Official GIGABYTE Forum
Questions about GIGABYTE products => Motherboards with Intel processors => Topic started by: sleddawg on July 10, 2010, 07:50:31 am
-
Why are there only 2 internal USB/SATA 3.0 ports on the new motherboards, and 6 SATA/USB 2.0 ports? Why, if they are backwards compatible, are they not all USB/SATA 3.0 compliant?
-
I don't know why this is but it is a good point to raise.
-
Why are there only 2 internal USB/SATA 3.0 ports on the new motherboards, and 6 SATA/USB 2.0 ports? Why, if they are backwards compatible, are they not all USB/SATA 3.0 compliant?
X58 does not support USB/SATA3.0. Gigabyte uses a Marvell chip to implement the USB/SATA3.0. However, it has been reported in certain RAID configuration, the SATA2.0 performs better than the SATA3.0. Many suspects that it's a problem due to the Marvell chip but Gigabyte has not commented yet.
-
OK
SATA3 I can fully understand, it isn't working properly yet and there does seem to be issues with the Marvell Chips that needs to be resolved.
But USB3 uses a different Chipset (on my AMD board it is an NEC one) so, unless there is a chipset limitation that we are not aware of, I have to agree with the original question, why only 2 USB3 ports when they are backwards compatible?
-
Money! The short answer is down to the cost involved. When you are building boards with that many components they try and cut back on any unneccessary expense. It always seems stupid to me (just like why they don't fit uPVC windows in new houses) because the end user would be happy to pay a little extra for the benefits. That's accountants for you.
-
Money!
No its because Intel has not made a chip for SATA 3 and USB 3 support yet.
-
Money!
No its because Intel has not made a chip for SATA 3 and USB 3 support yet.
But how does this apply to the AMD Platform? 6x SATA3 ports & still only 2 x USB3 ports
-
The only reason in your case is bandwidth maybe.
-
Plenty of USB 2.0.
For example the GA-890GPA-UD3H has 6X SATA3.0; 2 X SATA2.0; 2 X USB3.0 and a total of 12 USB2.0 so if it's down to bandwidth why not supply 8 X USB 2.0 and 4 X USB 3.0?
-
But how does this apply to the AMD Platform? 6x SATA3 ports & still only 2 x USB3 ports
Thats AMD this is Intel, AMD made a chip for SATA3 natively USB 3 support for AMD are still by addon chips.
Intel gets SATA3 & USB 3 support by addon chips.
-
So, is the answer to the original question
Why are there only 2 internal USB/SATA 3.0 ports on the new motherboards, and 6 SATA/USB 2.0 ports? Why, if they are backwards compatible, are they not all USB/SATA 3.0 compliant?
that it's due to a limitation of the chips?
-
Plenty of USB 2.0.
For example the GA-890GPA-UD3H has 6X SATA3.0; 2 X SATA2.0; 2 X USB3.0 and a total of 12 USB2.0 so if it's down to bandwidth why not supply 8 X USB 2.0 and 4 X USB 3.0?
But the banwidth consumed by five USB2 is only equal to one USB3, so you would soon eat up all the available bandwith if they were all USB3.
-
Oooo, my 'ead 'urts. :o
-
Mine too. I was just hoping that I had the figures right ;)