Report: Don’t hold your breath for Intel chipsets with USB 3.0 in 2011

Last October, we learned via an unofficial report that Intel wouldn’t add native USB 3.0 support to its chipsets until 2011. According to the latest story over at Fudzilla, though, Intel’s time frame for USB 3.0 adoption might be more like late 2011… or perhaps even 2012.

Fudzilla claims Intel’s next chipset family, the 6 series, won’t include a next-gen USB host controller. The same goes for Intel’s upcoming Huron River notebook platform. In both cases, it’ll presumably be up to system and motherboard makers to add USB 3.0 support via third-party controllers—if they choose to do so. No real change from the current status quo, then.

Since the 6-series chipset family should launch alongside Intel’s next-gen Sandy Bridge CPUs next year, we definitely wouldn’t hold our breaths for native USB 3.0 support in early 2011. But Fudzilla goes even further, alleging that Intel won’t make the switch until it "introduces its 2012 platforms." Yikes.

As a consolation prize, 6-series chispets will reportedly have SATA 6Gbps support built in. I believe that’s correct. A P67-based motherboard Biostar showed us at Computex seemed to have nothing but third-gen SATA ports. That’s not exactly a groundbreaking development, though. AMD brought native 6Gbps SATA in the 890GX chipset back in March, and now, even sub-$100 AMD 870-based mobos have completely dropped 3Gbps SATA connectivity.

Comments closed
    • jensend
    • 9 years ago

    This is what we get when the chipset business becomes a total monopoly. If Intel hadn’t killed off 3rd-party chipset competition, SiS or VIA or nV would have come out with a USB3 Intel chipset by now and Intel would have to catch up to compete.

    Intel has gotten off easy in its antitrust cases, and it’s hurting consumers.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    Well, yet another opportunity for AMD courtesy of Intel. Say “thank you”, AMD…

    I’d like to see USB 3.0 widely adopted…. in smartphones. Smartphones with 64 – 128 GBytes of internal storage. So that I could leave all my working data on my smartphone, and work anywhere I want to work, on any platform (i.e., work directly on the smartphone when I’m travelling via train/plane/automobile, or on a high-powered desktop system when I’m at home or the office). Bye, bye, laptop/netbook.

    • mark625
    • 9 years ago

    USB 3.0 has a lot more benefits over USB 2.0 than just the higher speed. It also has:

    1) Asynchronous, non-polled signaling
    2) Full duplex bidirectional data flow
    3) More power when it’s needed so fewer devices need power bricks
    4) Less power when it’s not needed
    5) Faster and more detailed device discovery

    It does seem possible that Intel is holding off on native USB 3.0 in favor of LightPeak.

    Cheers!

      • UberGerbil
      • 9 years ago

      Yes, and the most significant (or at least visible to everyday users) of these is the increased power delivery. Right now you can only run 2.5″ external hard drives off USB; 3.5″ drives require more than the 5W USB 2.0 can deliver so they need power bricks. And while 3.5″ hard drives may have a dwindling future, they remain cheaper per GB and offer larger capacities than 2.5″ drives; surely some people would appreciate cheap external TB+ backup drives they can plug/unplug without a separate power cable. Likewise, given the plethora of non-storage USB devices that do useful or interesting things that require /[

    • pedro
    • 9 years ago

    Wake me up when USB4 arrives.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      The cryo chambers are this way.

        • A_Pickle
        • 9 years ago

        Pshh. Everybody knows USB 4.0 will consist of cryo-chambers */[

    • StuG
    • 9 years ago

    I think USB 3.0 is something that needs to be adopted. It is far superior to E-SATA and the obvious future of portable serial devices. All you are doing by avoiding the upgrade is allowing the manufacturers that make products relent on USB to stay with an older standard for longer.

    If Intel and AMD made a full switch to USB 3.0 (AMD is close) than it would be seen as lazy for any other manufacturer to produce a device that is still 2.0. Some people see things that way now. If both Intel/AMD flooded the market with USB 3.0, the tech to support it would come.

    Stupid Intel. *slap*

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    [Intel] Problems computer enthusiast? [/Intel]

    Seriously, I don’t see the rush for USB 3.0 . USB 2.0 still good enough for the majority of external peripherals. If you need something more. There already solutions out there that fit your needs. People forgot that it took years for USB 2.0 to take off over USB 1.0/1.1 .

      • not@home
      • 9 years ago

      I wish every day that my portable drive could run faster. USB 3 cannot get here fast enough.

      • Spotpuff
      • 9 years ago

      Transferring files at 28MB/s sucks. The “response” of backup scripts run over usb 2 is also a lot slower than eSATA.

      USB 2 was fine for my 40gb drive but not my 500gb or 1tb drive.

        • Krogoth
        • 9 years ago

        Easy solution, make a DIY NAS box (costs a lot less then pre-made solutions).

        1Gbps Ethernet is still faster USB 3.0 and eSATA.

        A more practical solution would be to cut back on the porn collection. 😉

    • wira020
    • 9 years ago

    I remember a report that said they are also working on expansion card for USB3… they just dont want to make it native so soon.. sigh..

    • Vaughn
    • 9 years ago

    I just care they have SATA 6 in the next chipset and the G3 ssd’s can use the extra speed. Don’t really care about USB 3.0 ESATA FTW!

      • ew
      • 9 years ago

      Agreed. I have no use for USB3.

      • HisDivineShadow
      • 9 years ago

      If esata supplied its own power, I’d agree. Since it doesn’t, its just not as capable.

        • A_Pickle
        • 9 years ago

        You know, I was reading this thread. I love my eSATA devices. The transfer rates are wonderful, and they really work just as plug-n-play as their USB 2.0 counterparts. That said, eSATA really /[

          • MadManOriginal
          • 9 years ago

          Your 890GX doesn’t have chipset-based USB 3.0 either you know.

            • dashbarron
            • 9 years ago

            I have a eSATA port, but it seems the devices out there that use it are just so limited.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    What realistical point can they possibly see in the delay of general USB 3 acceptance? It’s /[

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      yeah I don’t get it either. It’s like they’re saying “whoops, nevermind”

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        Kind of a lame move, but then again, there are bazillion third-party USB3.0 chips that can easily be integrated into a platform.

        This news is no news.

          • ClickClick5
          • 9 years ago

          They really want to release their fiber optic light path crap.

          You know they have USB 3.0 already built into their chips in the labs… But the light is not ready.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 9 years ago

          Not being built into the chipset usually means it’s not bootable, so a USB3.0 thumb drive that can run faster than USB2.0 can carry it would have to run slower than it would otherwise if you want to boot up a Linux distro or use a bootable utility drive.

            • tfp
            • 9 years ago

            What USB thumb drive can do faster reads/writes than the USB2.0 link speeds?

            • Voldenuit
            • 9 years ago

            The SuperTalent RAIDdrive, for starters. 174 MB/s on HDTach. Yikes!

            §[<http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1277/1/<]§

            • derFunkenstein
            • 9 years ago

            I probably shoudl have included USB hard drives like the one I back up to as well. That would really trim down my backup times.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 9 years ago

      They are waiting until their USB 3.0 rival, Lightpeak, is ready for prime time.

      Intel is abusing their market position to guarantee that their new pet technology does not play second fiddle to USB 3.0.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        Sounds like BluRay vs. HD DVD… Standard format wars, perfectly fine. People are too uptight.

        I think it has been said multiple times that third party chips can cover this. And if thumb drive Linux distros don’t boot, who really gives a sh*t. AMD can cater to that majority if they wish.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 9 years ago

          Got to disagree with you here. A format war in media formats is one thing, as annoying and possibly detrimental to HD adoption as it was, but in an industry based upon standards it’s worse. Lightpeak is cool for certain things and simplicity of connection when it’s purely data but USB is cheap and ubiquitous and does have some advantages (mainly power.) Why would you want to hook up numerous discrete external devices by Lightpeak?

          Not including USB3 in SB chipsets is a real letdown. I was considering getting a SB (or BD if AMD pulls another Athlon64) mITX for my next system that I’d want to keep for a good while but without USB3 in the chipset…meh. I know it will be on auxiliary chips but still. I wonder if part of the reason is Intel doesn’t want to upgrade their southbridge interface much?

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 9 years ago

        I doubt Intel has enough market clout to stop USB3.

        • Farting Bob
        • 9 years ago

        lightpeak wont rival usb in the mainstream. The best result i see for it would be on par with firewire. usb is everywhere, and with backwards compatible ports that will continue.

          • Sargent Duck
          • 9 years ago

          Don’t forget name recognition. Everyone and their dog knows what USB is/does. Lightpeak? good luck trying to sell that to Joe Schmoe.

            • pedro
            • 9 years ago

            It’s a good point actually. Especially considering that Light Peak will ‘go in a USB’.

            • pedro
            • 9 years ago

            It’s a good point actually. Especially considering that Light Peak will ‘go in a USB’.

            • pedro
            • 9 years ago

            It’s a good point actually. Especially considering that Light Peak will ‘go in a USB’.

            • pedro
            • 9 years ago

            It’s a good point actually. Especially considering that Light Peak will ‘go in a USB’.

            • pedro
            • 9 years ago

            Hmmm… epic reply fail. Did I get my point across tho’?

            • Kurotetsu
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, as I understand it Lightpeak should be able to support USB. According to the Wiki article:

            §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightpeak<]§ l[

        • designerfx
        • 9 years ago

        it’s not gonna work – they’ve delayed too long.

        Even if lightpeak was more than double the speed of USB3 people are going to be quite resistant to buying into lightpeak.

      • continuum
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah. It sucks. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This