Intel's Chief River Will Begin Support for USB 3.0

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

braxis john

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2010
7
0
18,510
"Mass production of these products are expected to start in September 2011 but not officially rolled out until 2012 (unless the world ends, of course)."

Man i still laughting of this hahahaha !
 
lp231

lp231

Splendid
Mar 24, 2006
3,067
0
21,460
You're name is Chief River?
My name is Wakiki Mushroom!!!

Seriously, if Intel is adding USB 3.0 support to their Chief River platform, is Jobs going to add it as well or still say their users don't need it?
 
S

samely

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2009
62
0
18,630
[citation][nom]braxis john[/nom]"Mass production of these products are expected to start in September 2011 but not officially rolled out until 2012 (unless the world ends, of course)."Man i still laughting of this hahahaha ![/citation]
Given that the target date is December 21st 2012, I think we'll have some USB 3.0 prior to then.
 
F

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]Seriously, if Intel is adding USB 3.0 support to their Chief River platform, is Jobs going to add it as well or still say their users don't need it?[/citation]

because video cameras don't have drivers for macs.
so editing your videos on mac is not important to apple, other wise they'd put cameras on all their stuff and try to get video camera manufacturers to add driver support.
therefore macs don't need large file tranfer capabilities thus meaning macs are only usefull for picture editing.
 
S

SchizoFrog

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2009
416
0
18,790
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]because video cameras don't have drivers for macs.so editing your videos on mac is not important to apple, other wise they'd put cameras on all their stuff and try to get video camera manufacturers to add driver support.therefore macs don't need large file tranfer capabilities thus meaning macs are only usefull for picture editing.[/citation]
Never heard of HD video recorders and then transferring the files to the Mac for editing?
 
F

firebee1991

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2010
68
0
18,630
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]I will watch 2012 in 2013 and laugh[/citation]

I watched 2012 in 2010 and laughed, right before I fell asleep.
 
jimmysmitty

jimmysmitty

Champion
Oct 5, 2007
21,605
599
59,140
[citation][nom]cptnjarhead[/nom]2012? ... what is the deal with 3.0?My amd 870 came with USB 3... not sure why intel is so late to the game on that one.[/citation]

Actually there is no chipset out that officially supports USB 3.0/ In fact all it is is a chip added to the mobo by the maker (Gigabyte/Asus) that gives you probably 2 USB 3.0 ports. But the 870 chipset from AMD can support up to 14 USB 2.0 ports, no USB 3.0 ports.

If you look at current Intel based mobos, you will see 2 USB 3.0 ports just as you will find on current AMD mobos. But neither have naitive support for USB 3.0 in the chipset itself.
 
S

Specter0420

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
111
28
18,710
Yea, the Mayans were off by about 11 years with the whole planets aligning thing (the main reason people believe the world will end, still incredible how close they were in their prediction). It already happened in 98 or 99. We are still here.
 
dgingeri

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
I've needed USB3 for over a year already. My backups take >36 hours through USB2. I had to go with an internal drive for my backups until I got the Asus U3S6 card. Now I'm happy with my USB3 drive.

Intel should have have this with the P55 chipset, not putting it off for another 2 and a half years.
 
hellwig

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
Intel sat on USB 3.0 because of standards adoption delays (although, if they had submitted the standard themselves, it would currently be the only connectivity option available on all their products). Still, I don't see the problem with third-party USB 3.0 controllers. I'm not sure why USB 2.0 is part of the chipset anyway (yes, it means less chips on the board, but these aren't embedded systems here). gigE/eSATA/IDE/SATA6gbps/firewire/sound, these are all still add-on chips for many motherboards. As long as Intel keeps enough PCIe channels open for addons, motherboard makers can add as many USB 3.0 slots as they deem practical. One problem with including things on the chipset is you are bound to that number or require addon-chips anyway. Some motherboards from Gigabyte have 3 additional SATA controllers, 1 for eSATA, 1 for SATA 6gbps, and 1 that adds 2 SATA + IDE. At that point, you hardly need the 6 ports that come with the chipset. The same goes for USB. Many chipsets now come with 12 USB2.0 ports. How long before those 12 sit idle because most things get plugged into USB 3.0?

In all honesty, I wish chipsets came with nothing but PCIe connectors, and lots of them. Let the mobo manufacturers decide if they attach SATA6, gigE, Firewire, USB 3.0, USB 2.0, etc...
 
dgingeri

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]ISome motherboards from Gigabyte have 3 additional SATA controllers, 1 for eSATA, 1 for SATA 6gbps, and 1 that adds 2 SATA + IDE. At that point, you hardly need the 6 ports that come with the chipset. The same goes for USB. Many chipsets now come with 12 USB2.0 ports. How long before those 12 sit idle because most things get plugged into USB 3.0?[/citation]

Actually, I have a total of 10 SATA devices and 18 USB devices on my machine. Some of the USB cascade, so they only use 8 ports on my machine, but I like having my front ports available if I need to connect one my my 4 flash drives for loading up drivers, tool programs, patches, or transferring user data. I've got a 4 drive RAID 5 array, a 2 drive RAID 0 array, 2 SSDs for games, mirrored drives for the OS, and 2 DVD writers. (It's one heck of a behemoth.)

So, current tech hardly keeps up with me. I think they ought to expand the abilities of the chipset. More PCIe lanes would be nice for getting a 3rd video card in my machine for better gaming. :)
 
iLLz

iLLz

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2003
102
1
18,680
The reason they are stalling for USB3.0 is twofold.

1. LightPeak is coming out early 2011 - http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/...tion_May_Become_Available_in_2011_Rumour.html

2. Also there aren't enough PCIe lanes to accommodate lots of USB3.0 ports. So perhaps they are waiting for PCIe3 to help ease the complexity of the boards in tracing the PCIe lanes out.

Also, maybe they will piggyback USB3 over LightPeak? I heard it could be possible so maybe they want to do that. They could fit two USB3 ports on each LightPeak lane.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]cptnjarhead[/nom]2012? ... what is the deal with 3.0?My amd 870 came with USB 3... not sure why intel is so late to the game on that one.[/citation]

There is no platform out on the market that NATIVELY supports USB 3.0.[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Actually there is no chipset out that officially supports USB 3.0/ In fact all it is is a chip added to the mobo by the maker (Gigabyte/Asus) that gives you probably 2 USB 3.0 ports. But the 870 chipset from AMD can support up to 14 USB 2.0 ports, no USB 3.0 ports.If you look at current Intel based mobos, you will see 2 USB 3.0 ports just as you will find on current AMD mobos. But neither have native support for USB 3.0 in the chipset itself.[/citation]

The chip that you speak of is actually made by NEC, which is the only supplier of USB3 controllers at the time. Other companies such as VIA have showcased their USB3 controllers at Computex, but they are very late to the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom