Ugh - Intel Reportedly Waiting Until 2012 to Install USB 3.0

25

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

drag00n

 

Look Intel has done this over and over again with hardware, with the aging generation meaning mom and pop they don't need the speed and they could probably care less. With power users and hardware tweaker they have other options and they know it the argument goes Intel does it and they want to see the reaction of the competitor so they can make a judgment on what course to make. I'm sure other makers will have usb 3.0 and then something new will come out once that has become mainstream that is the tech world and it will always be. I see it at work all the time with costumer's wanting more bandwidth for there servers or Virtual private networking software or with some other software or hardware issue.

http://www.sagonet.com"Dedicated server hosting at Sago Networks”

 

avatar

DJSPIN80

Honestly, with PCIe so common in most motherboards, just buy the PCIe card and be done with.  All chipset integration will do is provide a direct channel to the chipset (via the I/O hub).  You're still stuck with the max rate of USB 3.0, even on a PCI2 2.0 x1 (~500MB/s), USB 3.0's 400MB (max theoretical) will still be under the x1 lane max theoretical.

Light Peak is far more interesting (and honestly, scalable) technology than USB 3.0.  I see USB 3.0 as a good stepping stone but eventually, we'll hit the ceiling for copper based cabling and optical cabling will pick up.  Aside from this, very few devices nowadays benefit from USB 3.0 - external hard drives and cameras are the only things I can think of.  However, with the advent of NAS and other networkable storage, they offer a better value than their USB counterparts, IMO. 

So not all new things are great and not all things new are revolutionary.  So drop the pitchfork and torches, take a deep breath and see what the industry players will do.

avatar

PM_DMNKLR

I think the problem is that they're not ready to admit that they're having difficulty with the bandwidth issue on their current chipsets, considering they're not saying WHY they're holding off.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're trying to further develop their chips to enable the increase of bandwidth need, to a point of where it won't slow down anything else in the way of which it currently does, such as PCI-E.

avatar

jac_goudsmit

What I would like to see happen is that Western Digital, Seagate and other hard disk manufacturers start making USB3 the native interface on internal hard disks, and that AMD starts making USB3 standard on their chipsets. That way just like with AMD's x64 standard that Intel now licenses from them, they will see the error of their ways.

avatar

ferariman

i agree this is amds time to shine with their phenom II processor.

avatar

puremasterx

USB 3.0 is that thing that people want to have, but most likely will never become a huge success. Most companies wont start adopting 3.0 until everyone wants it, and right now only people who are avid computer users want it. the average person wont want it right now because they will just say "well i have a usb port already, so i don't need this". If getting 3.0 means buying a new computer for most people, they wont need it until they need a new computer.

avatar

I Jedi

Are they fucking serious? Honestly, what is the fucking delay in getting USB 3.0 out? Intel needs to step up its game, and get this new standard on a roll. Apart of the reason I was personally waiting to build my next computer was because of USB 3.0. Now, some engineer from Intel tells me that it won't be supporting USB 3.0 till 2012? I think I know what the apocolyptic event will be in 2012. It will be me... turning into the Hulk, and smashing windows and doors at Intel.

avatar

win7fanboi

Any surprise they are getting fined again and again and again for their anti-competitive practices.

Hope they bleed dry from lawsuits.... and usb 3.0 devices are already in the market. By 2012 it won't matter much if intel supports it or not. Now is the chance AMD.... show the dumb fcuks how its done

avatar

I Jedi

I agree, Intel has become was too arrogant to remain 1st forever. If AMD is going to make a strike at Intel, it has to be now. With their new quad-core CPUs marked at $200 dollars a piece, it's no wonder AMD is seeing more and more success recently. I sincerely hope competition returns back to the processor market. Yes, yes, AMD may be giving some competition, but just wait until it catches up with the i7 CPUs.

avatar

someuid

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and suggest maybe this is a good thing.  We need a big player to push us into the optical cable realm because copper can only go so far.

We're also drowning in different specs and users are still confused as to what plugs in where.  USB has made that a bit easier, but I still talk to people daily who don't know what Ethernet is, or Firewire, or eSATA, or the 3,876,218 flavors of DVI.

Just as the OS has made something like printer drivers a no-brainer (who here remembers needing a print driver for each program they used), maybe Light Peak will make cable connections a no brainer.  The engineers handle all the goory details and our moms and dads just plug all those peripherals into the available ports on the back/front/side/hub and are done with it.

Mabe Intel is also working with our non-friends, the MPAA, to get Light Peak to carry HDMI, meaning the interconnects between computers and home theater systems become even simpler for mom and dad.

avatar

DJSPIN80

"Firewire is already obsolete. So who cares what it is?"

Not if you work in digital editing.  Firewire has USB 2.0 trumped in performance.  USB 2.0 relies on the host CPU to act as a controller, this is why USB 2.0's performance varies from box to box: have a beefier machine?  You get more performance out of it.  Firewire has its own controller to manage I/O, but Firewire - in addition to the controller chipset - has a licensing cost, partly why it was so unpopular for daily use.  For years, video cameras came with (gasp) a Firewire connection rather than a USB one, it's only been in the last four or five years that USB made a leap towards cameras.  However, the professional digital editing realm is moving towards more HDD based, so Firewire or eSATA is a far better choice than USB.

avatar

someuid

Firewire obsolete?  I think your world of computer tech is rather small and limited.  Go read about Firewire on wikipedia.  You might be rather surpised how much it is in use and the speeds it achives compared to USB.

And before you pull out the argument "but no one has Firewire on their computers", neither do they have USB 3.0, making USB 3.0 just as 'useless' as Firewire.

avatar

Stomy

I have fire wire and I use it for my external 1Tb drive from seagate

avatar

Slugbait

"And before you pull out the argument "but no one has Firewire on their computers"

I have an original Audigy that has Firewire onboard. I also have an Audigy 2 and X-Fi that both have Firewire, too. My Smackover and Bad Axe2 mobos, as well as my old Z555 HTPC, all have Firewire.

Camcorders can't transfer video via HiSpeed, they require Firewire, and SuperSpeed camcorders aren't expected for at least another year.

So yeah, Firewire isn't obsolete by any means, but nobody can really make much of an argument that no one has Firewire on their computers...I'd wager that over 60% do.

avatar

win7fanboi

"We're also drowning in different specs and users are still confused as to what plugs in where.  USB has made that a bit easier, but I still talk to people daily who don't know what Ethernet is, or Firewire, or eSATA, or the 3,876,218 flavors of DVI."

So you are arguing against usb by agreeing that its make things "a bit" easier... come on... are you sure you are not on the same level as the people who don't know what Ethernet is? How does procrastinating update of the ubiquitous standard that will enable devices to charge twice as fast and move data 10 times faster make sense?

avatar

someuid

"So you are arguing against usb by agreeing that its make things "a bit" easier"

I think you should go read up on what Devil's Advocate means.  I'm not arguing against anything specific, just trying to open up the argument to something other than "lets go bash Intel and burn someone's house down."

"are you sure you are not on the same level as the people who don't know what Ethernet is?"

Go take Philosophy 101.  Attacking an individual to discredit their ideas and arguements is pretty pointless as it doesn't lead to any meaningful discussion on the ideas an arguements put forth for consideration.

"How does procrastinating update of the ubiquitous standard that will enable devices to charge twice as fast and move data 10 times faster make sense?"

Mom and Dad don't give two hoots about that.  Speed?  Recharge time?  They just want it to work and be as simple as possible.  Having to chose between this connector and that connector is not something they want to do.  Having to match this device's USB speed with their older computer's USB speeds is not something they want to do.

I think you missed the whole point of my argument.  Intel wants to simplify the whole interconnect process of peripherals down to a single, no questions asked connector.  The engineer can pick and chose which is most appropriate for the job.  The end user does not have to.  That's what a majority of PC users want over whether this tech is faster than that tech, etc.

Have you ever tried to pick out a piece of hardware by looking at just the marketting speak on the front of the box?  You can't  What you need to know is buried in the tech speak on the side of the box.  While you and I will turn the box and look at it, most people don't and won't.  They need a single, do all connector.  That is my argument behind Intel's move.

avatar

Biceps

Hey Intel,

Way to actively stifle innovation yet again.  Maybe if you guys invent a time machine, you can go back and headshot Albert Einstein, too.  Since he never worked for Intel, you probably should.

Guess who's not getting a motherboard with an Intel chipset ever again.  You get one guess.

How is this not raising the wrath of the anti-monopoly peeps, btw?  Even Intel is admitting that their refusal to adopt the newest in technology is going to create a (negative) market-wide impact.  This is a pretty clear case of monopolistic behavior, as far as I can tell.

Dicks (IMO, of course).

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Come on villagers, grab your torches and pitch forks.

avatar

Biceps

Just don't buy anything from Intel ever again.

avatar

machew100

"it's really anyone's guess as to when the world's No. 1 chip maker will get on board"

pun alerttttttttttttt!

I actually liked that one, keep the puns rolling please! :p

avatar

ferariman

lol

avatar

machew100

I can't believe Intel has that much power in whether or not USB 3.0 becomes a standard feature. Needs more market diversity in chipsets.

avatar

Willers

AMD has a great opportunity here to swoop in and be the better choice. There's not really any other options that I know about available to the US market, but I've got an AMD Turion in my laptop and it still works great. no windows problems in the two and half years I've had it.

avatar

jlh304

I'm all for moving forward and getting the new standard going, but I would rather they get light peak here it's something I know I could use, not sure what I'm going to us USB 3.0 for (though I'm sure I will find something when the time comes).  I would think it wouldn't take a lot of effort for Intel to switch from 2 to 3 on the usb side.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Light Peak is the reason why USB is being withheld on Intel boards.  Since USB 3.0 is in direct competition to their product, they are with holding USB 3.0 to help spur the success on Light Peak.  My theory anyway.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.