Wednesday, August 5th 2009

PCI-Express 3.0 Hits Backwards Compatibility Roadblock, Delayed

PCI-SIG (Special Interest Group), the organisation responsible for development of PCI specifications announced that generation 3 PCI-Express (PCI-E 3.0), is off its target launch time from late-2009 to Q2 2010. Although work on the bus is almost finished, there seems to be problems with implementing backwards-compatibility with older generations of PCI-E. Assuming PCI-E 3.0 is standardised in Q2 2010, one can expect implementing products (motherboards and expansion cards supporting PCI-E 3.0) only by a year later.

PCI-E 3.0 packs features that overcome the bottlenecks of PCI-E 2.0, such as the removal of the 8P/10b encoding scheme that added at least 20% data overhead for the 5 GT/s PCI-E 2.0, reducing it to 4 GT/s effective. At 8 GT/s the new bus will have effectively twice the bandwidth.Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

62 Comments on PCI-Express 3.0 Hits Backwards Compatibility Roadblock, Delayed

#1
largon
Fact is, even a single HD4890 gains performance from the extra bandwidth when going from x8 2.0 (= x16 1._) to x16 2.0.

Few people seem to realize slot power is basically useless if a card has an onboard power connector. That's because a video card has only one major power drawing component - the GPU core. GPU VRMs cannot be designed so that they would draw current from two sources as load balancing between the sources (slot+plug) would be impossible.

And here's a quote from official PCIe power spec:
by: PCI-SIG PCIe 2.0 specification sheet
A 300W Graphics add-in card can receive power by the following methods:

- 75W from x16 PCIe connector plus 150W from a 2x4 connector
plus 75W from a 2x3 connector.
- 75W from x16 PCIe connector plus 75W from a first 2x3
connector, plus 75W from a second 2x3 connector, plus 75W
from a third 2x3 connector. Note that this is not the preferred
approach.
Posted on Reply
#3
inferKNOX
by: FordGT90Concept
Intel was involved in its creation/standardization (still on the PCI-SIG board). It was also first introduced by Intel.
Ah, I see.:slap:

by: FordGT90Concept
FYI, it is SATA 6 GB/s, not SATA III (SATA II is the group that set the specifications for SATA 3 GB/s). SAS already has some controllers that are 6 GB/s capable so it is pretty close to hitting mainstream, me thinks.
Yeah, I know about the technicalities of the SATA spec, etc. It just gelled better with everything at 3; and if you think about it, it really is version 3, just that they can't figure themselves out with the whole naming scheme. It seems most tech companies a suffering from an acute inability to name properly. Heard of too many cooks in the kitchen, well this is too many geeks at the drawing board... lol!:p
Posted on Reply
#4
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Their naming scheme takes after ATA-33, ATA-66, ATA-100, and ATA-133--no version, just speed. ;)
Posted on Reply
#5
Steevo
Of course a newer graphics card is going to bottleneck at a lower than x16 2.0 speed, newer games contain so much need for data it is using system RAM and the CPU to the full, and the lack of ability to fetch textures and setup information kills the performance, thus the reason the newer ATI drivers are getting more out of CPU bound games with the same card.
Posted on Reply
#6
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
by: Steevo
Of course a newer graphics card is going to bottleneck at a lower than x16 2.0 speed, newer games contain so much need for data it is using system RAM and the CPU to the full, and the lack of ability to fetch textures and setup information kills the performance, thus the reason people decide to go with buying a Console instead.
Fixed.:laugh:

But seriously, games should be able to scale on all hardware. Makes me sad when people have really old systems and don't have the cash or resources to upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#7
inferKNOX
by: FordGT90Concept
Their naming scheme takes after ATA-33, ATA-66, ATA-100, and ATA-133--no version, just speed. ;)
You know what I mean...:p
Posted on Reply
#8
Mussels
Moderprator
by: inferKNOX
You know what I mean...:p
SATA 1, sata 2, sata 3, sata 1.5Gb, sata 3Gb, sata 6GB, sata 150, sata 300, sata 600...


yeah, i know what you mean. its damned annoying, but i know where it started.
SATA has optional features like NCQ - you cant call a HDD a SATA II HDD, if it doesnt support NCQ - so they call it SATA 300, or SATA 3Gb if they want it to sound fast.
Posted on Reply
#9
inferKNOX
by: CDdude55
Fixed.:laugh:

But seriously, games should be able to scale on all hardware. Makes me sad when people have really old systems and don't have the cash or resources to upgrade.
I disagree. I painstakingly upgraded from IGP to where I am now and believe that if people are willing to fork out for a console, they should be able to fork out for a PC. Otherwise we'd all still be stuck playing games like pac-man because some people still run P1's and can't afford to upgrade. Whether buying a car or anything, if you want greater performance, you invest more into it. You can't buy a Mini Cooper and complain about why it doesn't handle like a Ferrari, or why you can't fit Ferrari tires on it for that matter. You get what you worked for.
Lol, tonnes of car metaphors flying out in this thread.:p
Posted on Reply
#10
Mussels
Moderprator
PS3 costs $500 here in au, wii costs $400.


For $500 you can make a dual core AMD system with 2GB of ram, a 500GB HDD and a 4770 with a somewhat decent PSU (something thats quiet and reliable, if not efficient) and have leftover money.

The thing people forget is that just like a PC, consoles dont come with a screen or speakers - you hook your new $400 pc up to your HDTV and home theater system, and you get a lot more bang for your buck.

People say you dont have to upgrade consoles, just keep it and buy a new one when they come out. same goes for PC - spend that $500 every 2-3 years, and either keep or sell the old one when you're done - one advantage is that unlike consoles one PC can run all PC games, you dont have the sony vs microsoft wars stopping you playing the games you want, cause you bought 'the wrong one' (count in the price of buying two, or three consoles and you can get one hell of a PC for that price)
Posted on Reply
#11
inferKNOX
by: Mussels
PS3 costs $500 here in au, wii costs $400.


For $500 you can make a dual core AMD system with 2GB of ram, a 500GB HDD and a 4770 with a somewhat decent PSU (something thats quiet and reliable, if not efficient) and have leftover money.

The thing people forget is that just like a PC, consoles dont come with a screen or speakers - you hook your new $400 pc up to your HDTV and home theater system, and you get a lot more bang for your buck.

People say you dont have to upgrade consoles, just keep it and buy a new one when they come out. same goes for PC - spend that $500 every 2-3 years, and either keep or sell the old one when you're done - one advantage is that unlike consoles one PC can run all PC games, you dont have the sony vs microsoft wars stopping you playing the games you want, cause you bought 'the wrong one'
+1;)
Plus to top it all of, a PC lets you work, play, watch (movies), listen (music) and study all on one system. Consoles can't touch that IMO.
Wait a sec, I'm off topic... ah... um... PCIe 3.0 FTW! LOL :D
Posted on Reply
#12
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Good points.;)
PS3 costs $500 here in au, wii costs $400.
Geez,:eek:, much more expensive then hear in the states.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment