Intel Chipset to support USB 3.0...in 2012

I wish Intel got on USB 3.0 in 2009. What a shame we still have to wait till 2012.

PC Perspective - Chief River will be the next mobile platform from Intel

 

Precisely.

And i wish for the time we will have only one interface connection, be it USB or whatever.

 

With USB 3 that is possible; and would make things a lot simpler for the masses. However, SATA III is faster, and for those that want/need the maximum width available, it should at least be included on upper level machines.

 

It's rediculous. They want Light Peak to succeed so badly they are holding off on USB 3.0. If AMD comes out with native support for it first, I'll jump ship and go with AMD. I'm really ticked off at Intel for this.

 

Funny enough, P55 suffered greatly as a platform, very very little bandwidth. With SATA 3, USB 3.0, and SLI/Crossfire support, you can't have it all. When you run SLI/CF you lose USB 2.0

I laugh in the face of whoever bought LGA1156 as it is already a dead socket. Hopefully P65 will be better...but X58 will still top it.

And prices for USB 3.0 stuff needs to come down as well

 

Light Peak is scheduled to debut next year. But it's use will for all intents an purposes, be complementary. For one thing, it doesn't have the nearly the market share that USB does. So even when it is made available, I don't see an avalanche of compatible products racing to take advantage of it.

 

8 GB USB 3 flash drive for $14. Not too high a price IMO. Not sure what other stuff is running as I don't have USB 3 and thus am not in the market for USB 3 devices, but I saw that in the news recently.

I also am of the opinion it would've been nice to see USB 3.0 become a lot more common quite a while ago. USB 3.0 laptops were a rarity in 2009, and still are. I'm somewhat surprised AMD didn't jump on this, would've been a nice selling point for them.

 

There is nothing wrong with LGA 1156. I just don't know what you're trying to say about it. Not enough bandwidth? What are you talking about? Anyone who wasn't brain dead knew it is a so-called "dead socket" as soon as it came out. Intel wasn't trying to hide anything about that at all.

 

It's ambitious to pretend you were supposed to know that Sandy Bridge would change sockets for sure back when 1156 was released, even though though a new architecture made it more likely.

 

I'll be quite content until 2012. Cheers.

 

It was more than ambitious, you'd have to be psychic. Sandy Bridge processors SHOULD be full 1156 compatible, intel is literally forcing them to be 1155 only. The chipsets are virtually identical.

 

No prescience necessary. Intel said that sandy bridge would have a different socket before 1156 was released. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. Socket 1156 was launched in January of this year, but Intel said that Sandy Bridge would be socket 1155 months before hand.

 

Which is exactly what I don't like about Intel. I'm planning to build a desktop either next year or the year after that, but I'm avoiding Intel not just because of price, but also because I want a motherboard that will give me at least a couple of years of upgrading. Intel and their DOA sockets...

 

Warning: These P55 motherboards will cripple your Crossfire/SLI performance | Hardware Revolution

Well I was there at the LGA1156 launch, terribad. Sandy Bridge won't excite me either. Waiting for Haswell.

 

Wow, not all socket 1156 motherboards with the P55 chipset support crossfire/SLI? If that is the best you can come up with, you don't know what you are talking about regarding socket 1156.

 

CPU sockets typically change annually, so I'm not sure you'll have any luck w/ upgrading every couple of years. Though it also depends on your budget, the X58 w/ high end CPUs lasted for quite a while...

 

AMD sockets last forever, except for socket 754. Other than socket 775, Intel sockets do not have very long life spans. I think socket 423 went goodbye in a day and a half.

 

The trade-off is just not worth it:

New sockets, new capabilities, no artificial limitations: Intel.

Same sockets, same capabilities, unnecessarily imposed limitations: AMD.


For the last 6+ years or so, AMD has been off my radar because of the above. Remember too that I buy for long term - a dozen or more systems at a time.

 

AM3 board can only take AM3 CPUs (older CPUs do not have DDR3 memory controller). AM2+ with AM3 bios can take AM3. I think you meant the processor lasts forever.

 

The fact that Intel can hold back such a standard as USB without any serious consequences shows that this company is getting too big for its own good, and the market at large.

 

I'm happy for that same fact too Bog.

That they're big enough to not jump on any little (inconsequential) bandwagon that happens to be going by.

 

I think a lot of people would disagree; USB 3.0 is not a bandwagon. Intel is refusing to push the standard out of pure self-interest for its own solution. Even if their standard is better, that does not grant them the right to withhold USB 3.0. This is an openly anti-competitive practice.

 

No, not even close to anti-competitive.

Just a simple and legal business decision.

 

Then consider it a bad decision. You'd think that would have learned a lesson from Microsoft. Companies that operate under that those kinds of practices usually end up incurring opposite of what they planned.

 

Just because USB 3.0 is available, who says it must be in the chipset? AMD's Fusion for notebooks will only have one chipset with USB 3.0, the others will have 2.0.

 

Technically, it is a form of bandwagoning, but in this case, that's not a bad thing.

Their standard is different, but not necessarily better. For one, even thought it can support a faster transfer rate (twice as fast as superspeed), it's nowhere near as popular; and cannot support the current mass of products already in use and supported by USB 2.0.

Therefore, I must agree that holding back will only do them more harm than good.

 

While I like the idea of lightspeak replacing most or all of the external ports on computers, I think it is way too early to just stop supporting other formats. USB 3.0 would be a lot easier to adopt for everyone since it compatible with USB 2.0. Consumers would be forced to buy lightspeak devices for high speed data transfer, and they don't even make any such devices yet. We are just not ready for it. We need to have products come out that support lightspeak for at least a couple of years before we can start abandoning "legacy" formats.

With regards to Intel getting too big for its britches, I'm pretty sure a big part of lightspeak is that Intel will get paid royalties on it. So of course they want lightspeak to be the one format to rule them all. USB 3.0 doesn't pay as well since I think it is royalty-free (like USB 2.0 is), and Intel wouldn't get a dime anyway.

You actually have that backwards. If AM2+ can take AM2 and AM3 processors, the socket has a longer life span than the processor. But anyway, it is called a hyperbole.