[citation][nom]LuxZg[/nom]...
I just wish that PCI hardware would be dead by than. I'm sick and tired of roaming through dozens of cards that are NOT PCIe (in any version) just to find an odd one from time to time that IS PCIe-based.Graphics cards are only exceptions, but everything else is still mostly on old PCI bus.To make it even worse, here are some numbers from local shopping-search which specializes in computer equipment:- one Gbit ethernet card- one eSATA controller (one port!!).. and I'm already on 60+$ hardware.So while PCIe 3.0 is nothing but positive, never mind when it comes, if 95% of all add-in boards in 2010 will still be PCI cards - PCIe 3.0 won't be important[/citation][citation]
PCIe is a great advance, but most peripherals do not need the extra speed it provides. I think that is why there are not many peripherals that have converted to PCIe, not to mention that there are development and commercialization costs that are likely not justified since the peripheral would not benefit from the increased speed of the PCIe bus.
[nom]cdillon[/nom]The best part about PCIe 3.0 is how much more you'll be able to do with just ONE PCIe lane. Think embedded systems, laptops, etc. where space is a premium. Fewer lanes necessary to do a job means fewer pins on chips, which makes the chips smaller, fewer traces on the motherboard, etc. And the power-savings they mention with PCIe 3.0 are obviously an advantage there as well.[/citation]
Yes, laptops and embedded systems could benefit from the increased throughput of a single-lane 3.0 PCIe spec. These are places where it might make a difference, especially with graphics.
To my point above, though, perhaps other peripherals are not available due to an "anomaly" 😉 in the thought process leading up to the actual peripheral. Many companies do things just because they can, not because they have a good reason to. In the case of peripherals that do not need the extra speed this might be a good thing that is keeping costs down for the time being, as well as such peripherals simply might not benefit from the speed.
When PCI was new, people scoffed at putting a sound card on the PCI bus simply because sound cards do not need the speed that the PCI bus affords. It took ISA quite a bit of time to completely disappear from the market. Eventually, sound cards converted to PCI; I imagine that that conversion was more likely driven by the pending death of the ISA bus rather than a sound card's need, or lack of need, of the speed of the PCI bus. Eventually, I imagine that PCI will also disappear from the market. As that time draws nearer, peripherals that do not need PCIe's increased speed will be forced to convert to PCIe. By then, however, the next advance will be on the market. :0