ECS Also Providing USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s Cards

Status
Not open for further replies.

tester24

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
415
0
18,780
0
Intel will realize it made big mistake by downplaying USB 3 like MS did with the internet. Not saying they are as big but I'm pretty sure I don't speak for myself when I say that I am sick of USB 2.0 slow speeds especially when it comes to external drives as well as flash drives.
 

Computer_Lots

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2007
189
0
18,680
0
Somebody needs to build a PCIx4 or X16 card with both USB 3.0 and SATA6 on a single card. This way anyone can just upgrade their existing PC to both new standards at once and only take up one more slot.

Of course, neither of these will really be cost efficient until they are integrated on motherboards.
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
[citation][nom]Computer_Lots[/nom]Somebody needs to build a PCIx4 or X16 card with both USB 3.0 and SATA6 on a single card. This way anyone can just upgrade their existing PC to both new standards at once and only take up one more slot.Of course, neither of these will really be cost efficient until they are integrated on motherboards.[/citation]
True, integration would be nice...
Also would be kind of cool if we just ditched SATA and eSATA altogether and used USB 3.0 only for all. I already have dozens of cables around my place, I don't need any more (plus SATA cables are too stiff for proper cable management).

I'd think one with two USB, 1 eSATA and two SATA would likely be the best on a 8x lane.

Now, how about PCIe 3.0?
And also how about GPUs recognizing what revision (PCIe 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc.) you have so it can detect how many external cables you need (PCIe 3.0 allowing all modern GPUs with any external cables).
 
Untill there are decent performing and cost effective devices for both USB3 and SATA3 its kind of useless but great to get the ball rolling for starters atleast.

As for PCIe 1x - its 250mb/s both way, the USB3 card will be fine (atleast quicker then ~44mb/s USB2) but SATA3 on PCIe 1x is useless when an onboard SATA2 controller can push ~270mb/s - beyond PCIE 1x
 

liquidsnake718

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
1,379
0
19,310
5
Thank you ECS..... after reading on Intel's decision to wait and see how the market will do without their usb3.0 support, I was discouraged to see a market leader "sit back" but now that Asus and ECS has stepped up to plate, this should wake intel up and push the market towards the medium and launch peripherals and the sort in 2010 for usb3.0!

Overall, Im happy as I can start planning for a true future proof build.......
 

tmc

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2007
99
0
18,630
0
I've read one of the reasons WHY usb 3.0 is in endless delay is that the chipset currently developed can not get full spec bandwith utilization and that successive chipsets will get steadily better.. The whole point of getting usb was to (try) make sata 1-2 and usb 1-2.0 obsolete. Bandwidth is supposed to be in the 10gigabit range although devices certainly won't spit out that kind of bandwidth all by themselves, they are supposed to co-exist to suck up that thruput.

I'd rather see this on the motherboard early next year than in add-on cards.. because motherboard designers really suck at making pci-e slots far enough apart so that they don't overlap with a video card. Generally on most boards, you lose a 1x pci-e slot during this tradeoff especially if you sli-crossfire config. When properly config'd a mb/ should have 2 x16 slots back-to-back (but far enough apart for cooling which means dont make them fatter than a 3.5" hard drive, dummies-- make cooler running chips!), an X1 or X4 slot, then 1 or 2(if there's room left) for legacy pci 2.X (without costing mega bucks $$)

** Then again, why not just make 2 x16 slots for video, and an x8 slot which can also pair down to 2 or 3 legacy pci slots with an adapter (yeah, how would that look? well, the x8 slot would utilize the next breakout on the case for wiring, obviously) 2010 is the year of new mobo sockets anyway.. might as well toss legacy pci as well.
 
[citation][nom]truerock[/nom]USB 2.0 flash drives are much too slow. I hope this is the beginning of solving that problem.[/citation]

Thats because of the flash side not the USB side (for most anyhow)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY