Just last week, Intel gave AMD, NVIDIA and a whole host of friends what they had been
clamoring for: 90% complete
USB 3.0 controller specifications. Now, the cool cats over at
MaximumPC have churned out an encyclopedic writeup that details USB SuperSpeed remarkably well. The highlights include assurance that USB 3.0 will be backwards-compatible with USB 2.0 and that it'll provide transfer rates up to ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps). Furthermore, we're told that uploads and downloads are kept on separate lanes, the cables are thicker, it will charge more devices more quickly, and it will be much more mindful of energy waste. Go on and get yourself completely schooled in the read link below.
posted Aug 18th 2008 3:36PM
Bring it on! When will we see this in stores?
know what I need to see on the market? On my macbook, I have two usb ports. To be able to pull those and replace them with these, easily, would be great.
As soon as Vista gets updated with the lovely balloon: "This USB device can perform faster if you connect it to a Hi-Speed USB 3.0 port"
"Hardware partners are expected to have USB 3.0 controllers designed by mid 2009, and consumers won't see the first end products utilizing the spec until early 2010 (though a late Holiday 2009 push for new products isn't out of the question)."
@d - you expect that from a company who doesn't even let you switch batteries on most of the products? ... good luck with that dude!!
@Warren -- I would like some market release dates as well. This is going to be very useful transferring HD media content .... but I'm keeping a look out for eSata and Firewire camps as well ... not too trusting of Intel.
@Krush - What laptops from said company wont allow you to switch battery?
@Andune:
The MacBook Air
Seems like everybody goes googly-eyed at the 10x 4.8GB spec, but as explained in the article (or one of its comments), that only happens with bilateral transfers. Since most data flow will be one-way, the 5x bandwidth capacity will be the rule.
Does this mean my dream of a USB Taser or USB defibrillation paddles will soon be a reality?
Yeah, 4800Mbps = 600MB/sec, but only for two directions, so 300MB/sec in one direction. And knowing USB, it will probably really only do 150-200MB/sec with protocol overhead and other nonsense.
I'll bet anyone that Firewire 3200Mbps ends up being faster for large sustained transfers!
http://digg.com/hardware/USB_4_0_Expected_Max_Speed
Nobody cares about Firewire. Its not ubiquitous to both new PCs and new devices like USB.
Eeeeeee!! Can't wait!!
Yes, knowing Asus, there will probably be an Eee PC with USB 3.0 just for you.
Asus IS heart touching.
is it as fast as firewire?
no, if it had any kind of speed at all the iPod wouldn't be able to sync with it.
4.8 Gigabits USB 3.0 > 3.2 Gigabit Firewire 1394b (good luck finding one with that, anyhow) > 800 megabits firewire > 400 megabits firewire
Keep in mind that firewire is considered generally faster than USB 2.0 because of overhead and the faster chipsets associated with it.
actuall, firewire transfers slower than usb, it just streams faster.
Keep in mind Firewire doesn't make your computer crawl.
Also keep in mind that Firewire=FAIL because no body supports its ass!
> "Also keep in mind that Firewire=FAIL because no body supports its ass!"
Except for all those external hard drives that are USB/Firewire, and all those digital camcorders... just because YOU haven't used Firewire doesn't mean nobody has.
Firewire has always been faster than USB 2.0. I've been using Firewire for my external hard drives and digital video for 5 years, and it's been good to me.
Now I'm just getting into eSATA. So why should I switch to USB 3.0 in a few years?
> "Also keep in mind that Firewire=FAIL because no body supports its ass!"
Except for all those external hard drives that are USB/Firewire, and all those digital camcorders... just because YOU haven't used Firewire doesn't mean nobody has.
Firewire has always been faster than USB 2.0. I've been using Firewire for my external hard drives and digital video for 5 years, and it's been good to me.
Now I'm just getting into eSATA. So why should I switch to USB 3.0 in a few years?
Firewire controllers have a cache for transferred data and can be connected in any configuration-- has USB 3.0 picked up on either of those strengths yet?
And why on earth don't we have a protocol that scales up yet? We can only go so fast as /they/ say we can? What's up with that?
A person should be able to get a physically compatible connector, and have a data rate that depends on power consumption allowance, cable length, ambient spectrum noise, and be determined on-the-fly by the controllers. Is it just about the overhead? ..because with a wired connection, cable length isn't a dynamic thing, it just needs to be able to work with what it's got when the connection is established... If it's not good enough universally, it won't be used universally, and if it's not used universally, it's simply not universal.
Is backwards compatibility limiting our ability to be forward thinking?
@Christian Walters
Nobody supports FW ?
How about 80-90% of all laptops/PC/camcoder/macs/external harddrives today that has the "IEEE 1394a/b/c" port. ?
I can't wait. Too bad it won't be backwards-compatible with the numerous USB 2.0 devices (probably, I'm far too lazy check)
reading is a wonderful thing.
Are you kidding? It says right in the summary of the article.. ON ENGADGET!
"The highlights include assurance that USB 3.0 will be backwards-compatible with USB 2.0"
third line of engadgets 6 line summary. why even read a blog and comment if you dont even read the 5 second summary?
Gonna be honest, if you're far to lazy to read /that/ far, I'm surprised you can feed yourself.
..or /do/ you?
480 Mbps = 0.46875 Gbps, NOT 4.8Gps as listed.
(you can type it into your google toolbar on Firefox and verify!)
"it'll provide transfer rates up to ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps)"
Meaning that 3.0 will be 480x10 = 4.8 Gbps.
Does nobody on this site have reading comprehension?
You either suck at math or suck at reading:
ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps)
10x480Mbps=4800Mbps or 4.8Gbps
480Mbps x 10 = 4.8 Gbps. You can check the post above for the sentence.
I believe the 4.8Gbps refers to the USB 3.0 speeds, not 2.0.
"provide transfer rates up to ten times more than USB 2.0's 480Mbps limit (that's 4.8Gbps)"
Again reading is fundamental...
It's talking about the 3.0 speed, as in ten times the current 480mbps or 4.8gbps
Reading comprehension FTW!
The new spec is ten times faster than the old spec (480 Mps) so move your decimal place one over the the left...and it's 4.8 Gps
Guys you battered him enough already.
480Mbit = 0.46875Gbit so x10 would be 4.6875Gbit!
Unless you buy into hard drive manufacturer's bullshit or you think 'kibibit', 'mebibit' and 'gibibit' sounds good that is!
@ broli:
i guess around here, when it rains, it pours
Ouch, d00d.
ouch.
So like, I'm learning to read here...
Hold on guys -- he's got a point:
isn't 1024Kbps = 1 Mbps and 1024Mbps = 1Gbps?
So 4.8Mbps in Gbps is 0.46875, multiply by 10 = 4.6875 Gbps, so he's right in terms of the conversion.
Guys, wait a second -- he's got a point:
remember 1024kbps = 1mbps, and 1024mbps = 1gbps, since they work on a 2^10 system...
so 480mbps = 0.46875gbps and therefore ten times 0.46875 is in deed 4.6875gbps.
@ "Jon @ Aug 18th 2008 10:37PM"
"isn't 1024Kbps = 1 Mbps and 1024Mbps = 1Gbps?"
"So 4.8Mbps in Gbps is 0.46875, multiply by 10 = 4.6875 Gbps..."
The whole 1024 vs 1000 thing was only ever for storage, not for comms. The only reason they used 1024 bits per kilobit was because when manufacturing ROM chips they worked in powers of two (i.e. 2^addressbits). For comms, they always used base 10 prefixes (i.e. 1000 bits per kilobit), since there was no physical reason to change the definition. I.e. your old 56kbps dialup modem was 56000bps, your 1.5Mbps ADSL is 1500kbps = 1500000bps.
Now that I have the lesson out of the way (I just finished teaching a lab at uni :-p ), you can see that USB 3 has a transfer speed of 4.8Gbps = 4800Mbps = 4800000kbps = 4800000000bps.
class dismissed.
>"and it will be much more mindful of energy waste."
so no USB kettle then?
That's just proper frequency scaling and a proper interrupt based system i bet.
If you can power a kettle with .9A at 5V, be my guest. (i think that's what it is anyway)
Damn, this means no USB 3.0 Water desalination plant?
I want a microwave, way faster.
It's times like this when I'm excited for something like this that reminds me that I'm a huge geek.
I love being a geek.
Rank this man up!
Amen
happy = very yes
There's /always/ something to get excited about with tech :)
ethana2, your italics are /not/ working
I thoroughly concur.
As you can see from the reflection, the right connector has a secret invisible head to allow for even faster transfer speeds.
That's the optical connection. Duh.
When will consumer devices that use USB 3.0 be released?
when windows becomes stable
...jk :D
probably a year or two after Intel or whoever settles on specifications and everyone starts developing drivers and things.
course these days, if its not out in a month its useless. so really, does tomorrow sound good?
Stability is the least of its problems at this point-- but even I wouldn't make a joke quite like that. You gotta be more subtle, Sabba.
Plus, just because something takes a year doesn't mean it takes forever. At the beginning, a year and forever may seem very similar (not present), but at the end of the year, they're not ;) In terms of operating systems though...
We'll probably see these devices become common about the time OSX market share hits 15%.
Why does the USB B plug have to look like so much ass, and never fully insert into anything you hook it to? Why can't both ends look like the A plug? I would understand if USB only transmitted one way, but thats not the case so whats the deal? HDMI, VGA, DVI, Ethernet, Firewire, S-Video etc plugs look the same on both ends, and no one has been confused yet as to which end goes where, so what the heck Intel?
That's because USB is not peer to peer like say, Firewire. It has a Host and a Client, and as such require different connectors to identify what type of connection the device allows (If it wasn't this way people would try to link two computers together and other such conveniences not possible with USB).
One of the connected devices has to be a host. Hosts have type A receptacles. Non-host devices have either type B receptacles or type A plugs, for devices such as flash drives. This prevents two non-host devices being plugged into each other.
Actually, there is a peer-ish USB 2 standard called USB-On-The-Go (aka USB-OTG) which uses a variant of the mini-B and mini-A connectors that allows pretty much any connection and senses which kind of end it is (that's what the mysterious fifth connector is for...).
How long until USB cables replace Ethernet cables?
that would give USB a monopoly.....won't happen with government regulations
A monopoly on what? I have yet to see the government crack down on the vast quantity of routers and switches that use ethernet, exclusively.
considering that USB isn't a company, it can't have a monopoly.
i should sue DVD and Blu-ray for having monopolies on video content, and you know, i don't like using lumens to measure my light intensity, so i'll sue them too.
There is no law against open standards. Thank goodness for that.
So, will USB 3.0 finally allow us to get rid of power cords for printers? Cuz that would make it worth waiting for on getting me a new printer.
Get a Wi-Fi printer and then the power cable is the only cable you need. That's way better than being USB powered.
"and have bumped the power output from about 100miliamps to 900 milliamps."
900 milliamps at 5 volts is under 5 watts. An HP Office Jet J6480 is spec'ed at 8 watts idle, 40 watts max. I wouldn't wait.
I don't suppose for all it's technical prowess they'll apply some simple genius by bevelling one of the edges so that you can see at-a-glance which way round to plug it in?
Don't mock me. We've all done it, and far too frequently.
The side that has two holes in the top of the connector always faces up.
My wife once destroyed the only USB port I had on an old laptop by jamming a cable into it upside-down. It broke the little connector that floats out in the middle. The dirt-cheap USB cable was left perfectly in-tact, but the computer had to be replaced.
So, yes, I fully agree with you. It really sucks that it physically fits in the wrong way, allowing you to easily destroy the host machine's port.
Sounds like it shouldn't be a problem until you consider that some ports are designed to be a very tight fit and provide quite a bit of resistance anyway. The non-'normal' USB connectors, those are designed well. The ones that aren't rotationally symmetric, you know, mini and that other one.. I don't see why they don't make them all like that.
Very fast but still not as fast as HDMI 1.3. Still more than enough speed to transfer large amounts of data.
HDMI is asymmetrical data transfer though, so it's not really a fair comparison.
That said, it would really be nice to have one connector for everything, and you simply have to cover /all/ your bases for that to happen, all the way up to HDMI.
Holy crap, that's super fast. You'd barely have to keep an external hard drive on, it'd be just like turning it on and off almost.
Backwards compatible?! Thank god! I just bought an iMac and thought that I would be stuck with USB 2.0 for a long time to come. Thanks so much for the info Engadget!
You'll still get the same speed, you'll just be able to connect to devices that support 3.0. At 2.0 speeds...
um, when they say backwards compat. they mean that usb 2.0 and likely 1.0 devices will work in the 3.0 port (kinda of like Playstations... cept for the newer non-backwards compat. ps3 editions...) and probably that a 3.0 device could plug into a 2.0, and just run at 2.0 speeds (like a 2.0 in a 1.0)... so if you are hoping to get 3.0 speeds and functionality out of your 2.0 plug, you are out of luck =[
DO WANT! Seriously, best news i have heard all day.
Why the hell cant they change the connector to something easier to use? I swear, 80% of the time I try to plug in anything USB I have it facing the wrong direction. When reaching behind the computer I can never tell if Im just missing the slot or have it facing the wrong way. How about something innovative like a plug that works regardless of the way its facing?
ditto.
You seriously want to use coaxial cable for peripheral interconnect?
*shudder*
They just need to make the connectors like the mini and micro USB ones, where it's only symmetrical on one axis.
"Furthermore, we're told that uploads and downloads are kept on separate lanes"
So Universal Serial Bus 3.0 is going to be parallel instead of serial?
haha - very good point. But i think as long as it's still one-bit-at-a-time it's still serial, regardless of whether up/down takes place on separate channels. So maybe that's the distinction? Although I don't know what benefit separate channels would provide if there's no simul-stream (is that a word? I may have just made that up).
Separate channels for each way is good-- the problem with parallel communication is when you have to wait for every bit in a cycle to register properly, and that complicates things and causes problems, especially as the communication frequencies increase.
With two different directions, that's may be two channels, but it's not the same data between them, so it's not in fact a parallel bus.
It's not parallel, it's still serial. In fact, it's just like the old RS232 serial (your old dialup modem) that has one wire for "transmit" and one wire for "receive". In USB1&2 the transmit and receive are sharing the same wires, so only one device can transmit at a time. Basically USB1&2 is half-duplex, and USB3 is full-duplex
Where did all the cats come from? What did I miss?
....cats??
There's too few USB3.0 standards, only 2, we expect at least 5 different standards this day and age, preferably incompatible and then they all need to be updated to 3.1 and requiring new hardware, thanks.
That's what HDMI, DVI, eSATA, and PCIe 1x are for.
What people need to do is say, 'hey, we need a better USB spec that can do what we need', instead, they all go off and do their own thing.
Remember AGP? The /correct/ solution was PCIe 16x, but no one had it together, so we ended up with fragmentation.
What the hell am I going to do with all of these USB 2.0 cables?
Well gee, they should still work fine with all the USB 2 stuff, but if you're really looking for something to do with them, I have a list of fascinating things you can discover with a series of fun experiments!*
...is your GI tract /really/ 6.5 meters long?
...are the cables strong enough to support a human body?
...is Houdini /better/ than you?
...how many volts can the cable handle between leads before it shorts?
.......are the cables flammable?
..do you want any more horrible ideas, or do you think you can figure it out yourself?
*cable length permitting
I'm emerging from the fallout on the bad reading / micscalculation...
USB plugs are damnably badly designed. No clear way round to put them in. And as for "two little holes are always up" !! Most of the time the slit is vertical, not horizontal. SO which is "up"? Left or right? Back or front?
I have a kitchen drawer literally BULGING with various USB/Firewire/video/ etc leads. And another full of various mains transformers and chargers for odd things. Such as waste of resources, making all these things and their numerous adaptors.
Yep, everyone's gripe with USB, the poorly designed connectors..
I still think we should settle on one physical design for just about everything and then try to unify the various software protocols, you know, merge firewire, ethernet, USB, HDMI, eSATA.. That would be grand.
...although there's the possibility that patents involved are preventing standard unification... wouldn't be surprised, they're always hindering some progress or other.
Please redesign the connector! Way to bulky looking on one end of that cable...