Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

USB 3.0 not working Asus P7P55D-E PRO ?

Last response: in Systems
Share
May 14, 2010 11:36:44 PM

Hey guys I recently bought a Bytecc external usb 3.0 enclosure, i cannot get it recognized on my asus board which is a P7P55D-E Pro...iv installed all of the drivers but to no avail....has anyone got any suggestions? Thanks so much, this has been my first real build, and everything else is fine, but the 3.0 ports?? Iv got the current Bios installed which is 0806. Thanks again.
Eddie
May 15, 2010 3:15:14 PM

Read the bios setup portion of your mobo manual VERY closely and search your bios screens for a switch.

I believe that PCIe lanes/bandwidth is limited on said mobo, such that the USB3 can only be "ON" if the bus bandwidth is not being used by other devices.

Not a prob for most people/configs ... But you DO need to "turn it on" ...

... Don't own that mobo ... never read the manual ... but I am pretty sure this is correct ...

... anybody else got some better dope ?

= Alvin =
May 16, 2010 2:29:54 AM

Yeah, there are no bandwidth restrictions on the Asus P7P55D-E Pro. However, I do think you need to enable it in the BIOS.
Related resources
May 16, 2010 2:45:40 AM

Chuckles_ said:
Yeah, there are no bandwidth restrictions on the Asus P7P55D-E Pro. However, I do think you need to enable it in the BIOS.



Yes ... there are ... other than the X16 graphics slots, all PCIe lanes are PCIe 1.0 ... not 2.0 ... That is all INTEL 1156 "5" series NB ...

... Also ... USB3 is *NOT* native on any INTEL SB ... Those resources must come from somewhere ... and they do.

So ... tho I never played with one ... I've been told that these resources are shared with "other" PCIe configurations, and some (Dual SLI?) might affect the availability of USB3.0 funtions.

There IS an article which does cover all that. And, there are other articles, here, which do go into the various USB3 and SATA3 implementations across several platforms and brands.

I would call that, "bandwidth restricted", as compared to X58 and 790/890 SB850 implementations.

In any event, you prolly have to turn it "ON", in the BIOS/SETUP screens, and be SURE to *SAVE* upon or before exiting.


= Al =
May 16, 2010 3:12:13 AM

I gotta ask since I don't own a usb3.0 device.

Is it really 10x as fast as usb 2.0 speeds? Such as right now I'm seeing 16-20 MB/sec transfer from my WD usb drive. Would I really see 320-400 MB/sec speeds?

edit: Ok what I meant was 166-200 MB/sec. Yeah it's late for me and I was spending all night restoring an xp sp3 on my bro's comp :) .
May 16, 2010 3:23:06 AM

No ... it is ALMOST twice as fast (sans admin/protocol overhead) ...

... Look up PCIe ... WikiPedia ... it is a good and a short read ... very sensical.

= Al =
May 16, 2010 3:25:42 AM

Sorry ... I was thinking of PCIe 1.0 vs. 2.0 vs. 3.0 ...

... But Wiki's page on USB (or it's references) are not nealy as good for USB ... neither is the official USB site ... (linked to Wiki).

But ... I do know (for certain) that USB 3.0 completely saturates a PCIe 2.0 X1 line, if fully ramped.

May 16, 2010 3:31:58 AM

Not in the case of many Asus boards due to the PCIe x4 bridge chip.
May 16, 2010 3:40:10 AM

exactly ... "bridging" ... lumping PCIe 1.0 / X1 lanes together, to get some kind of bandwidth.


May 16, 2010 3:48:12 AM

Alvin Smith said:
Yes ... there are ... other than the X16 graphics slots, all PCIe lanes are PCIe 1.0 ... not 2.0 ... That is all INTEL 1156 "5" series NB ...

... Also ... USB3 is *NOT* native on any INTEL SB ... Those resources must come from somewhere ... and they do.

So ... tho I never played with one ... I've been told that these resources are shared with "other" PCIe configurations, and some (Dual SLI?) might affect the availability of USB3.0 funtions.

There IS an article which does cover all that. And, there are other articles, here, which do go into the various USB3 and SATA3 implementations across several platforms and brands.

I would call that, "bandwidth restricted", as compared to X58 and 790/890 SB850 implementations.

In any event, you prolly have to turn it "ON", in the BIOS/SETUP screens, and be SURE to *SAVE* upon or before exiting.


= Al =


I've been a proponent of using the 2.5 Gb/s lanes on P55 boards because even after 8b/10b encoding, you get around 200 MB/s The limit of the controller Bytec (and nearly everyone else uses) is 200 MB/s, so you don't actually need to steal 5.0 Gb/s lanes from the graphics slot. Asus adds a PCIe bridge to some boards, to put two 2.5 Gb/s pathways to each 5.0 Gb/s controller, it's a nice solution but really not required at this point.
May 16, 2010 3:53:56 AM

fastx21 said:
I gotta ask since I don't own a usb3.0 device.

Is it really 10x as fast as usb 2.0 speeds? Such as right now I'm seeing 16-20 MB/sec transfer from my WD usb drive. Would I really see 320-400 MB/sec speeds?

edit: Ok what I meant was 166-200 MB/sec. Yeah it's late for me and I was spending all night restoring an xp sp3 on my bro's comp :) .


Around 200 Mb/s using current adapters:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3.0-superspeed-...
May 16, 2010 4:15:28 AM

Crashman said:
I've been a proponent of using the 2.5 Gb/s lanes on P55 boards because even after 8b/10b encoding, you get around 200 MB/s The limit of the controller Bytec (and nearly everyone else uses) is 200 MB/s, so you don't actually need to steal 5.0 Gb/s lanes from the graphics slot. Asus adds a PCIe bridge to some boards, to put two 2.5 Gb/s pathways to each 5.0 Gb/s controller, it's a nice solution but really not required at this point.


So .. you are saying that there is no need (this year) to even worry about any of the current crop (including MOST SSDs) of SATA3/USB3 devices, because they are not capable of saturating a PCIe2.o line.

You and I already had this conversation and this guy already owns the mobo (a great one) ... NOT trying to pee in anyone's cheerios or to foment doubt or dissatisfaction, here ... just an academic point, as a matter of history.

You also already told me that I am unlikely to "bully" INTEL into providing more bandwidth, at this price-point, any time soon. I believe you.

This bandwidth "non-issue" has almost no effect on gaming configs, but I still (very much!) contend that graphics and studio/edit rigs MUST have more lanes and slots AND ... I really hate that SLI/xFire governs the entire allocation of lanes/slot and which slots are active at what bandwidth, (automatic!) when you have 2 GPU slots full, and then you want to add some other cards, like Firewire (any flavor) or DeckLink HD-SDI type capture cards and OCZ slot SSD drives, etc.

Two slots should be added to the ATX standard layout (to accomodate for 2X Double Slot GPUs and still allow for one 8x and a 4x and at least a couple of 1x slots (it is as much a physical layout problem as a bandwidth issue.).

... And if the Double-Wide GPUs don't kill you ... and if bandwidth doesn't ... the mobo heat-sinks WILL !

= Tightness ! =
May 16, 2010 4:56:32 AM

Alvin Smith said:
So .. you are saying that there is no need (this year) to even worry about any of the current crop (including MOST SSDs) of SATA3/USB3 devices, because they are not capable of saturating a PCIe2.o line.
No. I am saying that--even at half-speed--USB 3.0 is fast enough for all of today's devices . That will probably be true for the next couple years, after which LGA-1156 won't really be relevant.
Alvin Smith said:
This bandwidth "non-issue" has almost no effect on gaming configs, but I still (very much!) contend that graphics and studio/edit rigs MUST have more lanes and slots AND ... I really hate that SLI/xFire governs the entire allocation of lanes/slot and which slots are active at what bandwidth, (automatic!) when you have 2 GPU slots full, and then you want to add some other cards, like Firewire (any flavor) or DeckLink HD-SDI type capture cards and OCZ slot SSD drives, etc.
Weaknesses of the LGA-1156 platform are well known, but not important when it comes to current and near-term USB 3.0 implementations.
Alvin Smith said:
Two slots should be added to the ATX standard layout (to accomodate for 2X Double Slot GPUs and still allow for one 8x and a 4x and at least a couple of 1x slots (it is as much a physical layout problem as a bandwidth issue.)
Hey, I think that even a low-cost chipset intended for a single x16 slot should have at least four additional PCIe 2.0 lanes, but that's impertinent to the OP question about the Bytecc enclosure. Would you rather I discuss theoretical limitations or practical implications, when answering such a specific set of questions as his?
May 16, 2010 5:04:18 AM

Agreed ... If one reads my first response ... I certainly was not pushing any agenda ... My only intent (originally) was to point out that it is not a natively available feature, and so must (likely) be toggled in the BIOS ... and saved.

... The other tech decided to open this can of worms, and he would not allow the cat back into the bag.

... Am I not supposed to clarify, when I think someone is in error ... ?

.... I am SURE not arguing with anything YOU have said. Just defending my statement, as I was in the process (I thot) of being improperly "corrected".


Sure ... I DID try to stick to the very simple question, at hand. My fingers get plenty of exercise, as it is.

= Regards =
December 5, 2011 8:48:29 PM

MY Asus notebook did not recognize any USB in the USB 3.0 port, too ( windows 7 )
I went to the store i got my notebook from and they installed a driver for me then it worked.. i uploaded it here http://www.mediafire.com/?7q03br1e13w6cv7 ..
Hope it works :) 
!