hardcore_gamer
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2010
- 540
- 0
- 18,980
-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
Too many mistakes here, its scary people spread stuff like this.
Some facts. Intel never said that USB 3.0 would be on Sandy Bridge. Implementing USB 3.0 will not take up lanes needed for PCI-E 16x or 8x on Sandy Bridge, since the lanes off the south bridge are now full speed (double what they were on LGA 1156 chipsets. AMD has not implemented USB 3.0 on their chipsets.
Improvements on the Sandy Bridge platform are pretty substantial, compared to the x58 and P55 nonsense. They aren't any better than x48, and P55 is worse. No SATA 6.0Gbs, no full speed PCI-E 2.0 lanes off the south bridge, no USB 3.0. At least now, they added the first two, that latter of which makes USB 3.0 implementation much easier with an add-on chip.
There's got to be something difficult about USB 3.0 implementation on the chipset, since none of them have it. If it were just Intel that didn't have it, I'd join in the whining about it. But, AMD doesn't. VIA doesn't. There's a reason no one has it yet, and considering the technical successes of the these companies, it's not because they are incompetent. We'll see it soon enough, and at least now implementing on Intel isn't such a horror.
Some facts. Intel never said that USB 3.0 would be on Sandy Bridge. Implementing USB 3.0 will not take up lanes needed for PCI-E 16x or 8x on Sandy Bridge, since the lanes off the south bridge are now full speed (double what they were on LGA 1156 chipsets. AMD has not implemented USB 3.0 on their chipsets.
Improvements on the Sandy Bridge platform are pretty substantial, compared to the x58 and P55 nonsense. They aren't any better than x48, and P55 is worse. No SATA 6.0Gbs, no full speed PCI-E 2.0 lanes off the south bridge, no USB 3.0. At least now, they added the first two, that latter of which makes USB 3.0 implementation much easier with an add-on chip.
There's got to be something difficult about USB 3.0 implementation on the chipset, since none of them have it. If it were just Intel that didn't have it, I'd join in the whining about it. But, AMD doesn't. VIA doesn't. There's a reason no one has it yet, and considering the technical successes of the these companies, it's not because they are incompetent. We'll see it soon enough, and at least now implementing on Intel isn't such a horror.
Last spring I installed a Diablotek EN4322A two-port USB 3 controller card (one PCIe x1 slot) in a three-year old Asus mobo with an Intel X48 chipset. I'm running WinXP Pro. I connected the two controller ports to an external Sharkoon SHK DODSU323 dual "toaster" dock for SATA drives.
The only problem I had was that the controller card has to make a lot of connections in the PCIe connector, but is very short and liable to rock forward & back in the connector with the weight of two USB 3 cables on it. It had to be fitted very carefully and screwed down tight. The "screwless" card clips in my case could not hold it firmly enough. I had first tried a Sharkoon SHK PAUSB3-1 controller card, but it would not seat properly with any hardware which caused constant disconnects. The Diablotek and the Sharkoon controllers both use the same NEC chip and are very similar.
The final setup has been used hard, is totally reliable, and works great. Besides the 50-100% faster transfer speeds (compared to USB 2) it has also solved the major problems I was having getting my USB drives to disconnect. I especially recommend the Sharkoon dock with its individual on/off power switches for the two drives it can hold.
So, if you want USB 3 now, all you need is an open PCIe x1 (or larger) slot. It will work fine with Win XP. As others have noted, final performance will depend on how your chipset manages the PCIe lanes, but it will probably depend even more on the speed and fragmentation of your external drives. In most cases it will be a big step up from USB 2.
The only problem I had was that the controller card has to make a lot of connections in the PCIe connector, but is very short and liable to rock forward & back in the connector with the weight of two USB 3 cables on it. It had to be fitted very carefully and screwed down tight. The "screwless" card clips in my case could not hold it firmly enough. I had first tried a Sharkoon SHK PAUSB3-1 controller card, but it would not seat properly with any hardware which caused constant disconnects. The Diablotek and the Sharkoon controllers both use the same NEC chip and are very similar.
The final setup has been used hard, is totally reliable, and works great. Besides the 50-100% faster transfer speeds (compared to USB 2) it has also solved the major problems I was having getting my USB drives to disconnect. I especially recommend the Sharkoon dock with its individual on/off power switches for the two drives it can hold.
So, if you want USB 3 now, all you need is an open PCIe x1 (or larger) slot. It will work fine with Win XP. As others have noted, final performance will depend on how your chipset manages the PCIe lanes, but it will probably depend even more on the speed and fragmentation of your external drives. In most cases it will be a big step up from USB 2.
And Alas! They say AMD is late to the "Party Of Invention" every time...
If I am not mistaken AMD 890 GX Series chipsets have a USB 3.0 functionality, from their very begining : And it has been from over 6 months in the market. I know AMD lags behind in manufacturing processes because they do not have huge pile of cash like Intel, But then who buy's those 'Nanometer' thing.
If I am not mistaken AMD 890 GX Series chipsets have a USB 3.0 functionality, from their very begining : And it has been from over 6 months in the market. I know AMD lags behind in manufacturing processes because they do not have huge pile of cash like Intel, But then who buy's those 'Nanometer' thing.
[citation][nom]Alpesh[/nom]And Alas! They say AMD is late to the "Party Of Invention" every time...If I am not mistaken AMD 890 GX Series chipsets have a USB 3.0 functionality, from their very begining : And it has been from over 6 months in the market. I know AMD lags behind in manufacturing processes because they do not have huge pile of cash like Intel, But then who buy's those 'Nanometer' thing.[/citation]
You are mistaken. The 890GX does not support USB 3.0 natively.
You are mistaken. The 890GX does not support USB 3.0 natively.
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,598
- 599
- 59,140
Ok easy then:
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/chipsets/8-series-integrated/Pages/amd-890fx-chipset.aspx
I even went to the highest end 890FX. It should have the balls to the walls everything. But it only has support for 14 USB 2.0 ports, same with the 890GX. If you get a 890GX or 890FX chipset mobo that has USB 3.0, its a addon using a NEC chip that also uses PCIe lanes to give the proper bandwidth.
^that little chip right there.
As I said before, currently no chipset from anyone has native USB 3.0 support due to the bugs.
KuchyKoo
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2011
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
Can someone explain this USB 3.0 integration issue??? I have just bought Asus H67 barebone system with Sandybridge chip and an external USB 3.0 drive for backup because the mobo has USB 3.0! Have Asus integrated the USB 3.0 onto this mobo i.e. customized the H67 chipset? Will I get USB 3.0 functionality? Cheers guys
The problem is "progressive" government tampering. Just like the serial number being transmitted by evry device. Software and hardware is "bloated" due to government tampering. I serviced the Intel design computers (Applicon) when they were traded out for junk that produces bad chips (don't worry ONLY in the floating point area - everything above 32 meg) people left with the only Mil Spec Intel chip the 486DX4-100 (still used throughout the space program). "Cloud" is equal to main frame, more easy for government spying.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Screen Blackouts on My PC – Need Help Diagnosing the Issue- Started by br0_ken
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram