"One potential benefit that USB 3.1 could get is if Intel incorporate USB 3.1 into the chipset from an early stage. Given the fact that one USB 3.1 port needs two PCIe 2.0 lanes, if they are introduced as fixed ports, it will be at the expense of some of the other functionality, unless it can be incorporated into Flex IO."
See this is the one thing that kinda annoys me about the intel chipsets. Why should the mfg sacrifice a sata port for example to add a usb 3.1 port. Should Intel not just be able to add more ports to the chipset.
Although they could just replace the 3.0 with the 3.1 ports and have just the type-a on the back
Rumor has it that SkyLake's chipset will have 28 flexible IO ports (for USB3, Sata III, or PCIe3 lanes) vs 18 on the current one. I don't recall if the leaks indicated if the chipset ports would be 3.0 or 3.1; but even if the former there's at least a lot more PCIe connectivity to support controllers with.
I'm a fan of the developments in the USB standard, but it looks like a mess for standardization. There are three different USB implementations on that MSI board with three different speeds that all look the same and don't even have the latest connector. It would be great if OEMs could embrace a new connection and technology all at once, while keeping legacy ports for compatibility.
I like Apple's approach of just making new ports handle old ones via adapters/docks. Not the cheapest option, but at least they don't still ship hardware with FW400 and FW800 ports (that maybe 0.5% of their users might eventually need at some point) anymore.
Not sure what the point of the C-type connector for the motherboard backpanel. For the front of the desktop I can see it. For laptops and SFF PC's, I can see it. But for the back panel, I'd rather mess around getting the A-type connector turned the right way, than to fit something in the tiny C-type receptacle.
I for one would welcome a world where all the USB ports provided by the chipset fit on the back panel. Very few people connect anything to the USB headers on the mobo.
Speak for yourself. I would say the majority of cases now have USB ports at the top/front and, like AssBall said, they connect via those mobo headers no one uses.
I've been using two headers for years and I'm actually disappointed when a mobo has one 2.0 header + a 3.0 one (as my current one does)... Card reader + front ports seems like a pretty standard two header desktop config to me.
More USB? Space for something else? Considering that motherboard manufacturers are already fitting PS/2, 8 A-type USBs, DVI, full size HDMI, VGA, full size DP, SPID/IF and a full array of analog audio on the standard size back panel (GIGABYTE GA-Z97X), what more do you need?
Even if you did need more space, you could go to mini-DP, and replace DVI with HDMI, and at some point, the legacy PS/2 and VGA are going to go away.
Considering how often I have to pull my tower out and sometimes even shine a darn light on the USB connectors to get it in there right, I can't imagine that the Type-C is going to be any harder.
Besides, hopefully SOME day, all USB devices will use the Type-C connector...so if you have Type-A on the backpanel, then you'd need Type-A to C adapter/cables laying around (which we probably all will for years and years to come).
This is still an early hardware and driver revision, so I doubt CPU use would be optimised yet. I've had to send the units back so unfortunately I can't recheck, but when we get the system in to test for a review we can run the numbers and add them to our benchmarking scenario.
Ah, no. USB 3.x only guarantees 5 V @ 900 mA, or 4.5 W. USB Battery Charging Specification allows for up to 5 V @ 1.5 A or 7.5 W, which is also the minimum rating for Type-C to Type-C cables. USB Power Delivery Specification allows for up to 20 V @ 5 A or 100 W, but the first version of this spec was released two and a half years ago, and thus far I've not seen a single device that has implemented it. Perhaps the 2.0 version will have better luck gaining traction, but the fact of the matter is that practical implementations would be challenging at best.
What about POWER? What about notebooks? The added speed is great, but the added power gives you enough to power a notebook, power and data on one port. Some company that's great at making thin notebooks is secretly developing this and is going to release a new product that will my 3.1 a must for all future players!
I am really disappointed that you didnt use the same usb 3.1 test ssd raid device when you tested the 3.0 and 2.0 ports. Changing two variables at a time is bad scientific process. Can you guys retest, at least the USB 3.0 ports, with the same ssd raid device as you used for the 3.1 tests? I would assume it should be able to work in USB3.0 (and even 2.0 or lower) modes. Or was this not possible?
I realise now I left in a sentence about the Thermaltake USB 3.0 device. That was an old sentence from a draft where I did use the Thermaltake for some extra testing which wasn't published. But I can confirm that the ASMedia device was used for USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 as well. Apologies for any confusion.
Author, you need to work on your proof-reading skills. "as they will have to device a better way to extract performance." is wrong. It should be devise.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
nathanddrews - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Want.Dahak - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
"One potential benefit that USB 3.1 could get is if Intel incorporate USB 3.1 into the chipset from an early stage. Given the fact that one USB 3.1 port needs two PCIe 2.0 lanes, if they are introduced as fixed ports, it will be at the expense of some of the other functionality, unless it can be incorporated into Flex IO."See this is the one thing that kinda annoys me about the intel chipsets. Why should the mfg sacrifice a sata port for example to add a usb 3.1 port. Should Intel not just be able to add more ports to the chipset.
Although they could just replace the 3.0 with the 3.1 ports and have just the type-a on the back
III-V - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
"Should Intel not just be able to add more ports to the chipset."They can, but that bumps up the cost of the chip, for something that most won't even use.
DanNeely - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
Rumor has it that SkyLake's chipset will have 28 flexible IO ports (for USB3, Sata III, or PCIe3 lanes) vs 18 on the current one. I don't recall if the leaks indicated if the chipset ports would be 3.0 or 3.1; but even if the former there's at least a lot more PCIe connectivity to support controllers with.foxtrot1_1 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
I'm a fan of the developments in the USB standard, but it looks like a mess for standardization. There are three different USB implementations on that MSI board with three different speeds that all look the same and don't even have the latest connector. It would be great if OEMs could embrace a new connection and technology all at once, while keeping legacy ports for compatibility.xype - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Right. We ned to fix all this with USB 3.2B!:D
I like Apple's approach of just making new ports handle old ones via adapters/docks. Not the cheapest option, but at least they don't still ship hardware with FW400 and FW800 ports (that maybe 0.5% of their users might eventually need at some point) anymore.
jerwood - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
For that matter, how Apple has handled USB3—they just switched to it. No confusion about what port is 2 or 3.III-V - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Apple can do that, because their systems ship with far fewer USB ports.III-V - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
"It would be great if OEMs could embrace a new connection and technology all at once, while keeping legacy ports for compatibility. "Unfortunately, they can't, because that would jack up the price.
jaydee - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Not sure what the point of the C-type connector for the motherboard backpanel. For the front of the desktop I can see it. For laptops and SFF PC's, I can see it. But for the back panel, I'd rather mess around getting the A-type connector turned the right way, than to fit something in the tiny C-type receptacle.arid1 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Smaller connectors mean they can include more of them in the same physical space or simply use the space for something else.A5 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
I for one would welcome a world where all the USB ports provided by the chipset fit on the back panel. Very few people connect anything to the USB headers on the mobo.AssBall - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
"Very few people connect anything to the USB headers on the mobo."Erm... woah, there. What about everyone who uses their front/top panels? Where did you think the connectors for them go?
futrtrubl - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Speak for yourself. I would say the majority of cases now have USB ports at the top/front and, like AssBall said, they connect via those mobo headers no one uses.Impulses - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
I've been using two headers for years and I'm actually disappointed when a mobo has one 2.0 header + a 3.0 one (as my current one does)... Card reader + front ports seems like a pretty standard two header desktop config to me.jaydee - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
More USB? Space for something else? Considering that motherboard manufacturers are already fitting PS/2, 8 A-type USBs, DVI, full size HDMI, VGA, full size DP, SPID/IF and a full array of analog audio on the standard size back panel (GIGABYTE GA-Z97X), what more do you need?Even if you did need more space, you could go to mini-DP, and replace DVI with HDMI, and at some point, the legacy PS/2 and VGA are going to go away.
Fergy - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
USB-C can replace USB-A, DVI, HDMI, VGA and DP. Just buy the right converter for $5 to make it into the port you want.azazel1024 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Considering how often I have to pull my tower out and sometimes even shine a darn light on the USB connectors to get it in there right, I can't imagine that the Type-C is going to be any harder.Besides, hopefully SOME day, all USB devices will use the Type-C connector...so if you have Type-A on the backpanel, then you'd need Type-A to C adapter/cables laying around (which we probably all will for years and years to come).
eanazag - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
The C connector is reversible.StormyParis - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
What about CPU usage ? Does it rise above 5% at any time ?Ian Cutress - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
This is still an early hardware and driver revision, so I doubt CPU use would be optimised yet. I've had to send the units back so unfortunately I can't recheck, but when we get the system in to test for a review we can run the numbers and add them to our benchmarking scenario.eanazag - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
Excellent question. Did it take 6 cores to push that bandwidth?I would suspect it wasn't too noticeable.
baii9 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
There are so many variables that affect the speed, you have host chipset, USB to sata chipset, pcie lane number.Anyways, not sure why they are spending time boosting bandwidth, pretty pointless imo. where are the high power USB, wireless USB, etc ?
Brett Howse - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
USB 3.1 is high power - 100 watts maximum. Boosting bandwidth allows for a lot more functions over USB 3.0.repoman27 - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
Ah, no. USB 3.x only guarantees 5 V @ 900 mA, or 4.5 W. USB Battery Charging Specification allows for up to 5 V @ 1.5 A or 7.5 W, which is also the minimum rating for Type-C to Type-C cables. USB Power Delivery Specification allows for up to 20 V @ 5 A or 100 W, but the first version of this spec was released two and a half years ago, and thus far I've not seen a single device that has implemented it. Perhaps the 2.0 version will have better luck gaining traction, but the fact of the matter is that practical implementations would be challenging at best.M/2 - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
What about POWER? What about notebooks? The added speed is great, but the added power gives you enough to power a notebook, power and data on one port. Some company that's great at making thin notebooks is secretly developing this and is going to release a new product that will my 3.1 a must for all future players!extide - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
That is not necessarily part of USb 3.1 -- that is the VESA Dock Port standard you are thinking of.repoman27 - Thursday, January 29, 2015 - link
No. It's actually the USB Power Delivery Specification, which I believe is also what VESA DockPort leverages for its power delivery component.M/2 - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
The spec allow for 5A at either 5v, 12v, or 20v. 60w is plenty to charge a notebook. 100w is just crAzy.http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/10/apples-r...
extide - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 - link
I am really disappointed that you didnt use the same usb 3.1 test ssd raid device when you tested the 3.0 and 2.0 ports. Changing two variables at a time is bad scientific process. Can you guys retest, at least the USB 3.0 ports, with the same ssd raid device as you used for the 3.1 tests? I would assume it should be able to work in USB3.0 (and even 2.0 or lower) modes. Or was this not possible?Thanks!
Ian Cutress - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
I did do this. All tests and results were performed with the ASMedia RAID device with two SSDs in RAID.Ian Cutress - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
I realise now I left in a sentence about the Thermaltake USB 3.0 device. That was an old sentence from a draft where I did use the Thermaltake for some extra testing which wasn't published. But I can confirm that the ASMedia device was used for USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 as well. Apologies for any confusion.flowrush - Sunday, February 22, 2015 - link
Author, you need to work on your proof-reading skills. "as they will have to device a better way to extract performance." is wrong. It should be devise.