Friday, April 17th 2009

AMD SB850 Southbridge to Pack Gen. 3 SATA 6 Gbps Support

As the market receives AMD's homegrown chipsets well since its successful 7-series, the company is preparing a new breed of platform core-logic technologies that will serve present and upcoming generations of the company's processors. From what we know so far, the company has designed the RD8xx and RS880, and has reportedly prepared prototype motherboards based on the chipsets. Several motherboard vendors have already prepared their upcoming SKUs based on the RS880 (AMD 880G), though all of these feature current SB710/SB750 series southbridge chips.

The successor, SB850, has been known to bring in an expanded feature set, and more importantly, an update with its storage controller. The southbridge will be one of the first ones to feature the third-generation SATA interface, that offers a maximum bandwidth of 6 Gbps between the system and the storage device, in comparison to 3 Gbps SATA II offers. In RAID mode, the controller will provide RAID 0, 1, JBOD, and RAID 5 modes. Six SATA channels will be supported in all. Other known features include support for 14 USB ports, albeit USB 2.0. AMD won't be embracing USB 3.0 just yet. The new southbridge will be released in Q4 2009 according to a portion of a roadmap slide by the company.

Source: Expreview
Add your own comment

37 Comments on AMD SB850 Southbridge to Pack Gen. 3 SATA 6 Gbps Support

#1
DaJMasta
WE NEED MOAR USB!



Seriously, 12 wasn't enough?


Very good news with the new SATA standard though, SSDs are rapidly approaching fully saturating a SATA II channel.
Posted on Reply
#2
Silverel
Well that's good news. I can stop holding out on new boards with USB 3, Sata 6GB/s isn't really appealing to me for a board refresh. Onwards to AM3!
Posted on Reply
#3
AsRock
TPU addict
Cool, glad there getting on to this although SDD's are some time away before i buy them. The next will be here soon as faster SDD come out sooner than HDD's do.

by: DaJMasta
WE NEED MOAR USB!



Seriously, 12 wasn't enough?


Very good news with the new SATA standard though, SSDs are rapidly approaching fully saturating a SATA II channel.
I use 10 my self at least. Only a few use like 8+ USB connections but at least having 12 it future proofs against running out.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=697422#post697422
Posted on Reply
#4
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
Wonder if this will support more than Dual Channel DDR3, if it does, looks like I found my next upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#5
aj28
by: 1Kurgan1
Wonder if this will support more than Dual Channel DDR3, if it does, looks like I found my next upgrade.
I think that's somewhat more dependent on AMD's core design, rather than the southbridge... And you can never have too much USB!!!
Posted on Reply
#6
Assimilator
Soooo... AMD is including support for a feature that no current storage device can make use of, instead of concentrating on improving their lackluster CPUs. Every computer needs a CPU, and I can guarantee you that more people want a good AMD CPU than want a new south bridge.

And SATA 6Gbps instead of USB 3.0? Hmmm, which one is likely to be more useful to consumers?
Posted on Reply
#7
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
by: Assimilator
Soooo... AMD is including support for a feature that no current storage device can make use of, instead of concentrating on improving their lackluster CPUs. Every computer needs a CPU, and I can guarantee you that more people want a good AMD CPU than want a new south bridge.

And SATA 6Gbps instead of USB 3.0? Hmmm, which one is likely to be more useful to consumers?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? AMD took back a MASSIVE portion of the CPU marketshare in the 1Q of 09 because of the MASSIVE sucess of the PII lineup.

Now what I assume you mean is they don't have a $1000 processor to go toe to toe on air/watercooling against the i7 965/975. That is true, but I would like you to tell me exactly how many people are spending 1k on a processor. I see you only have a Q6600, so I don't really understand the point of view as that processor wasn't ever $1000.

At average prices the PII lineup is fantastic, they hang with the i7 920 just fine excluding HT, and they offer a cheaper chipset.
Posted on Reply
#8
[I.R.A]_FBi
by: 1Kurgan1
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? AMD took back a MASSIVE portion of the CPU marketshare in the 1Q of 09 because of the MASSIVE sucess of the PII lineup.

Now what I assume you mean is they don't have a $1000 processor to go toe to toe on air/watercooling against the i7 965/975. That is true, but I would like you to tell me exactly how many people are spending 1k on a processor. I see you only have a Q6600, so I don't really understand the point of view as that processor wasn't ever $1000.

At average prices the PII lineup is fantastic, they hang with the i7 920 just fine excluding HT, and they offer a cheaper chipset.
j00 = meanie
Posted on Reply
#9
TheGuruStud
Usb 3 :laugh: Intel can keep their crap. Give me me 1394b&c and esata any day.
If I wanted variable speeds and high resource usage, then I'd use USB.

It's a shame all the companies are cheap asses and don't want to provide superior technology on their products. I'll easily pay the few dollars it costs for the interface. It's valuable. 12 USBs even if they're USB 3.0 are not.

Flame away.

Oh, and I want hardware raid 5 and improved 1 and 0 performance. What happened to using SI chips on the MBs? Those are far superior to any of this integrated crap. And what's with the raid drivers on the GF8200 MBs? The raid controller thinks the volume always get degraded, pathetic.
Posted on Reply
#11
TreadR
USB 3 is optical... it's won't benefit you on current USB devices and probably it won't on future devices also... for some time. And why should I want more speed for extra cash when I have eSATA? USB is just that.

Besides, more USB ports isn't that useful. The USB standard says on USB root hub can handle more devices than it has ports for. For example my SB700 can handle 12 direct attached ports, but if I take a look in the device manager and count how many devices each hub can take, I find it can handle 26 USB devices. A simple USB hub for usual devices like a flash stick, printer or and external drive will give me the additional ports that I would need... if I would need so many. Not mentioning that some LCD's now come with such hubs build in. Dell's 2408WFP has 4 USB-A for output and a five-format card-reader from one USB-B for input.

Anyway... I hope there's more to it than more USB's and SATA 6 Gbit/s.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheGuruStud
^^ On the other hand, good luck using more than one bandwidth intensive (aka not much lol) device on the same root hub. Not that you couldn't just split them up between all the ports, but just sayin. I've also had problems with hubs like devices dropping out and the cheap ones aren't powered, etc.
Posted on Reply
#13
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
I would've rather asked for 8 SATA ports than 14 USB ports.
Posted on Reply
#14
TreadR
by: TheGuruStud
^^ On the other hand, good luck using more than one bandwidth intensive (aka not much lol) device on the same root hub. Not that you couldn't just split them up between all the ports, but just sayin. I've also had problems with hubs like devices dropping out and the cheap ones aren't powered, etc.
Managing between intensive an non-intensive usage devices is left for your brain to decide. Thanks from the good luck thing, but I don't call using common sense, luck.
Posted on Reply
#15
eidairaman1
ESATA is a Specific Purpose Port like Parallel and Serial was, where USB tends to be more wide range, I honestly think ESATA will benefit Laptop users/Gamers where Internal Storage can be limited.
by: TreadR
USB 3 is optical... it's won't benefit you on current USB devices and probably it won't on future devices also... for some time. And why should I want more speed for extra cash when I have eSATA? USB is just that.

Besides, more USB ports isn't that useful. The USB standard says on USB root hub can handle more devices than it has ports for. For example my SB700 can handle 12 direct attached ports, but if I take a look in the device manager and count how many devices each hub can take, I find it can handle 26 USB devices. A simple USB hub for usual devices like a flash stick, printer or and external drive will give me the additional ports that I would need... if I would need so many. Not mentioning that some LCD's now come with such hubs build in. Dell's 2408WFP has 4 USB-A for output and a five-format card-reader from one USB-B for input.

Anyway... I hope there's more to it than more USB's and SATA 6 Gbit/s.
Posted on Reply
#16
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: TreadR
USB 3 is optical...
No, it's electrical like USB 1.1/2.0, to which is also provides backwards-compatibility.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
by: TreadR
USB 3 is optical... it's won't benefit you on current USB devices and probably it won't on future devices also... for some time. And why should I want more speed for extra cash when I have eSATA? USB is just that.

Besides, more USB ports isn't that useful. The USB standard says on USB root hub can handle more devices than it has ports for. For example my SB700 can handle 12 direct attached ports, but if I take a look in the device manager and count how many devices each hub can take, I find it can handle 26 USB devices. A simple USB hub for usual devices like a flash stick, printer or and external drive will give me the additional ports that I would need... if I would need so many. Not mentioning that some LCD's now come with such hubs build in. Dell's 2408WFP has 4 USB-A for output and a five-format card-reader from one USB-B for input.

Anyway... I hope there's more to it than more USB's and SATA 6 Gbit/s.
USB3 can't be optical, as it's completely backwards compatible with USB2.0 and 1.1.
Posted on Reply
#18
TreadR
by: btarunr
No, it's electrical like USB 1.1/2.0, to which is also provides backwards-compatibility.
My bad then...however, that's what it was said a year and a half ago... guess they made up their minds now.


by: eidairaman1
ESATA is a Specific Purpose Port like Parallel and Serial was, where USB tends to be more wide range, I honestly think ESATA will benefit Laptop users/Gamers where Internal Storage can be limited.
True, but I was pointing it out for speed... not general purpose. We already have 2.0 for that, there's no need for another high speed interface... well if we would have more SATA / eSATA, it would be better... but for general purpose: HID, flash sticks, web-cams, printers, phones, backup drives etc, there really is no need for a faster more-expensive one. Besides the marketing hype it will create to pursue people to lean towards one side or the other, it just looks like try to be a dominant technology.

I don't know, but having a SATA on-chip controller or as a separate chip is more than enough for a technology to enable and achieve hi speed transfers. I don't know what else could be the purpose of having a more stressful tech (USB 3.0) on the same chip besides the another tech (SATA) that can already do the same thing?

And it's eSATA, with a lower e.
Posted on Reply
#19
largon
by: Assimilator
Soooo... AMD is including support for a feature that no current storage device can make use of, instead of concentrating on improving their lackluster CPUs. Every computer needs a CPU, and I can guarantee you that more people want a good AMD CPU than want a new south bridge.
Welcome to last year.
Posted on Reply
#20
ShadowFold
by: Assimilator
Soooo... AMD is including support for a feature that no current storage device can make use of, instead of concentrating on improving their lackluster CPUs. Every computer needs a CPU, and I can guarantee you that more people want a good AMD CPU than want a new south bridge.

And SATA 6Gbps instead of USB 3.0? Hmmm, which one is likely to be more useful to consumers?
Phenom II perform the same in games than i7, I don't see how they're lackluster.
Posted on Reply
#21
eidairaman1
yup so says the Intel/Nvidia user, He trolls alot i noticed trying to pick fights with everyone.
Posted on Reply
#22
Wile E
Power User
by: TreadR
My bad then...however, that's what it was said a year and a half ago... guess they made up their minds now.




True, but I was pointing it out for speed... not general purpose. We already have 2.0 for that, there's no need for another high speed interface... well if we would have more SATA / eSATA, it would be better... but for general purpose: HID, flash sticks, web-cams, printers, phones, backup drives etc, there really is no need for a faster more-expensive one. Besides the marketing hype it will create to pursue people to lean towards one side or the other, it just looks like try to be a dominant technology.

I don't know, but having a SATA on-chip controller or as a separate chip is more than enough for a technology to enable and achieve hi speed transfers. I don't know what else could be the purpose of having a more stressful tech (USB 3.0) on the same chip besides the another tech (SATA) that can already do the same thing?

And it's eSATA, with a lower e.
I don't know about you, but faster usb sticks would be very useful to many. Have you ever seen how long it takes to transfer 12GB of data to a USB stick?
Posted on Reply
#23
TheGuruStud
by: Wile E
I don't know about you, but faster usb sticks would be very useful to many. Have you ever seen how long it takes to transfer 12GB of data to a USB stick?
That's not the fault of USB. It's the cheap, mass produced memory's fault. They're writing at what, 1-9 MB/s? Yeah, USB can do more than that haha. Until flash gets better, slow write speeds won't change.
Posted on Reply
#24
Wile E
Power User
by: TheGuruStud
That's not the fault of USB. It's the cheap, mass produced memory's fault. They're writing at what, 1-9 MB/s? Yeah, USB can do more than that haha. Until flash gets better, slow write speeds wont' change.
It's not entirely the fault of the USB stick, either. Mine writes much faster than that, btw.
Posted on Reply
#25
TheGuruStud
by: Wile E
It's not entirely the fault of the USB stick, either. Mine writes much faster than that, btw.
Depends on exactly what mem is used. But I can surely smoke any flash drive in write performance with an old IDE drive and equally old enclosure. Proving, USB is not to blame.

Now, tons of tiny files can be an exception. Idk what causes it (windows maybe?), but those write slow as hell, less than 1 MB/s (on flash drives).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment