usb 3 sata 6.0 boards

M

maxius

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
3,376
How long till we see amd/intel motherboards sporting these new features
 
Last edited:
We will be releasing our P7P55D Premium shortly, although Intel does not have native support for SATA6G so it will be provided by a custom design implementation along with a Marvell controller. Please keep in mind the SATA association would like to use SATA6G not SATA3 as SATAII had a throughput of 300MB. As for USB3.0 we will have to wait and see....
 
There's been no mfg with drive announcements at this point either has there? I mean I assume they have to natively support SATA 6GB in order to be useful right?
 
I am also very curious about when these two features will come out to market. I'm holding out on buying anything at all until I can create a build with these inside of it.
 
Juan_Jose said:
We will be releasing our P7P55D Premium shortly, although Intel does not have native support for SATA6G so it will be provided by a custom design implementation along with a Marvell controller. Please keep in mind the SATA association would like to use SATA6G not SATA3 as SATAII had a throughput of 300MB. As for USB3.0 we will have to wait and see....
Click to expand...
A SIG should not be in the marketing game.

IF it's 3rd generation, it should not be made to look to consumers like it is the 6th generation - that simply does not make sense, and is harmful to the consumer (which is multiplied by the fact that most ppl don't know much about computers to begin with).

This is SATA3.
 
When will USB 4 and SATA 5 be out? I refuse to buy new parts until my demands are met. I need 24Gb/s bus capabilities and a new peripheral interface so my PS2 to USB4 adapters can be better utilized.
 
You guys are being irrational with your smartass comments. Thats not what the goal was here I think, and to threadcrap really doesn't help.

I think its helpful the rep responded, to clarify things. I think your "I'm never buying till SATA5" is just stupid and childish.
 
At this point USB 3 is still a long way off and it's anything but certain its uptake will be akin to that of USB 2 since USB 3 eschews most of backwards-compatibility and reduces maximum cable length to a mere 3 meters with the thickest type cables. I wouldn't wait for this, especially not with Firewire and eSATA offering most of the features USB 3 is supposed to provide.

SATA 3 (6 Gb/s) will be more useful, but even with SSDs there isn't really a need for it yet. You can always use a PCIe-based SSD if you really need the most speed. Worth waiting for if you need the new features.
 
i would bet money that SATA3 would drive down the price of SSD'd, no? I'd totally go for an SSD for my laptop at that point since the storage i need would cost me hundreds of dollars on an SSD right now :/
 
AmongTheChosenX said:
i would bet money that SATA3 would drive down the price of SSD'd, no? I'd totally go for an SSD for my laptop at that point since the storage i need would cost me hundreds of dollars on an SSD right now :/
Click to expand...

Why would SATA 3 drive down the prices of SSDs? The cost for Flash chips is more relevant, and its price per GB will stay significantly higher than that for a HDD for years to come.
 
I think he was suggesting that the SSD drives with a second gen interface will get a price cut when SSD drives with the third gen interface come to market.

Personally I would just expect the new drives to have a price premium.

But then I don't care about the new S-ATA standard or USB3.0. I use very few USB devices that aren't input devices. Nothing I use USB or even care to use USB for will benefit from the new standard. Same goes for the new S-ATA interface. The only drives that might take advantage of it are going to be high end SSD's. You know similar to the design Intel uses for it's enterprise drives and I think we all know how expensive they are compared to even other SSD's.

If I end up owning a device that can actually take advantage of either interface in the next 3 years I will be shocked.

Edit: To any manufactures listening I will also not buy any motherboards that waste boards space on ad-on controller chips like the marvel one mentioned above. If I can not buy newer released boards with out useless shit like this then I will buy older tech until Intel and AMD integrate the new standards in to the base chipsets.
 
Last edited:
I've read that Intel/Micron is already capable of making ONFI 2.1 flash using their 34nm process. But I am convinced we aren't seeing them because they are waiting for SATA 6G to be released in order to fully utilize the extra speed.
 
stiltner said:
You guys are being irrational with your smartass comments. Thats not what the goal was here I think, and to threadcrap really doesn't help.

I think its helpful the rep responded, to clarify things. I think your "I'm never buying till SATA5" is just stupid and childish.
Click to expand...

When someone does a thread like:
"When is [current gen] +1 coming out?" and doesn't even bother to discuss it on their own, say why they care, what info they've gathered or bother to use punctuation, I treat it like a troll post.

Show me a drive that is bottlenecked by SATA2.
Show me a handful of USB3 devices that will be in mainstream distribution by the time USB3 interaces are released.

You can't, so why worry about it? Why not just wait for the big internet announcement everyone else will stumble upon?
 
Ryokurin said:
No firm dates, just the fourth quarter. And its sata 3.0
Click to expand...

well here is a problem with there revision naming system its confusing as all hell though your calling sata 3.0 is not correct :p
http://www.sata-io.org/documents/SATA-Revision-3.0-FAQ-FINAL.pdf

Q11: What is the proper way to refer to the upcoming SATA 6Gb/s technology?
A11: When referring to the specification, use “Serial ATA Revision 3.0 specification” for the
first reference. For successive references, this can be shortened to “SATA Revision 3.0.” Do
not use “SATA 3.0.”
When referring to transfer rates, the technology can be correctly referred to as “SATA
6Gb/s.&#8221; Products themselves are to be called &#8220;SATA 6Gb/s <product name>.&#8221; For more
information, SATA-IO has developed Naming Guidelines with detailed recommendations.
Please note: references to &#8220;Gen 3&#8221; embedded within the SATA Revision 3.0
specification are strictly related to technical specification items and should not be
used for marketing and product naming purposes.
 
http://www.google.com/search?q=faulty+marvell+sata

I haven't really heard anything since then, but in July there were major problems and talks of delays for everything...
It looks like that technology will be delayed, though. The only chip supporting the standard today, the Marvell 88SE9123, is having major issues. Motherboard vendors including ASUS and Gigabyte, which had planned on releasing SATA 6G technology using the chip on Intel Lynnfield platform motherboards later this summer, are having to remove the Marvell 88SE9123 and redesign their boards at the last minute due to significant speed and reliability issues.
Click to expand...

And I tend to agree with Auzner. It'll be a while before anything really needs it. Flash drives are getting to the point of being bottlenecked by USB2, but they're usually small enough amounts of data that it's not a huge deal that they're a little slow. I'm not going to run out and replace my board and all my flash drives just so that I can copy a few MP3s a little faster. If I really find a need for USB3, I'll buy an add-in card for a couple faster ports.
 
InvisiBill said:
And I tend to agree with Auzner. It'll be a while before anything really needs it. Flash drives are getting to the point of being bottlenecked by USB2, but they're usually small enough amounts of data that it's not a huge deal that they're a little slow. I'm not going to run out and replace my board and all my flash drives just so that I can copy a few MP3s a little faster. If I really find a need for USB3, I'll buy an add-in card for a couple faster ports.
Click to expand...

Besides, there are also eSATA-equipped Flash sticks/external drives. Good luck saturating the bandwidth of a 3 Gb/s SATA link with a lousy Flash stick :p
 
InvisiBill said:
And I tend to agree with Auzner. It'll be a while before anything really needs it. Flash drives are getting to the point of being bottlenecked by USB2, but they're usually small enough amounts of data that it's not a huge deal that they're a little slow. I'm not going to run out and replace my board and all my flash drives just so that I can copy a few MP3s a little faster. If I really find a need for USB3, I'll buy an add-in card for a couple faster ports.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a flash drive come anywhere close to 60 MB/s (the limit of USB 2). Most flash drives I see on a daily basis are slower than a USB HDD, which hit 20-30 MB/s pretty regularly.
 
I don't understand so many flippant remarks about usb 3.0 and sata 6gb. Usually the only reference is to raw transfer speed, when both new specifications bring more to the table.

This is classic bad rational, which would support cars only needing to go 60mph because most speed limits are 65.

Granted, from a business profiting from technology (even [H]ardOcp), hyping technology that is not present is of little financial gain. However, if there isn't people like the OP always looking to the future, we get fiascoes such as the immature X58 motherboard release. This leaves us reacting to the industry, instead of the industry reacting to us.

When us consumers place our trust in businesses to make the decision what's best for us, the decision is always going to error on the side of business. We get actions such as PCI-e 3.0 Spec being pushed back. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2351266,00.asp

Which just compounds problems like cable bandwidth issues. How can we be in a situation where the damn cables can't push the data we want? http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034611951&postcount=3

USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb pave the way for bigger things. Furthermore, as stated above, and in many instances, the technology to push past current limitations of usb 2.0 and sata II are there, it's just waiting for us to demand it. http://news.techworld.com/storage/3201740/solid-state-drives-offered-for-emc-hp-sun-hitachi/

We get Zunes and Ipods loaded with HD content with mismatched ways of delivering it to your electronics. This is silly, not the anticipation of better interfacing the likes of USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb.
 
I say we all switch to Firewire where USB 2.0 doesn't cut it ;)
 
Elledan said:
I say we all switch to Firewire where USB 2.0 doesn't cut it ;)
Click to expand...

Funny enough, I think most people already do this. Most DJ's I work around prefer Firewire, but more than audio concerns, it's hard to justify Firewire.

With 13 USB ports on a motherboard and 2 Firewire, even if I was able to get all my peripherals in Firewire I would be limiting myself. Unless that is, Firewire is able to completely resolve the problems they have with their nifty daisy-chaining method.

We moved from ps2 to USB and there were disadvatages, but the advantages are clear enough that there isn't even a debate about bringing back legacy support. Though Firewire has advantages, the complexities of implementing Firewire into every product is too much for many businesses. USB offers the simpler solution, by allowing the bigger players to address how information from products connected via USB is processed.

When I can get a Mouse, keyboard, thumbdrive, and wireless dongle all in firewire for the same price as USB, then there's an arguement.
 
With professional audio there is no question about whether to use USB or Firewire. Firewire is by far the more reliable, lower latency method. Firewire supports DMA whereas USB doesn't, incurring a huge penalty for the latter in terms of throughput and general performance. Firewire is even used in jet fighters as interconnect fabric.

There are Firewire hubs which should alleviate the lack of FW ports on most mainboards. I even barely use more than 2-3 USB ports on my workstation as I prefer to plug things into hubs. Firewire also isn't more complex to implement, if anything it's much easier as the controller chips are pretty much self-contained. The biggest issue is the licensing fee per chip, which drives up the costs.

As for PS/2 vs USB for HID devices, USB has no guarantee in terms of data throughput and arrival times, ergo it's quite unreliable. Its only benefit over PS/2 is hot-plugging, but in general USB is a few magnitudes more complex to implement than PS/2. The latter is so low-level, easy to understand, implement and debug that it is virtually impossible to beat it.

For the time being FW is for more expensive devices which care about a few ms latency and not having to deal with software drivers, whereas USB is for the cheap consumer junk and HID.
 
"HID and cheap consumer junk" is right where usb 3 stands to make a difference, though I wouldn't limit it to just that. And HID is an increasing market, of which usb3 stands to broaden it's support. In regards to FW fee, there is no longer a fee. The complexity is the gamble to support multiple formats, which not worth it to many businesses. USB is a given, even if it's gimped in reference to FW. Ipods don't even come with FW support, and this is Apple's tech. I support the resurgence of FW, but not at the cost of shunning similar tech. Instead as the OP has done, focus attention on the demand for better tech.
 
Well, I'm afraid that USB 3.0 will do more harm than good to the acceptance of USB with its gimped backwards compatibility. Its lack of DMA is also catching up with it, making eSATA the preferred choice for external storage.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'multiple formats' in regard to Firewire.
 
My favorite mouse and keyboard only come in USB flavor. Get everybody to simultaneously switch, and I'll buy into adapters.

SATA 6gbps makes me happy, but I could care less about usb/fw. When I need DMA for keyboard/mouse I'll scream at somebody.
 
Elledan said:
Well, I'm afraid that USB 3.0 will do more harm than good to the acceptance of USB with its gimped backwards compatibility. Its lack of DMA is also catching up with it, making eSATA the preferred choice for external storage.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'multiple formats' in regard to Firewire.
Click to expand...

Perhaps 'format' was misleading when using it in a computer discussion. 'Multiple interfaces' if you please. Having to support esata, FW, and usb connections on a product increases the amount of work and lowers the profit margin of a product if these extras are not utilized. This is why Apple first dropped an included FW cable with their Ipod, then dropped the data link, and then dropped FW all together.

I think arguing that USB 3.0 will do more harm while stating that the current products that USB supports are "HID and cheap consumer junk" is contradictory. I doubt consumers will recoil from embracing 3.0 because they feel their mouse should have been upgraded to 3.0 with the transition. I certainly didn't get a chapped ass when I found that my 16mb usb 1.1 thumbdrive wasn't going to get usb 2.0 speeds. Perhaps I've misunderstood, where is the gimped backwards compatibility going to be an issue?

Gimped backwards compatibility is misleading. The transition from 2.0 is relatively the same as the transition from 1.1. No device loses support, well B connectors change, a negative. You may not be able to plug your USB 3.0b cord into your usb 2.0b device, but the opposite is true, so unless you've already have a shiny usb 3.0b cable that you insist must be used in all connections, your covered. You could argue that FW connections get to use the same cable for improved connections, but the device is only able to take advantage if it supports the newest FW.

Oh, and I hope very much that eSATA becomes the default connection for external storage. It makes sense.

The consumer loses when the only reason new technology isn't available is because we haven't given the proper support to those that mean to deliver it to us.
 
Last edited:
metalsmart said:
Perhaps 'format' was misleading when using it in a computer discussion. 'Multiple interfaces' if you please. Having to support esata, FW, and usb connections on a product increases the amount of work and lowers the profit margin of a product if these extras are not utilized. This is why Apple first dropped an included FW cable with their Ipod, then dropped the data link, and then dropped FW all together.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense, yes. Strangely enough, however, FW has become a standard feature on at least AMD mainboards as it's included in the chipset. This means that for mainboard manufacturers adding FW support on their mainboards they only have to run a few traces and install the connector. All of my AM2/2+/3 mainboards have FW 800 support.

For devices it does indeed often make sense to choose just one interface, especially if costs become an issue. There are still enough HDD enclosures and such offering a multitude of interface options. For, say, a digicam one interface would be desirable, of course due to space restrictions. Which brings me to the next point.

Gimped backwards compatibility is misleading. The transition from 2.0 is relatively the same as the transition from 1.1. No device loses support, well B connectors change, a negative. You may not be able to plug your USB 3.0b cord into your usb 2.0b device, but the opposite is true, so unless you've already have a shiny usb 3.0b cable that you insist must be used in all connections, your covered. You could argue that FW connections get to use the same cable for improved connections, but the device is only able to take advantage if it supports the newest FW.
Click to expand...
The point where USB 3 falls flat is with portable devices. The USB 3 'micro' connector is anything but micro. It's about as wide as a USB A connector and would seriously reduce the available space for other interface options. My Canon A550 camera has a micro USB, power and TV-out (3.5 mm RTS) connector. With an USB 3 micro connector one of those other two would have to be sacrificed to accommodate the upgraded functionality.

In addition to that USB 3 cables can not be used with USB 2 devices in many configurations (USB 3 B/micro are too big), forcing people to keep a stash of both types of cables. USB 3 cables are also a miserable 3 meters at most, if you use the thickest cable type, else you're limited to around 1.5 meter. Yes, software-wise it may all work out, but that doesn't mean it works well hardware-wise. That's the part they gimped and why I won't be in the market for USB 3 devices unless forced to.

Oh, and I hope very much that eSATA becomes the default connection for external storage. It makes sense.
Click to expand...
I'm glad we agree at least on something :)
 
My Canon A550 camera has a micro USB, power and TV-out (3.5 mm RTS) connector. With an USB 3 micro connector one of those other two would have to be sacrificed to accommodate the upgraded functionality.
Click to expand...

I own a pair of Oakley glasses that has a micro usb connection, and as you say, usb 3.0 won't be fitting on them. I agree that this is on the verge of not being worth of the name 'micro,' but I wouldn't go so far as to shun usb 3.0. USB 3 Micro connectors are 5.35 mm longer and no higher, and USB 2.0 micro will even fit usb 3 micro. Perhaps this is a place where micro FW connectors can help to gain traction for reemerging in the market.

Before I rag on USB cable length, I would ask for more network friendly devices. I think having a network printer over a FW or USB has far greater advantages. Many peripherals already have wireless networking capabilities, it stands to reason that USB shouldn't be made to do the work intended for Cat5/6. I find it far more irritating to buy a $300 printer that can't network.

Now if intel would release the "320GB X25-M that comes with a second controller (like a mirror of the one side pcb it has now), like the best RAID 0 from two 160GB, in one X25-M" AND SATA 6GB compatible. I think a statement like that would help enlighten many consumers. But alas, I'm dreaming now too.
 
Network printers are indeed a blessing. I don't have a printer at the moment (abusing my housemate's printer), but if I had to buy one I'd get a network-enabled one for sure. And micro FW on digital cameras and video cameras would be nice indeed :)

There are some PCIe Flash SSDs which do what you want, giving quite impressive transfer rates. Might be somewhat expensive, though :p
 
Elledan said:
There are some PCIe Flash SSDs which do what you want, giving quite impressive transfer rates. Might be somewhat expensive, though :p
Click to expand...

I'm all for impressive transfer rates. I used to ask the question of what's the bottleneck only to have people talk about cpu or gpu with no mention of the HDD.

Moreso I want to see businesses take a leap and challenge manufacturers to meet their demands, like usb 3.0 / Sata 6Gb / FW 800 support for their products.

I'm dissapointed that manufacturers of peripherals haven't already taking advantage of usb 3.0. They have previously depended on USB 2.0, even though they have would benefit from full-duplex signaling. Especially when there are plenty of full-duplex interfaces out there (FW, rj45, hell even spp). Instead we only hear about usb 3.0 support being removed or delayed from motherboards, further discouraging products from attempting to ride the wave of USB 3.0 anticipation (which there currently is none).
 
Well, USB 3 controllers (root controllers, device chips) are only now going into full-scale production. The expectation in the industry is that the first USB 3 devices will appear next year. As I said before, though, it will be interesting to see how the average consumer responds to the shorter (1.5 - 3) meter, thicker cables and the new plugs. I also have no idea how USB 3 will do with mobile devices considering the nerfed micro connector whereas the FW micro connector is a _lot_ smaller. People may just decide to live with it, but I'm glad I'm not in tech support for a large PC peripheral company.

USB 2 was easy to switch to from 1.1. The cables were the same, as were the connectors. Heck, I don't even know of some of my USB devices whether they're 1.1 or 2.0. That's good BC. USB 2.0's bandwidth is also still enough for most applications. Where it isn't (external storage) there are already alternatives. I think that's one of the reasons why uptake of USB 3 is and will be slow.
 
Any rumors about future Intel chipsets that would natively support SATA 3.0 & USB 3.0?
& maybe PCIe 3.0 as well?
P65 ?
 
i wonder if there will amd or intel x58 boards with sata6g/usb3 can anyone confirm?
 
maxius said:
i wonder if there will amd or intel x58 boards with sata6g/usb3 can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...

Intel is apparently stalling adding USB 3 to its chipsets until 2011, so you can wait a long time for that one. An add-on IC may be an option, but I don't see much demand for it. SATA III will be introduced as soon as it's ready, which will probably be next year.
 
well i just hope it gets here quickly, as all my usb 3.0 devices and sata 3.0 drives have been bitching that their present interfaces are just way too slow!!!
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
well i just hope it gets here quickly, as all my usb 3.0 devices and sata 3.0 drives have been bitching that their present interfaces are just way too slow!!!
Click to expand...

I hear your pain, I write dreary poems from time to time about this very same issue I myself am having.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top