Advanced Micro Devices, Nvidia May Develop Their "Own" USB3

Advanced Micro Devices, Nvidia Corp. and Via Technologies have not yet started development of their own next-generation universal serial bus (USB) controller as they cannot get specifications of the bus from Intel Corp. The latter denies any wrongdoing or intention to affect competitive positions of AMD, Nvidia and others as well as claims that the spec is not finalized. "The challenge is that Intel is not... giving the specification to anybody that competes with CPUs and chipsets," a source close to AMD who is familiar with the dispute between chipset developers and Intel is reported to have said by News.com web-site.

While retaining full backward compatibility with USB 1.0 and USB 2.0, devices that feature USB 3.0 will be able to transfer data at up to 10 times higher speed compared to USB 2.0, or at 4.8Gb/s, meaning that a file as large as 600MB could be transferred in just a second in the best case scenario. In addition, the USB 3.0 specification will be optimized for low power and improved protocol efficiency. USB 3.0 ports and cabling will be designed to enable backward compatibility as well as future-proofing for optical capabilities.

View: The full story @ Xbit Labs

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Many UK government sites hosted in the US

Next Story

Videolan 0.8.6h

33 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

USB 2.0 is fine for keyboards, mouse, flash drives, camera's, etc. If you want great HDD transfer rate and stability then eSATA is the way to go.

I wish companies were more interested in progress in the industry, rather than profit Bring on those crazy 3.0 speeds, I say!

(Sam Symons Live said @ #11)
I wish companies were more interested in progress in the industry, rather than profit Bring on those crazy 3.0 speeds, I say!

welcome to the humanity!

what i dont get is WHY didn't they just make USB 3.0 with those high speeds it has when 2.0 came out? ... cause they need to make stuff much faster than current technology allows (or something along these lines) this way once stuff eventually gets up to speed it will still be plenty fast.

basically they should have made USB 2.0 with like 50MB/s (or something close to that) instead of getting faster then a few years down the road makes 3.0 then 4.0 etc etc as it's just messed up they need to make something faster enough to where it would last a easy 5-8 years+.

so unless cost was a issue back when 2.0 came out it just seemed stupid for them to make USB 2.0 as slow as it was.

Yeah, why wasn't the commodore as fast as this duel core Acer laptop I'm typing this on?

Things take time. Everything is a progression

(excalpius said @ #8.2)
They can't charge you for the same devices over and over again if they don't make the current stuff obsolete. 8P

your right but it's just USB not a fricking processor.

i think you get the idea

(Tikitiki said @ #8.1)
Yeah, why wasn't the commodore as fast as this duel core Acer laptop I'm typing this on?

Things take time. Everything is a progression

that's a little extreme with the commordore comment.... so in other words your saying it was probably a 'cost' issue then as to why we did not have super fast speeds on USB 2.0?

(ThaCrip said @ #8.4)

that's a little extreme with the commordore comment.... so in other words your saying it was probably a 'cost' issue then as to why we did not have super fast speeds on USB 2.0?

cost is a factor but it's still largely a technology issue. Look at the issues that have followed the introduction of wireless N in regards to getting a standard agreed apon ect. USB and other transmission technologies arent as simple as your making out otherwise a company would release something thats considerably faster and sell the technology and likely make millions from doing so.

(Smigit said @ #8.5)
cost is a factor but it's still largely a technology issue. Look at the issues that have followed the introduction of wireless N in regards to getting a standard agreed apon ect. USB and other transmission technologies arent as simple as your making out otherwise a company would release something thats considerably faster and sell the technology and likely make millions from doing so.

ok i see ... so basically it's a problem of everyone agreeing on what should be standard and cost and limits of technology at the time etc.

p.s. it just sucks though as i hope at least once USB 3.0 comes along it will stay fast for many many years to come... i just hope that USB 3.0's speed will be more than enough to last for many years to come (i.e. something that can pump out like 100+MB/s as something like that wont likely become 'slow' anytime soon.

just some thoughts

(ThaCrip said @ #8.4)
that's a little extreme with the commordore comment.... so in other words your saying it was probably a 'cost' issue then as to why we did not have super fast speeds on USB 2.0?

They could have certainly designed the spec to accomidate rediculous speeds. But then no one would have been able to afford the chip that they designed which implemented the spec. It'd cost too much to ever work in the consumer market, and the standard would fail.

(MioTheGreat said @ #8.7)

They could have certainly designed the spec to accomidate rediculous speeds. But then no one would have been able to afford the chip that they designed which implemented the spec. It'd cost too much to ever work in the consumer market, and the standard would fail.

Yep, costs is one issue. Also you have to consider what USB is intended for. USB is most commonly used for devices that don't necessarily need huge amounts of bandwith, hell even most phone syncs ect can get away with lower speed cables. It's only really multimedia I'd say that really is pushing the need for the bandwith. For this reason for external HD's I'd probably look for chasis that accept ethernet connections.

They could cater to these devices and make it incredibly fast but what happens then if the hardware requires a chip thats ten times larger to accommodate this? The devices still need to be portable and in many cases low powered as well. For a large number of devices portability will come well before bandwith in terms of needs.

I realise they could still use older USB revisions, but the point is that while devices stand to gain alot from the speed gains, you cant do so if it's going to mean the portable devices have to be larger or less power efficient to achieve those speeds. For phones, MP3 players ect size is as important as speed, if not more so.

(ahhell said @ #6.1)
Uh no.
Unless you are talking MegaBIT.

So what is the point? 600MB/sec and the HD can't manage that speed? What kind of use that speed can have if the reciver can't copy at that speed?

The socket would still be the same, it's just how the companies implements the circuitry on the motherboard etc that would be different, there would be very little (if anything) that the end user notices, only that people would need to make 2 sets of drivers for the different implementations.

Why doesn't Intel sell it instead of giving it? AMD and nVidia wouldn't have to pay all these development costs.

I guess I can see each sides point of view. You would think if this is going to be a new standard for the computer industry the other companies that make a big part of the industry should be able to see some info about it. Even if the specification is unfinished they could start working on some drafts and that would help in the long run you would think.