Tuesday, September 18th 2007

USB 3.0 Proposed

by
Polaris573
 Discuss (41 Comments)
Intel has announced the formation of the USB 3.0 promoters group, a consortium that aims to create a "super speed personal USB interconnect."

The first members of the promoter group (HP, Intel, Microsoft, NEC Corporation, NXP Semiconductors and Texas Instruments) said that USB 3.0 will deliver more than ten times the data transfer bandwidth of USB 2.0, which tops out at 480 Mb/s. The new interface will be designed to be used in consumer electronics and mobile applications and able to deal with digital media file sizes that are likely to exceed 25 GB.

Intel stated that USB 3.0 will be based on current USB technology and ports and cabling will be backwards compatible; however version 3.0 will offer enhancements for better protocol efficiency and lower power consumption. The development group will also integrate an upgrade path to optical capabilities for USB. A completed USB 3.0 specification is expected to be released in the first half of 2008.
Source: TG Daily

Related News

Add your own comment

41 Comments on USB 3.0 Proposed

#1
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
Finally USB can be used in HDs and they can be super fast!
Posted on Reply
#2
Sasqui
AFT (About frikkin time). That's the first I've heard of this.
Posted on Reply
#3
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
You know, I wonder how all the old electronics are going to cope with this... I remember that when they made 2.0 I practically cried because everything was faster, but it overvolted my old items I had... stupid 2.0... I am quite curious: how do they make 3.0 faster? Magic? I think not!
Posted on Reply
#4
kwchang007
Sweet...10x480 mb/s....4.8 gb/s....very sweet.
Posted on Reply
#5
panchoman
Sold my stars!
kwchang007Sweet...10x480 mb/s....4.8 gb/s....very sweet.
forget sata raid, wheres the usb hdd raid? lmao.
Posted on Reply
#6
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
Oh that is a good point... USB is now faster than SATA!!! Or so they say...
Posted on Reply
#7
kwchang007
PVTCaboose1337Oh that is a good point... USB is now faster than SATA!!! Or so they say...
Probably not since currant USB really can only hold a sustained rate of about 30 mb/s which multiplied by 10 is 300 mb/s. SATA is rated at 300 mb/s between the controller and the drive. 3 gb/s between the controller and the sb. So all in all, SATA is still faster if looked at realistic speeds because I believe SATA can run closer to the limits than us.
Posted on Reply
#9
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
I was thinking that way as well... Realistically you say...
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
Polaris573The new interface will be designed to be used in consumer electronics and mobile applications and able to deal with digital media file sizes that are likely to exceed 25 GB.
Read: Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. lol
Posted on Reply
#11
Ravenas
This maybe a stupid question, would this enable the use of external graphics cards?
Posted on Reply
#13
kwchang007
RavenasThis maybe a stupid question, would this enable the use of external graphics cards?
Hell if it can pull off the full 4.8 gb/s yeah. But the thing is there's going to be overhead, and the usb bus is shared with everything that's connected onto it etc. So it's not really as good as pci-e, and anyways, pci-e 2.0 has standards for external gfx cards.
Posted on Reply
#14
JacKz5o
Nice find :D

USB2.0 was getting pretty slow for my external HD :(
Posted on Reply
#15
TheGuruStud
stupid intel. When will everyone learn? USB sucks. Always has (and most likely always will).
1394 is the way to go. Who wants slow speeds and high CPU utilization?

Reminds me of this huge argument we had with an instructor that thought intel was cool. Took us forever to get him to believe that 1394a slaughters usb 2.0 (same thing happened with him and CPU performance a couple yrs ago). Theoretical and synthetic tests doesn't mean jack (especially with intel haha).

/rant
Posted on Reply
#16
Ravenas
kwchang007Hell if it can pull off the full 4.8 gb/s yeah. But the thing is there's going to be overhead, and the usb bus is shared with everything that's connected onto it etc. So it's not really as good as pci-e, and anyways, pci-e 2.0 has standards for external gfx cards.
The only reason I don't think it would work that well is because USB sends information in bursts, whereas FIREWIRE sends information streaming.
Posted on Reply
#17
Leon2ky
TheGuruStudstupid intel. When will everyone learn? USB sucks. Always has (and most likely always will).
1394 is the way to go. Who wants slow speeds and high CPU utilization?

Reminds me of this huge argument we had with an instructor that thought intel was cool. Took us forever to get him to believe that 1394a slaughters usb 2.0 (same thing happened with him and CPU performance a couple yrs ago). Theoretical and synthetic tests doesn't mean jack (especially with intel haha).

/rant
No matter if it's faster or not, I have 2 Firewire 400 ports on my PC, they've never been used. USB is just more readily available. (Also its near impossible to find a mobo with 1394b)
Posted on Reply
#18
Ravenas
True, but it's still faster. ;)
Posted on Reply
#19
kakazza
Wonder if it can push more power than the current 500mA.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
firewire is faster, since it does streaming. but USB is cheaper, and more common. the compatibility is the big thing, even a pentium 2 can use a flash drive, whereas firewire as A and B that arent compatible, requiring different devices/cables to get anything to work.

USB3 has to beat firewire 800 (B) and hopefully it supports streaming, and not just bursts...
Posted on Reply
#21
jocksteeluk
TheGuruStudstupid intel. When will everyone learn? USB sucks. Always has (and most likely always will).
1394 is the way to go. Who wants slow speeds and high CPU utilization?
/rant
Fire wire costs far too much per port to make it an industry standard, a USB port costs approx 15 cents per port while Firewire costs $1 per port. If Apple wasn't so greedy they could have had the industry standard but Apples greed over firewire shows why single small collaboratives should not own the rights to any industry standard that is to be a world wide standard.

Usb is the peoples champion!
Posted on Reply
#22
Grimskull
SATA 6 is due to be launched soon. It has 6gb transfer rate
Posted on Reply
#23
Weer
Don't get all excited just yet, guys!

Sure, USB has the bandwidth, but it Sucks at read/write times. It's as slow as a 4200RPM HDD. What we need is improvement in that area.. if possible.

Then, we could hook up a USB flash drive and it'll be as fast as an SSD.
Posted on Reply
#24
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
Then ready boost could actually boost.
Posted on Reply
#25
error_f0rce
TheGuruStudstupid intel. When will everyone learn? USB sucks. Always has (and most likely always will).
1394 is the way to go. Who wants slow speeds and high CPU utilization?

Reminds me of this huge argument we had with an instructor that thought intel was cool. Took us forever to get him to believe that 1394a slaughters usb 2.0 (same thing happened with him and CPU performance a couple yrs ago). Theoretical and synthetic tests doesn't mean jack (especially with intel haha).

/rant
Apparently the Guru is here to make us all Disciples of 1394 ;)

Please qualify your original statement. I fail to see how you proved Intel is stupid... and for that matter I don't think you offered a convincing argument that USB sucks. Are you saying it sucks because its slower than 1394? How does that follow? Does this mean anything that's not the fastest sucks? Using a similar argument, I could state that 1394 sucks because eSATA is faster.

You must see the foolishness in this logic.

Do I think 1394 is superior to USB? Yes. Would it be great if it had overtaken the personal electronics & peripherals market instead of USB? Yes. Does that make Intel or USB stupid? Certainly not.

Save the bashing/flaming for a different forum please.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 26th, 2024 23:46 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts