Jump to content



Photo

Why make USB 2.0 ports in new motherboard?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 ACTIONpack

ACTIONpack

    Graphic Designer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: Lawrenceville, GA
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 925 (T-Mobile)

Posted 27 November 2013 - 06:46

I just don't understand why motherboard makers still make USB 2.0 ports only. Most today will have both 3.0 and 2.0 but why even have 2.0 if 3.0 is compatible with 2.0 and 1.0.




#2 Xahid

Xahid

    Anokha Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 01
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate

Posted 27 November 2013 - 06:53

I don't know, maybe USB V.3 chips are expensive ?



#3 +zhiVago

zhiVago

    Pax Orbis

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 04-October 01
  • Location: The Heartland
  • OS: Windows Seven

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:07

A manufacturer can diversify their product line up this way and charge progressively more as they put more USB 3.0 ports inside. It's all marketing and profit maximization.



#4 Phouchg

Phouchg

    has stopped responding

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 28-March 11

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:37

Ivy Bridge and Haswell natively supports only *two* and *six* USB 3.0 ports, respectively. FM2 has four, I don't know about FM2+. The rest, if any, currently are third party controllers (which, I might add, used to be just short of completely abysmal until very recently). And IB-E and AMD FX, both top platforms, don't have any native support at all.



#5 Torolol

Torolol

  • Joined: 24-November 12

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:50

I need at least 4 USB ports, minimum.



#6 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:52

Various reasons other than the just to screw people over reason.

 

Manufacturers either have to design their own IP cores or license off the shelf IP cores for USB 3.0 (and everything else for that matter). This isn't some magically free thing in terms of development or monetary costs. It is also significant R&D work. It requires boards to meet new specifications which means new designs instead of dropping in tried and true existing designs. Then even after all of the fabrication work is done, it requires continuous driver work and support. As with any new technology you are guaranteed that the first iteration of HW support will be pretty lackluster and that there will be shotty driver support to go with it. It typically takes a few iterations before they really get the hw & sw support working well for things.

 

Consider boards with a combination of usb 2.0 and 3.0 ports for instance. In such a case there are very good reasons to keep both: (1) backwards compatibility in the case of shotty driver support or faulty hardware support -- you never abandon the known working components until you are sure you have worked out ALL Of the issues with the new components -- this is just smart business practice -- as you don't want your customers boycotting you when suddenly your board don't work with x,y,z device because you messed something up, (2) It is easier to meet specs in your board design if you only put a few 3.0 ports on there and keep the rest as 2.0. Engineers for instance might just extend an existing board design with a few usb 3.0 ports because it is much simpler than a complete redesign and they can get it out the door faster.

 

Finally it can even come down to an issue of licensing costs. It is going to cost much less to use existing USB 2.0 IP cores in your products than USB 3.0 IP cores everywhere. It makes little practical sense to pay to use the IP cores in everything if the market isn't demanding that and if consumers don't care about it. Instead you pay to use the cores in the segments of the market that demand them and no where else.



#7 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:56

Ivy Bridge and Haswell natively supports only *two* and *six* USB 3.0 ports, respectively. FM2 has four, I don't know about FM2+. The rest, if any, currently are third party controllers (which, I might add, used to be just short of completely abysmal until very recently). And IB-E and AMD FX, both top platforms, don't have any native support at all.

 

 Even Intel had resorted to throwing third party IP cores on their boards because of that. And boy are they wishy-washy. The drivers use to bluescreen my PC on various occasions. No-way  I'd plug USB 2.0 devices into them given that -- might as well us the 2.0 ports and controller instead and get some reliability.



#8 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 5S/Nexus 5

Posted 27 November 2013 - 15:59

My motherboard came with 2 USB 2.0 (rear IO) as well as a vertical port on the motherboard (I put a bluetooth dongle), and 2 headers for 4 more USB 2.0 ports. Aside from all that, there are a plethora of USB 3.0 ports: 4 (rear IO), 4 more via 2 headers. That's 15 USB ports, way more than I need. All the devices I have (always) plugged in don't take advantage of USB 3 anyways: webcam, Xbox controller, keyboard, mouse. Had they not included the USB 2.0 ports, I would only have 8 USB ports, so it makes it more feature rich + cost



#9 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 27 November 2013 - 16:02

Most USB devices have no need for anything faster than USB 2.0. Keyboards, Mice, Headsets, Printers, Gamepads, etc. don't need USB 3.0. The only devices that really benefit from 3.0 are flash drives and 802.11ac adapters.



#10 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 27 November 2013 - 17:13

Most USB devices have no need for anything faster than USB 2.0. Keyboards, Mice, Headsets, Printers, Gamepads, etc. don't need USB 3.0. The only devices that really benefit from 3.0 are flash drives and 802.11ac adapters.

 

External HDDs get better transfer rates with usb 3.0.



#11 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 36
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 27 November 2013 - 17:18

External HDDs get better transfer rates with usb 3.0.

I would personally rather esata



#12 AR556

AR556

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 07-August 03

Posted 27 November 2013 - 17:18

I just wish someone would make a high quality USB 3.0 expansion card. Most are made by no name companies.



#13 leesmithg

leesmithg

    The Major!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 11-August 04
  • Location: Kings Hill, West Malling, Kent, England.

Posted 27 November 2013 - 17:20

I have a new mobo and there is only 1 x u.s.b. port.

 

Makes no difference as my u.s.b. 3 drive works better on a u.s.b. port.



#14 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 27 November 2013 - 17:21

I just wish someone would make a high quality USB 3.0 expansion card. Most are made by no name companies.

 

Just make sure to check the chipset manufacturer. As long as its an NEC/Renesas and not Etron trash it should be okay. I ordered one from Monoprice and it hasnt given me any problems.



#15 +snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

    Electrical & Computer Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 29
  • Joined: 23-August 05
  • OS: Win/Lin/Bsd/Osx
  • Phone: dumb phone

Posted 27 November 2013 - 17:32

I would personally rather esata

 

Why exactly? Both have sufficiently high theoretical maximums that no mechanical drive is going to reach those speeds and USB 3.0 has backwards compatibility with USB 2.0 ports which are ubiquitous. I'm not really sure there is any advantage to esata*. I imagine esata is going to die the same death as firewire (and thunderbolt probably will also). Not being ubiquitous relegates you to niche markets at the end of the day -- you never really die but you live in twilight. 

 

*Assuming you don't have broken USB 3.0 support that is.