Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010 09:14

AMD wants to support USB 3.0

Written by Nick Farell

Wining and dining NEC
Executives from AMD have been seen wining and dining their opposite numbers at  Renesas Electronics in a bid to do a licensing deal on USB 3.0 technology. Renesas was merged into NEC  and is the only  manufacturer to have approval from the USB organisation.

According to Digitimes
, AMD wants to integrate  USB 3.0 support in its upcoming Hudson D1 southbridge chipsets. Quoting its reporter's typewriter, deep throats in the notebook industry, who it forgets to name, said that AMD is dead keen to get the technology under the bonnet of the new range.

Tthe Hudson D1 chipset will be introduced for AMD's 40nm Ontario APUs that are set to be shipped in the fourth quarter of 2010. The new platform is targeted the ultra-thin notebook and netbook markets.

AMD will launch Llano-based processors for its mainstream desktop and notebook segments in 2011. It seems likely that it wants USB 3.0 support in all of them.

In doing so it will steal the march on Intel. Gigabyte told us at this year's Computex confirmed that Intel's USB 3.0 chipset won't hit vendors or anyone else until 2012.

blog comments powered by Disqus


+15 #1 JAB Creations 2010-07-28 09:45
Intel doesn't want competition to it's light peak technology to become well established hence why they as a company drowning in their own money have been screwing over their customers so they can get their technology finished and well established and then charge everyone else licensing fees. Not that it's not great technology...it's just that the politics of it all ultimately screws over consumers.

I am a bit surprised that AMD did not implement USB 3.0 in to 8 series chipsets. A lot of people get hyped about PCI-Express 1X cards a PCI-E 2.0 1x slot provides only one-way bandwidth of 250 megabytes a second while USB 3.0's 5 gigabit / 8 = 625 megabytes per second so unless USB 3.0 is integrated you're still potentially looking at a bus-based bottleneck.
0 #2 Bl0bb3r 2010-07-28 17:27
@JAB, not that I disagree but 250MB/s is still a lot of bandwidth and should bother you only if you're a kid without the lil'bit of patience (ADHD maybe?). /sarcasm

My personal opinion is that these SuperSpeed ports seem to advance far to fast for the current storage technology we have access to.

Overall it's nice but the benefits would be a slightly (ONLY) lower price of mainboards. Not much to fuss about.
-1 #3 blandead 2010-07-28 21:34
I think it would be great if the superspeed usb3.0 got standard in most motherboards. I dont agree that it should ever replace pci express. just cuase x1 2.0 has 250 most things that plug into it dont need more. the thing with pci-express is you can add as many lanes as you have into one slot... so a 4x slot easily overpowers the superspeed 3.0 not to mention the usb speeds are peak/burst rates and the average read/write and sustained rates are much lower, yet pci-express actually goes the speed it says it does. dont forget about 3.0 pcie thats coming eventually as well. you get more benefits then just speed in the first place. apples to oranges here... superspeeed would be good for higher sustained and average speeds closer to the max 3.0 spec, hoepfully...
-1 #4 JAB Creations 2010-07-29 06:02
Well another issue is that PCI-Express 1X slots are few when you load up video cards. I stick with Gigabyte motherboards as all of their boards I've ever purchased are still working. Unfortunately it's rare to get a two PCI-Express 16X slot motherboard that with two 2x slot video cards still leaves access to two PCI-Express 1x slots, most boards won't even give you access to a single 1x slot and while you can put a 1x card in to a 16x slot it's not really all that desirable. More boards should have 4x slots to be honest and as the top PCI-Express slot to boot.
-1 #5 Bl0bb3r 2010-07-30 02:37
You're looking at it the wrong way... you would need PCI-E USB cards only if you need that many USB 3.0 ports. AFAIK 3.0 is only useful for a quick data swap now and then and in the future maybe for managing power cofig on a device that will support such features, like a NAS. Otherwise, USB 2.0 is more than enough for all devices currently connectible through the USB 2.0 ports which we have plenty of... more or less. I wouldn't mind more.

Probably in the next 2 iterations of it's southbridge, the controller will be upgraded to support more than two ports, but for now, they suffice.
-1 #6 Bl0bb3r 2010-07-30 02:49
BTW you could use ribbon raiser cards for those PCI-E ports that land under the graphic card's cooler and putting x1 to x8 PCI-E cards in x16 slots is in now way wrong or undesirable. What's undesirable is the space lost in the mainboard's PCB because of extra x16 slots plastic.

Also, take into account that NB's can't supply that many grouped PCI-E lanes.

Only AMD's 790FX/890FX can supply one x6 port and 4 x1 ports besides the 2 x16 ports (or 4 x8 in some configs).

On Intel's side things don't look that different either, but only for x58, which is an expensive chip.

Lower NB models from either vendor have even less configuration options, unfortunately.

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus


Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments