Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, Thresher
Ifalna wrote:Cool, another number to charge more money for.
Are we even in a situation in which PCIe 3.0 isn't enough for typical consumer systems & workloads?
Bet PCIe 5.0 will be like 3.0 back in the day, neat number that does close to nothing in reality.
chuckula wrote:First of all, you need to open a new tab and rock some of this to keep it rollin'.
DragonDaddyBear wrote:Ifalna wrote:Cool, another number to charge more money for.
Are we even in a situation in which PCIe 3.0 isn't enough for typical consumer systems & workloads?
Bet PCIe 5.0 will be like 3.0 back in the day, neat number that does close to nothing in reality.
Kinda. Some CPUs are very limited to the number of lanes they have. If you only have 16 or so lanes to work with you would need to make a sacrifice to to have PCH, 10Gbps, GPU, NVMe slots, WiFi, and a GPU.
Ifalna wrote:Are we even in a situation in which PCIe 3.0 isn't enough for typical consumer systems & workloads?
chuckula wrote:I'd be very interested in a standard consumer CPU that implements effectively the same or slightly more bandwidth than Threadripper [60 lanes available PCIe 3.0 vs. 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 is about the same] but only needs 16 lanes to do it, which makes it more practical for most motherboards on the market. An 8-lane PCIe 5.0 GPU with about the same bandwidth as a 16 lane PCIe 4.0 GPU (meaning about double what you get today) still leaves 8 lanes available for some ridiculously fast storage or networking equipment.
just brew it! wrote:chuckula wrote:I'd be very interested in a standard consumer CPU that implements effectively the same or slightly more bandwidth than Threadripper [60 lanes available PCIe 3.0 vs. 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 is about the same] but only needs 16 lanes to do it, which makes it more practical for most motherboards on the market. An 8-lane PCIe 5.0 GPU with about the same bandwidth as a 16 lane PCIe 4.0 GPU (meaning about double what you get today) still leaves 8 lanes available for some ridiculously fast storage or networking equipment.
Underlined parts are the reason it won't happen any time soon. The sort of people who typically buy "standard consumer CPUs" have no need for "ridiculously fast storage or networking equipment". Making this available on consumer platforms is a solution in search of a problem.
chuckula wrote:I'd just point out that the same silicon that drives the 9900K is used in Intel's Xeon-E series and I'd expect that trend to continue in the future. While the consumer desktop does not necessarily need crazy I/O right now, the server market sure does, so I wouldn't be surprised to see PCIe 5.0 sooner rather than later. Maybe not in Ice Lake but Tiger Lake could certainly implement it.
chuckula wrote:As a practical matter, I'd expect to start to see PCIe 5.0 products beginning next year, although it's entirely possible it will only be in high-end server systems first and gradually work its way down to the consumer space.
Waco wrote:chuckula wrote:As a practical matter, I'd expect to start to see PCIe 5.0 products beginning next year, although it's entirely possible it will only be in high-end server systems first and gradually work its way down to the consumer space.
I think you're being wildly optimistic.
Chrispy_ wrote:PCIe 2.0 is still good enough for me at home. Or maybe I'm on 3.0, I can neither remember nor care what PCIe version Z77 has.
chuckula wrote:I'd be very interested in a standard consumer CPU that implements effectively the same or slightly more bandwidth than Threadripper [60 lanes available PCIe 3.0 vs. 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 is about the same] but only needs 16 lanes to do it, which makes it more practical for most motherboards on the market. An 8-lane PCIe 5.0 GPU with about the same bandwidth as a 16 lane PCIe 4.0 GPU (meaning about double what you get today) still leaves 8 lanes available for some ridiculously fast storage or networking equipment.
ronch wrote:and the VESA local bus before AGP came out.I miss the old days when 16-bit ISA was the norm and EISA was quite special.
ronch wrote:I miss the old days when 16-bit ISA was the norm and EISA was quite special.
Aranarth wrote:ronch wrote:I miss the old days when 16-bit ISA was the norm and EISA was quite special.
I had a couple machines with VLB...
Aranarth wrote:ronch wrote:I miss the old days when 16-bit ISA was the norm and EISA was quite special.
I had a couple machines with VLB...
just brew it! wrote:chuckula wrote:I'd be very interested in a standard consumer CPU that implements effectively the same or slightly more bandwidth than Threadripper [60 lanes available PCIe 3.0 vs. 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 is about the same] but only needs 16 lanes to do it, which makes it more practical for most motherboards on the market. An 8-lane PCIe 5.0 GPU with about the same bandwidth as a 16 lane PCIe 4.0 GPU (meaning about double what you get today) still leaves 8 lanes available for some ridiculously fast storage or networking equipment.
Underlined parts are the reason it won't happen any time soon. The sort of people who typically buy "standard consumer CPUs" have no need for "ridiculously fast storage or networking equipment". Making this available on consumer platforms is a solution in search of a problem.
Mr Bill wrote:ronch wrote:and the VESA local bus before AGP came out.I miss the old days when 16-bit ISA was the norm and EISA was quite special.