PCI Express 3.0 Specs Delayed

Status
Not open for further replies.

doomtomb

Distinguished
May 12, 2009
810
0
18,980
0
PCI-E 3.0 was originally expected for end of this year... now 2011 >_>

I wanted USB 3.0, SATA III, and PCI-E 3.0 on my next motherboard upgrade but I don't think I can wait for 2 years.
 

cjl

Splendid
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]PCI-E 3.0 was originally expected for end of this year... now 2011 >_>I wanted USB 3.0, SATA III, and PCI-E 3.0 on my next motherboard upgrade but I don't think I can wait for 2 years.[/citation]
Actually, it was expected next year. The spec would have been finalized this year, but products wouldn't hit the shelves until 2010.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
:) I think the real reasons for the delays of PCI-e 3.0, USB 3.0 and SATA III is result of bad economics. The companies are saving money by maximizing the profits from old standards before the new standards are implemented. It is good idea to let the engineers to prefect the spec during the down time of course.
 

rambo117

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2008
1,157
0
19,290
4
[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]It'll be ready when it's ready.[/citation]
yep. I can wait, besides, PCIE 16x and 16x 2.0 don't differ all that much anyways. usually just a couple of frames depending on the game. i'd think the same with 3.0
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]PCI-E 3.0 was originally expected for end of this year... now 2011 >_>I wanted USB 3.0, SATA III, and PCI-E 3.0 on my next motherboard upgrade but I don't think I can wait for 2 years.[/citation]

Yeah... it gets annoying...

[citation][nom]IronRyan21[/nom]Are we maxing out PCIe 2.0? I didnt think Vid cards were.[/citation]

I don't believe we're maxing out PCIe 1.0.
However, the higher bandwidth is good for crossfire (were you have less lanes meaning less bandwidth, actually hitting a cap).
 

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
475
0
18,810
6
[citation][nom]IronRyan21[/nom]Are we maxing out PCIe 2.0? I didnt think Vid cards were.[/citation]


PCIe 1 is still good enough for most people. I remember when the 8800GT came out boasting PCIe 2.0 but the reviews said it really needn't because it didn't come close to saturating PCIe 1.0.

Now with the likes of Radeon 4870x2 and Geforce GTX 295 PCIe must already come in handy. But we can probably wait another year before PCIe reaches it's limit, if it doesn't last even more than that (probably for the mainstream graphics card market it will last another two or three years).
 

scuba dave

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2009
342
0
18,780
0
Big deal. I'll wait contently. :p If nothing else, it'll give me plenty of time to get more "bang from my buck" from the hardware i already have. It's not like we will see a magical increase across the board with the new spec. It'll take time before the improvements are "realized"

Just my two cents. :)
 

deltatux

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
335
0
18,780
0
It's interesting how we want these new 3's. The only new standard, the USB 3 would be used to the full potential here since we have yet even saturated SATA I or PCI Express 1.1 with the current HDDs/GPUs. So the delay shouldn't affect performance at all as you most likely won't gain any performance by going PCIe-3.0 or SATAIII even with the new DX11 cards. I'll gladly wait. PCIe 2.0 and SATAII is working quite well, no bottlenecks to speak of here.
 

Hatecrime69

Distinguished
Oct 17, 2008
173
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]IronRyan21[/nom]Are we maxing out PCIe 2.0? I didnt think Vid cards were.[/citation]

video cards, probably not, but massive, server raid arrays likely could when the next gen of sata/sas appears (as far as i'm aware, pci-e raid cards are typically 8x and not 16x)
 

The Schnoz

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2008
234
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]deltatux[/nom]It's interesting how we want these new 3's. The only new standard, the USB 3 would be used to the full potential here since we have yet even saturated SATA I or PCI Express 1.1 with the current HDDs/GPUs. So the delay shouldn't affect performance at all as you most likely won't gain any performance by going PCIe-3.0 or SATAIII even with the new DX11 cards. I'll gladly wait. PCIe 2.0 and SATAII is working quite well, no bottlenecks to speak of here.[/citation]
SATA I has hit peak (with SSDs)and same with PCI Express 1.1 (with GTX 295), just not 2.0.
 

spectrewind

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2009
446
0
18,790
2
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]PCI-E 3.0 was originally expected for end of this year... now 2011 >_>I wanted USB 3.0, SATA III, and PCI-E 3.0 on my next motherboard upgrade but I don't think I can wait for 2 years.[/citation]
While I am in the same boat as you and was looking forward to upgrading on FY-2010, my engineer's background says it is better to wait and hopefully get better hardware than to rush in and get something with design faults.
 

spectrewind

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2009
446
0
18,790
2
[citation][nom]haunted one[/nom]I'd rather have them release it late and well working than have it early and full of compatibility problems.[/citation]
Agreed. Oddly, this article reminded me of an ancient PC problem with the i820, ASUS, the P3C2000 mainboard, and the MTH design problem that was rushed into production and later recalled by ASUS, who's customer service back then was worse than terrible.
 

dman3k

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
715
0
18,980
0
Man, and I was hoping to wait till Q1 2010 to build a new computer for the USB 3 and PCI-E 3.0. I guess I might as will just get it over with by getting a Core i5 system... doh!
 
G

Guest

Guest
"The only new standard, the USB 3 would be used to the full potential here since we have yet even saturated SATA I or PCI Express 1.1 with the current HDDs/GPUs. "

SATA-II is being already saturated by current gen SSDs and a complete bottleneck for next gen SSDs coming out soon. So yes, you don't know what you're talking about.

As for PCI-E 3.0, 2.0 has 20% overhead data and 3.0 has 1.5% overhead data. Less energy will be wasted on overhead on top of overall more bandwidth.

Win7. All those nifty UI affects also take their toll. Vista had a copy of the textures/etc needed in system memory, then copied it up to video memory. This helped reduce latency by not relying on the bottleneck between CPU and Video card. Win7 now stores everything in video memory, so any "updates" it does to your screen requires copying down the needed data to the CPU over your PCI-E, modifying, then re-uploading the changes. This will overall increase PCI-E usage, also your UI thread stalls on waiting for the data to get back from your video card. The faster you get data back from your video memory, the less CPU time wasted on stalling.

you may say PCI-E is already fast enough, but when you compare 4GB/s of PCI-E 2.0 to the 38.5GB/s of tri-channel corei7, you can see why Vista opted to just duplicate/waste the memory in order to reduce latency.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@Benjie: Those "nifty" Win7 effects don't take that much of a toll. Linux eye candy(KDE 4 or Enlightenment e17 + Compiz effects) is far more advanced than Windoze ever has been, and it can run on a fairly crappy spec laptop. Granted, MS didn't do such a great job on making their eye-candy efficient, but all the same, it's not maxing out anybody's GPU, much less their PCI-e bandwidth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY