BRIGHT SIDE OF NEWS v0.8. About | Advertise | Contact BSN USER Login
| Register
SUBSCRIBE Newsletter | RSS Feeds
v0.8
Friday, November 20, 2009
Email this to a friend.
Your friend's e-mail:
Your Name:
Your e-mail:
Message subject:

USB 3.0 Finger pointing starts up again



One of the things about working with marketing and PR companies that I both love and hate is spin and FUD.  These two tools of deception are used with abandon on the consumer and in the end, while in many cases funny, are very anti-consumer.

So this morning when a story entitled "NVIDIA confirms Intel chipsets won't support USB 3.0 until 2011" popped up, my FUD antennae started to twitch. The first thing that should set you off is the title. "NVIDIA confirms Intel’s… ". How can NVIDIA confirm anything that Intel is doing or their company policy?

In the end it is Brian Burke at NVIDIA who is making the statement. He says in an e-mail to TG Daily "We [have also] learned that Intel is postponing USB 3.0 introduction until 2011." This is an interesting thing to say as from the information we have NVIDIA is not going to be releasing a chipset with it anytime soon and even AMD won’t put USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 [6Gbps] in their chipsets until Q4 2010 or Q1 2011.

So how does this statement become a confirmation of anything, and how does it show that Intel is hurting innovation? As we have written ASUS has found a way to have both SATA 3.0 and USB 3.0 on their board without any problem. This is the way it was done when SATA and USB first came out. At the time the best USB control chip was made by Via. Most boards used this to control their USB [anyone remember the VIA USB and 686 Southbridge issues?] The fact this this statement comes attached to a rant about how much better NVIDIA chipsets are than Intel’s should be an indication that this is really not much more than mudslinging. I will give NVIDIA their credit that ION is a much better chipset than the Intel 945GSE for netbooks, there is no question there. Their desktop chipset [for Intel] have been hit and miss for most starting with the 680i.

Burke also comments that competition is good for the consumer; this is a statement that I can completely agree with. However, if that is true why won’t NVIDIA open up PhysX? Make it an open standard and allow the natural competition to create a better implementation of the libraries benefit the consumer. Also competition is only good when you have a product to compete with. In the netbook, nettop, SFF and thin and light space they have something. ION and ION2. In the mid-range and enthusiast space they do not have anything right now.

Yes, yes I know they are saying they are waiting until their legal battle with Intel is over and the dust settled. This could be the case but as they do not have any legal confusion with AMD why have we not seen a competing chipset for AMD?  I am sure that many AMD owners would love to see an nForce chipset for AMD that is "full of innovative features." The last we heard this is not going to happen any time soon - and nVidia's last chipset for AMD, the nForce 980a SLI is nothing more than a re-badged 780a that uses Socket AM3 instead of AM2+.

Is Intel delaying USB 3.0? I asked Nick Knupffer, Intel's spokesperson this and received the following statement as a reply: "Intel is a supporter of USB 3.0. Intel is a leader in the USB IF and authored the xHCI specification.  Intel recognizes the benefits USB 3.0 brings to the industry. Historically, discrete USB controllers have lead USB transitions and enable early adoption of new USB standards in the marketplace, ramping readiness and availability of devices for integration of the standards in chipsets for mass adoption. Intel is actively engaged with the ecosystem to determine the appropriate intercept for USB 3.0 integration into our chipsets."

Now why would they write the Extensible Host Controller Interface [xHCI] only to purposely delay it?
The simple answer is they are not. In fact they need USB 3.0 for their Light Peak project and the sooner the better. It would make no sense to needlessly put it off. They, like everyone else, are trying to find a way to implement this in the chipset. It just takes time to get it there, in the meantime the consumer will have USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 available from their favorite OEMs like ASUS and GigaByte. They will be using the old and tested external controller but it will still be there and before most USB 3.0 components get to the market. The best part, this solution will benefit both AMD and Intel users at the same time.  

In the end, don’t believe the Hype, if you want USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 in your system, you will be able to do so within few weeks - despite the lack of direct chipset support from nVidia, Intel and AMD.



© 2009 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.



Related articles:

Tags:

Share and enjoy :)

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis
  • Reddit
  • Furl
  • Google
  • Technorati
  • Sphinn
  • Mixx
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Slashdot
  • Newsvine
  • Ma.gnolia
  • BlinkList
  • connotea
  • Fark
  • MisterWong
  • Netvouz
  • PlugIM
  • Propeller
  • Simpy
  • SphereIt
  • Spurl
  • ThisNext
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz


Comments:

And the winner is by: Sean Kalinich on 11/10/2009
The real problem is the state of company PR and FUD.

You see while all of the items you bring up are true the average consumer (and even many enthusiasts) do not know that making changes to the chipset changes the entire layout (traces etc) of a mainboard.

They also do not know how difficult it is to rework a chipset to add something like USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 into it.

Due to this lack of common knowledge companies can bad mouth each other and expect a consumer uproar. If the company is not popular (like Intel is at the moment) then it becomes even more effective.

As far as cache on a SATA 3.0 or SAS 2.0 controller goes they actually slow down the I/O speed of SSDs because they are slower than the drives themselves. LSI and Areca recommend turning off all Caching if on their controllers if you are using SSDs.

In the end the current migration path for both USB and SATA 3.0 are the same as they have always been, discrete third party controllers at first then integrated into the chipset later. Nothing new or nefarious going on here, unless you count the NV FUD being thrown out to show how Intel is bad for not allowing them to make chipsets for their new 1366 and 1156 CPUs, and how much better NV chipsets are than Intel's...

But then again that is nothing new either is it...
Here's a theory... by: Toby Hudon on 11/9/2009
I've got a theory regarding USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0 (is it 3.0 or is it just 2.5 @6Gbps? Let's not repeat the "OMG SCSI-3!!!" fiasco if possible?) The issue is likely a problem of interconnect to the chipset.

If Marvell and NEC implement the spec on chips, and those chips are crippled by the lack of available bandwidth to the rest of the system, well then in Intel and AMD's book it's not their problem. But if the ports are implemented as part of an integral chipset, then they have to regard complaints of crippled performance as legitimate.

USB and SATA are commonly implemented in pairs. With 480mbps USB 2.0 that's about 1Gbps per header, and with 3GBps SATA it's obviously 6GBps per pair. PCIe 2.0 spec is 5GT/s with 20% 8/10b encoding overhead so effectively 4Gbps of bandwidth (500MB/sec). Throwing a few USB 2.0 ports on an x1 PCIe 2.0 link is no problem, and you can get away with a pair of 3GBps SATA ports or more since the scenarios for sustained peak throughput on more than one were pretty rare before the advent of low cost high end SSDs. I.e. not even RAID0 would likely hit it due to spindle speed variance and sector reassignment causing desynchronous stripe read timing.

But USB 3.0 and 6GBps SATA with SSDs changes the ballgame completely. Now the x1 PCIe 2.0 bus is insufficient for more than one USB 3.0 port, and can't hack it for even a single channel of the new SATA standard. Which wouldn't have been a problem with standard hard drives as the port interface has regularly outpaced sustained transfer rates by a good margin, giving plenty of time for potential bottlenecks to solve themselves via Moore's Law before disk speeds closed the gap. But the rise of SSDs has changed the game. They've already been bumping into the interface speed limit for some time. 6GBps ports will make the bottleneck in the port->chipset links apparent, and likely cause complaints from consumers who can't get a significant performance boost from newer hardware. It's pretty obvious that if Kingston's 40GB 5 channel "boot drive" can peg 3GBps SATA at the limit on reads, that the standard 10 channel Intel SSDs should have little problem demonstrating a huge performance boost from a move to 6GBps. But if Intel updates them to that standard and their performance doesn't increase significantly, people will figure out the issue. If the problem was confined to their own drives, they could just manage it on that side, but with competitors in the same speed class they have no choice but to keep 6GBps out of the chipset and then blame the lack of performance increase on the third party chips.

The "obvious" solution is to put USB 3.0 and 6GBps SATA controllers on multiple PCIe lanes, right? But this would mean a reassignment of board traces and a reduction in lanes available for the slots. And in some cases (Core i5 for example) those lanes are a pretty scarce resource. An "enthusiast" board with 6GBps support but no ability to do SLI/Crossfire will just be shooting itself in the foot since the early adopters who can afford one are the same who demand the other, and a compromise will just get the product a bad reputation.

So for now we're stuck with 3rd party chips that are hampered by the older bus. When PCIe 3.0 comes out we should see chipsets with onboard USB 3.0, 6GBps SATA, and I'm guessing even some form of 10GB ethernet over CAT6 by then. Since that spec is expected to finalize in Q2 2010, the chipsets aren't likely to be done till Q3 2010 the earliest. Hence the delay.

Will someone attempt to beat Intel and AMD to the punch with a proper chipset with more lanes? If Nvidia was still in the game I'd have said maybe. But with them retiring from high end motherboard chipsets to focus on Ion and Tegra, I doubt we'll be seeing VIA or SIS or anyone coming out with this feature.

So save up for a decent 6GBps Areca or LSI (now that they've bought 3Ware) card, and expect more products like the OCZ Z-drive for the next year, because it's the only way storage read performance is going to be increasing at all. Also expect some "cheating" numbers that focus on burst performance that has no value in the real world, and maybe something sneaky like a tiny bit of cache on a 6GBps controller itself to get those scores.
Leave a comment:

Author:

Title:

Comment:


Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)




HD Videos & Slideshow
  • INTERVIEW: Mike Kreiten
  • AirLive AirVideo-2000
  • Ages Of Illathid
  • Aion
Highlight
  • Corsair Flash Voyager Sticks Come Unglued
  • EVGA, where did your lifetime warranty go?
  • Modern Warfare 2 tests our Short Attention Span
  • Duct tape, Pumpkin and Apples bring robot to life
  • Duct tape, Pumpkin and Apples bring robot to life
IP address change delay

Greetings,

The planned network provider change will not happen as planned, due to our site administrator ending in hospital as a consequence of his gliding accident. The wounds are not life-threatening but Mr. Ivica Hosko is still in the hospital, four days after the crash with transportation to Zagreb in two days time. We send our best wishes and hope for a speedy recovery. As soon as Mr. Hosko returns to his daily post, we'll announce the details of our network provider switch.

The following message is for Mr. Ivica himself:  "Ivica, you nut - gliding around a 2km/6600ft mountain with changeable winds in November?"

Thanks for understanding,

Ed-in-chief

© 2009 Bright Side Of News*, All rights reserved.