on 10/22/2009 11:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
would have been nice if they had added firewire then we would atleast have had a standard interface :/

from what ive heard about eSata you have to start the computer with the device hookedup or reboot to get it working..

my motherboard didn't come with esata so ive never tested it, but if the above is the case this tech sux.

just give us some USB3 add-in cards and a hdd dockingstation, pmp's, external hdds, and flash few drives and all will be forgiven =)


RE: Why is USB3.0 needed again?
By Pirks on 10/22/2009 12:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From what I've heard about e-SATA you have to start the computer with the device hooked up or reboot to get it working
Not if you configure it in AHCI mode in BIOS.


RE: Why is USB3.0 needed again?
By XZerg on 10/22/2009 11:23:58 AM , Rating: 3
The issue with eSATA is that it still is a port that's not as widely used and available as USB is. So having USB3.0 lets you get the performance from systems that support it and also be able to use it on older USB standards which is available almost on 99.9% computers nowadays, if not 100%. eSATA was not available on >90% of existing systems and even now is available on maybe few desktop motherboards and almost 1-5% on laptops. So the USB3.0 is a better option over eSATA, even when LightPeak comes out - ease of finding a system with the USB port.


RE: Why is USB3.0 needed again?
By fatedtodie on 10/23/2009 7:39:00 AM , Rating: 2
There is also the issue of cable length for eSata. The max cable length is
"Maximum cable length of 2 metres (6.6 ft) (USB and FireWire allow longer distances.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esata#External_SATA

While 6 feet seems like a lot for cables, when you can get USB printer cables of 25-50 feet that can be daisy chained, you can setup confrence rooms not looking like crap.


RE: Why is USB3.0 needed again?
By mindless1 on 10/25/2009 5:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Uhh no, you can't get USB printer cables of 25-50 feet unless they are violating the spec, USB max is 15 feet and requires pretty good quality cable for that or some devices won't work.

You are totally ignoring better tech for the purpose, there are tons of wifi and ethernet capable printers on the market, actually almost any decent quality printer supports one or the other if not both.


bloody hell
By XZerg on 10/22/2009 10:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
damned Intel...

I wonder what AMD is up to on this? SATA6 and USB3 should attract few users more if AMD manages to one up Intel on this early on. But I won't hold my breathe on them either - their priority needs to be on the cpu front where they are bleeding/hurting very badly.

Although MSI was known to have a board ready that has USB3 and SATA6 support - obviously not native - but beats no support or an addin card that costs arm and a leg.




RE: bloody hell
By geddarkstorm on 10/22/2009 1:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Intel just made a fiber optic port which can scale from 10 Gbps to 100 Gbps (if I remember right). They are probably turning their focus to that, as it blows USB and anything else out of the water.


RE: bloody hell
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/22/2009 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
That was my frst thought too. Why should Intel push USB3 when they can get royalty payments pushing thier tech?
That worked for HDMI....


RE: bloody hell
By Don321 on 10/22/2009 3:35:15 PM , Rating: 1
Why was there no DailyTech article on Light Peak even though every other tech website had one and it's pretty big news for the industry? Maybe I just didn't see it, but regardless, who cares about USB 3.0 when Light Peak is around the corner anyway?


Not all bad
By fleshconsumed on 10/22/2009 11:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well, between lack of SATA3 and USB3 this means I don't have a really compelling reason to upgrade from my 9550 @ 3.4GHz + SSD. This rig should serve me well for another year and a half.




RE: Not all bad
By KingstonU on 10/22/2009 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in the exact same boat, 3.6GHz Q9550 and soon an SSD. Though I am thinking that PCIe SSD is going to prove itself to be a much better solution than Current SATA 2 SSD's and future SATA 3 SSD's.

It is already possible and PCIe is as widely available as USB. There are already products (Like OCZ Z-series) with more on the way, and the speeds are already faster than SATA 3 will ever be, reaching 1000MB/s read/write already.

Now if they make one in the next couple months at same random read/write speeds as Indilix/Intel drives, ~500MB/s sequential read/write speeds, and $3/GB and TRIM. I'm in.


RE: Not all bad
By RubberJohnny on 10/22/2009 11:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now if they make one in the next couple months at same random read/write speeds as Indilix/Intel drives, ~500MB/s sequential read/write speeds, and $3/GB and TRIM. I'm in.

Keep dreaming...


RE: Not all bad
By motigez1 on 10/23/2009 5:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Expect New SSD's with 500MB/s early next year with similar random, and I think this time AMD (SB 8xx) will have a head start over Intel in both SATA 3 and USB 3.0 of at least 6 months.
It will remain up to us the consumers to thank AMD for the innovation and buy more of their systems.
For the enthusiastic, AMD will surely going to have I/O advantage!


really????
By Iridium130m on 10/22/2009 10:37:47 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Delay will greatly impact USB 3.0 adoption in 2010


noo....reallly?




Single biggest blunder since the P4
By FXi on 10/22/2009 7:32:59 PM , Rating: 4
This is the single biggest mistake since the P4. And it's probably bigger.

The #1 way for laptops to communicate is via USB. This is a 10x increase in speed and it's take 8 years to come around. Intel was on the founding committee to develop the spec. And they "didn't know what was going on because that was in another development group"?

Don't know what kind of a company Intel is, but where I come from, to miss a development cycle on this massive a scale would cause people to lose jobs, big people and big jobs. The economy is down, but that's not why the tech sector is suffering. The tech sector has issued nothing but minor updates for the past 3 years. The first major change was the integration of the memory controller, but this is the #1 way PC's talk to peripherals, and they missed the boat.

Now let's suppose the 30% of the potential buying public puts off purchases because of this delay. People are spending money a lot more carefully and there isn't the kind of free money there used to be. So that would be a huge loss of sales in an economy that needs those sales. They'll blame it on "no one is buying" when it's really "we aren't selling the stuff right now that people want in their tech items".

8 years and they missed the boat. Nice job Intel. Your shareholders are sure going to be pissed off.




darn too bad
By MadMan007 on 10/22/2009 11:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
If these standards aren't built in to Sandy Bridge chipsets that would be a real failure. As it is we knew they would be add-ons for anything before then. I'm curious too to see what AMD will do.




AMD and USB3
By haukionkannel on 10/22/2009 5:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well even if AMD comes out with USB3 support, it does not help much. The situation is same as it was with 64 bit computing. If the AMD is the only one supporting USB3 there is not so many devices that would use USB3 because "majority" of computers would not use it.
The only advantage would be that if you buy USB3 now, it can be used one day when there are other devices that support USB3... Read: after Intel also start supporting it... And it can be late 2011 if this "rumour" is correct.
Allso USB3 devices are most likely more expensive than USB2 deviced when it is released, so it's not worth of it in being early adaptor. USB3 would be usefull to many users, but it seems to be in limbo at this moment...




By SiliconAddict on 10/22/2009 6:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I know I'm right. We have another format war brewing because of Intel....and Apple.

USB2 needs to die NOW damn it. It was too slow when it came out. Now? Its worthless. >:(




No native support? So what!
By Taft12 on 10/22/2009 7:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about chipset support, just let Asus and Gigabyte put a USB 3.0 chip on the board or (worst case scenario) give me a PCI express card with a USB 3.0 interface!

Is this really a big deal? The devices will be overpriced until 2011 anyway.




Gigayte will make USB 3.0
By maroon1 on 10/23/2009 6:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
Even though Intel Corp. just announced that they will be delaying USB 3.0 implementation into Intel chipsets until 2011 doesn’t mean other computer parts manufacturers such as Gigabyte or Asus etc.

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=30...




Gigabyte will make USB 3.0
By maroon1 on 10/23/2009 7:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
Even though Intel Corp. just announced that they will be delaying USB 3.0 implementation into Intel chipsets until 2011 doesn’t mean other computer parts manufacturers such as Gigabyte or Asus etc., can’t get a head start themselves by indeed using the NEC USB 3.0 host controller instead.

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=30...




I saw this coming
By toyotabedzrock on 10/26/2009 10:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
The P55 only has a tiny DMI link to the CPU even if they had USB3.0 it wouldn't matter because it would be bottle-necked. Same goes for SATA6.




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki