1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

PCI Express 3.0 by 2010, Supports Heavier, Gluttonous Cards

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 19, 2008.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,866 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,716
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    System component expansion interface PCI-Express could get its next major face-lift in 2009, following which products compatible with the interface could be out by 2010. The PCI Express Special Interest Group (SIG) is in the process of devising the new interface that provides devices with twice the amount of bandwidth as that of the current PCI-Express 2.0, that's 8 Giga-transfers per second (GT/s). it is said to be backwards compatible with older versions of the interface.

    Changes in specifications are being made that allow this interface to support triple-slot, 300W (from the interface), 1.5 kg (roughly 3 lbs) graphics cards. Perhaps this is the ideal interface for 'heavier' products from NVIDIA, AMD, and soon Intel.

    Source: GPU Café
     
    $ReaPeR$ says thanks.
  2. Cuzza

    Cuzza New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,318 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    207
    Location:
    New Zealand
    1.5kg? frickin hell, sure if your graphics card is solid steel....
     
    $ReaPeR$ says thanks.
  3. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,487 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,767
    great. they're going to support the cards i really DONT want.

    i want small, lightweight cards with low power usage.
     
    OnBoard, 1c3d0g and $ReaPeR$ say thanks.
  4. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,866 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,716
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Soon you'll have a graphics card "ohm nom nom" avatar.
     
    $ReaPeR$ says thanks.
  5. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,487 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,767
    it will eat my physical space, my wallet, my power bill, and have its own gravitational field :'(
     
    $ReaPeR$ says thanks.
  6. $ReaPeR$

    $ReaPeR$

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    143 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Location:
    Athens-Greece
    i totally agree with you Mussels. i mean what the hell are they trying to do? throw us back in the PC stone age when the PC parts where as big as the mobo!!! if so i wold like to create a new company called AMD (advanced MEGA devices) who wants to join me??:nutkick::nutkick::nutkick:

    P.S. i am not imposing something about AMD.:respect:
     
  7. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    I'd expect them to reinforce the substrate and the slot with carbon nanotubes at least :laugh: Geez... PCI-E ports probably will need backplates now + bolt thru screws :laugh:
     
  8. INSTG8R

    INSTG8R

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,025 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    521
    Location:
    Lost in Norway
    Silly Crap! I mean nothing even ended up using max Bandwidth on AGP and now they just keep making the pipe bigger and bigger?? Is ANYTHING actually running out of room on PCI-1.0 16x yet?? I mean c'mon this is getting a bit silly..
     
  9. candle_86 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,916 (1.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    so this new slot will hold current cards without screwing them down, woot
     
  10. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    That's quite wrong. The first 8800's already slowed down on x8 slots and got severely crippled by x4 slots. So a 9800GX2 or 4870x2 will be bottlenecked by a single x16 slot(1.0).
    Besides, the standard needs to be ready for future cards, not for last generation. For this reason AGP kept increasing bandwidth as well. The industry keeps moving on, whether you like it or not.
     
  11. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Add GTX280/260 to that list.

    what dan said is right. We might as well get ready.
     
  12. INSTG8R

    INSTG8R

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,025 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    521
    Location:
    Lost in Norway

    Well the 8800's used bridges did they not? that alone could contribute to that couldn't it?

    Yeah I get things have to move on but 2.0 has barely become standard with only this last gen of cards supporting it and already its going up another spec.
     
  13. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,866 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,716
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    No, 8800 (G80) did not use bridges of any sort, it's GPUs such as NV40 (GeForce 6800 PCI-E series) that had bridges (bus translation logic).
     
  14. INSTG8R

    INSTG8R

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,025 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    521
    Location:
    Lost in Norway
    rgr, thanks for the clarification.
     
  15. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    I believe that the max current draw from the 2.0 spec is around 75 watts. At 300 watts this could mean that graphics cards that max out around 150 watts or so could get all their power from the slot and would not need a seperate PSU cable.

    This would be nice for cable management in systems that did not use the behemoth cards.
     
  16. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,866 (11.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,716
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    This would mean more power inputs for the motherboard. The power has to come from somewhere.
     
  17. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    True, but the power cable for the mobo is easier to hide as it is usually on the side near the PSU.
    The GC cables have to either cut across the mobo our be routed around the side.

    It was just a thought. :) Now if someone can figure out a way to eliminate all of the cables to the storage devices we will all have really clean cases. :toast:
     
  18. PCpraiser100 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,062 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Holy shit, 8 Gigs per second, thats overkill and beyond....
     
  19. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    Remember what forum you are on. I don't think "overkill" is in our dictionary :D
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  20. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,487 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,767
    its in my thesaurus. its in there next to 'barely enough' and 'acceptable'
     
  21. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    :laugh: When I type "overkill" into my thesaurus is returns "Good enough for now".
     
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  22. oli_ramsay

    oli_ramsay

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,476 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Location:
    UK
    I'm a little concerned when people say PCI-E 1.1 is bottlenecking powerful cards. Do you think it's a possibility that my P35 is bottlenecking my 4870 because it's not PCI-E 2.0?
     
  23. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,487 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,767
    unlikely. its more the dual GPU cards that would be bottlenecked.

    1.1 has more bandwidth than 1.0, its dual GPU 2.0 cards on a 1.0 slot that are the concern.
     
  24. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Bottlenecking not per se, but it probably would perform slightly better on a 2.0 bus. I doubt the difference will be huge though.
     
  25. zithe

    zithe

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,088 (1.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    North Chili, NY
    A system may be considered "Overkill" for about a month. Next month it's still fun. Next month it's an average system. Then next month you're window shopping all over again.

    Quoting myself : "I'll buy a system and put a lot of money in it and turn it on every morning thinking 'wow, I can't believe I built this!' A year later, I turn it on thinking 'Ugh... I can't believe I built this...' "

    Maybe not that drastic. If you get a 4870x2 now, you can play all games maxed with high AA (except the poorly coded game known as crysis). In 2 years, you could probably still play games on max with a little AA, and a year later it's just maxed. Same case with my X1800XT. It play UT3 admirably, and even has a decent shot at crysis. I like my card, but it won't be enough for me for very long. XD gunna give it to mom eventually.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page