AMD's Fusion Chipsets to Support USB 3.0
AMD has said that upcoming chipsets will feature support for USB 3.0, otherwise known as SuperSpeed USB.
USB 3.0 has been seen on motherboards for quite a while now, but USB-IF this week announced that the A75 and A70M Fusion chipsets from Advanced Micro Devices will be the first certified 'Superspeed USB' chipsets. USB 3.0 offers transfer rates of up to 5Gbps, quite an upgrade from the speeds offered by the ten-year-old USB 2.0.
“The integration of SuperSpeed USB into AMD’s Fusion Controller Hubs demonstrates AMD’s commitment to providing the industry’s latest, most innovative connectivity technologies,” said Chris Cloran, AMD Corporate Vice-President and General Manager, Client Group. “AMD Fusion Controller Hubs will provide competitive performance while consuming low power with active USB 3.0 traffic for high definition video and fast connectivity with the latest SuperSpeed USB devices.”
The announcement makes AMD the first company to integrate a USB 3.0 controller into its silicon. Rival Intel has yet to take the same step of integrating USB 3.0 into its own chipsets and, according to The Register, doesn’t have plans to do so until 2012. This almost definitely has something to do with Intel’s new baby, the Thunderbolt standard (previously known as Light Peak). Thunderbolt was unveiled at the same time as the new MacBook Pros, which support the interface, and though Intel has said it can exist alongside USB 3.0, the company definitely seems to have a favorite at the moment.

Everybody should cut this guy some slack... It took him a long time to dial-up and get on-line to write that comment.
There's a reason why usb 2.0 has been around for forever: It's enough.
Is there a reason for 3.0, besides running 5 or more studio quality cameras for your own personal TV station in your basement?
Since when was 10x faster speed not "good enough"? The only reason USB 3 hasn't been widely adopted yet it is relatively new and USB 2's ubiquity is unchallenged so far. If everyone thought like you, we would still be at 640KB of memory for our DOS systems.
I think it's not integrated. You get that from MB manufacturers.
????????USB 2.0 bottlenecks external drives pretty bad (even my 500gb 5400rpm USB drive, and I cringe when I'm in a situation where I can't use eSata to connect my 7200rpm drive). So yes, there is a reason for USB 3.0
Everybody should cut this guy some slack... It took him a long time to dial-up and get on-line to write that comment.
If I remember correctly, USB 2.0 wasn't adopted very quickly either over the 1.1 standard. Even 1.1 stuck around for many years afterwards.
That's the theoretical peak of the interface. Your actual speeds will be far lower. Even with enhanced drivers designed for specific products, USB 2.0 can't put out more than 40MB/s.
Plug any mechanical external drive into a USB 2.0 port and benchmark it, you'll see. Most mechanical drives easily exceed 100MB/s these days, so the extra overhead of USB 3.0 is very much welcomed.
Nope, back to the drawing board!
But it looks like Intel is trying to replace the open USB standard with their propriety Intel-only LP standard and not even bothering with the remote display capability.
(forgive any inconsistencies in my question, altough I believe it's understandable)
Just look back in the days with IDE controllers and IO controllers were "add in" cards and the issues those caused.
What's an NEC controller?
Currently all motherboards that have support for USB 3.0 are using a controller chip manufactured by NEC, and fused to the motherboard. The motherboard chipset doesn't have any native support, so this is the only form of USB 3.0 for now.
NEC is making a fortune I'm sure.
(forgive any inconsistencies in my question, altough I believe it's understandable)
For one, it would reduce data latency slightly. It would also be cheaper since it would be integrated within the system's chipset rather than buying a chip from a 3rd party. Having the USB 3.0 option right now usually increases the board cost by at least another $15~$20.