AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: AMD motherboards with PCI Express 3.0 support???
Topic Summary: AMD motherboards with PCI Express 3.0 support???
Created On: 09/18/2011 10:33 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 01/19/2012 10:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

I'd like to see Xajel make a video about PCIe 3 on youtube explaining all of that info. It appears that AMD and Intel both need to see it.

Yeah, none of this is about gaming for me. We use almost everyday the Adobe CS, Microsoft Word, Office, Photo Shop. We have to build our own websites, make our own videos, PowerPoint lectures. We network between a few computers and use those small USB drives often.

What all can PCIe be used for?
 01/19/2012 11:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

According to the Hyper transport website HT 3 has been out since 2006 and HT 3.1 since 08 so, it's certainly time for HT 4.

http://www.hypertransport.org/...t.cfm?page=Technology

It's time for SATA 4 too.
 01/19/2012 04:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

Software like Windows 7 or Adobe Creative Suite aren't required to support PCIe 3.0 they just make use of the hardware capability so if one has a system with PCIe 3.0 Win 7 & Adobe CS will make use of it automatically.

Edited: 01/21/2012 at 12:21 PM by zeus33
 01/22/2012 03:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Xajel
Case Modder

Posts: 1554
Joined: 10/08/2003

zeus33, both Intel and AMD knows all this and much more...

AMD knows this and this is because they didn't added PCIe 3 to their latest chipset ( HT3.1 speed isn't enough )... and they know they need to have higher speed HT link or they should move to PCIe link, or just move the graphics PCIe directly to the CPU... this is my preferred method but it needs more work and a new CPU Socket that is at least non-electrically compatible with current one, but they should make it physically in-compatible to avoid damages duo to installation of non compatible CPU's on the socket...
 01/23/2012 04:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

Xajel, so you're saying that the current motherboards with PCIe 3 support for Intel are not true PCIe 3 or just that it could be better? I agree with you HT 3.1 is not enough. I also wonder if SATA 3 is enough too - it's time for SATA 4.

I e-mailed HyperTransport awhile back in June:

ME: "According to the 'HyperTransport Consortium' website HT 3.0 has been out since 2006 and rev. 3.1 has been out since 2008. It must be about time for HT 4.0, right? When can we expect to see HT 4.0?"

HT responded: "The answer to your question would be yes if technology evolution were to remain constant over time. In recent times, higher clock rate has lost priority over power reduction and efficiency which, as you know, are inversely proportional to clock rates. In line with this, our Consortium has increasingly focused on clustering and networking technologies as areas in which HyperTransport can bring unique value. Last December our Consortium introduced HyperSharetm, a universally applicable (Intel, AMD, ARM CPUs as well as Ethernet, InfiniBand and HT Native networks) and highly efficient clustering technology based on HT technology and capable of addressing the most demanding objectives of infrastructure cost, operating costs, efficiency, performance and scalability in data centers and HPC cluster applications. HyperShare is now the key focus of our Consortium's technology development and we cannot say whether HT4 is going to be in our technology pipeline or when."

http://www.hypertransport.org/...lt.cfm?page=Technology

What would you say to HT after reading that? I can e-mail them again or you could?

If "Intel and AMD knows all this and much more" how come they're not doing it?

Would you please post your thoughts at the Tom's Hardware thread for discussion at:

">http://www.tomshardwar.../fo.....os-promised


You're the ONLY one I've ever seen explain these things about PCIe 3.
 01/23/2012 05:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

What they say about clock speed taking a back seat is true. Systems today are more dependent on exploiting parallelism than increasing throughput by higher clock speeds.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
 01/24/2012 02:24 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Xajel
Case Modder

Posts: 1554
Joined: 10/08/2003

@Zeus33, nope; Intel uses direct connected PCIe 3 lanes to the CPU's built-in Northbridge and ring-bus.. so it has the required bandwidth..

SATA3 is more than good for mechanical HDDs but when talking about SSD.. then there's some talks depending on how "high-end" this SSD is.. some higher end high-ends, or what we might call enterprise level high-end does work on SATA3 at all, but uses PCIe 2 or 3 to give all their performance, take a note that even though SATA 3 can provide 600MB/s ( theoretically ).. but in real world it lower than this... + even now the consumer high-end can reach 500+MB\s so you can figure it out... to compare it with PCIe even PCIe 2.0 x1 can provide 500MB/s, and most PCIe based SSD's starts at x2, x4 & even x8 while you might already see x16...

Higher bandwidth is not every thing, latency is important also specially with SSD's as they have much much lower latency than mechanical drives, so the SATA is some how limiting the latency for high end specially for applications that have high IO, just take a look at how much IO SATA based SSD's compared to PCIe based SSD and see how high PCIe SSD's can go...

About HT, HT from the beginning never designed to be a consumer oriented bus ( in fact, I see AMD is concentrating much more in server side than in consumer side... this is why they failed several times in AMD vs Intel battle ), it was designed with Server/Workstations in mind, this is why you see some Advanced multi CPU Sockets technologies enabled in HT like Coherent HT link ( which allows a CPU in Socket X to access the the cache in another Socket transparently, even at a level of specified core )...
At large scale servers, HT is very useful, but in consumer it does not evolve that fast to adopt.. plus having multi-standards for data buses will increase the latency more... and will limit the bandwidth to the lowest speed bus used in the system... simpler is better... so Intel way of using PCIe directly in the CPU is a must go for AMD ( and I know they're already thinking about it before Intel made it, from the first days of Fusion idea came out ) but the "other" must is to remove HT link from consumer CPU's and put a PCIe based bus to connect to the system chipset... having more PCIe lanes in the CPU will be easier than adding HT link + will require less silicon space... not to mention that PCIe is more flexible than HT regarding expandability... For AMD without PCIe ondie ( only with HT ), the only thing AMD can do is move from 16bit width links to 32bit width link... it will only give dual the bandwidth but will require a lot more pins and will be hard to make duo to EMI with wider bus width.. any need for faster bus will require moving to faster HT which is not available yet... PCIe is better here...
 01/24/2012 02:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Xajel
Case Modder

Posts: 1554
Joined: 10/08/2003

Originally posted by: zeus33

What would you say to HT after reading that? I can e-mail them again or you could?


They won't do any thing, HT consortium is more interested in Server/Super computer world than in consumer world, this is why they didn't evolve faster, plus there's already other alternative for consumer world...

BTW, I'm already seeing other technologies in Server world is evolving faster than HT.. and I guess the big reason here is because of the parallel natural of this bus...


Originally posted by: zeus33

If "Intel and AMD knows all this and much more" how come they're not doing it?


As I said, Intel already moved and did it... but AMD still
the move requires major changes specially in the Socket, AMD is some how love to keep their sockets to live as long as they can, so moving to a completely new socket will require a lot of R&D and looking forward in order to make it compatible as they can with future generations... not to mention how AMD is working now but concetrating on Fusion other than competing with Intel in the high-end CPU's,,,

moving to PCIe 3.0 in Fusion is much easier than in Bulldozer, but there's no logical reason for this as Fusion APU's are mainstream where PCIe 3.0 now barley touches the ultra high-end GPUs, and you won't see some guy installing an HD 7970 on an Fusion A8 APU !! it basically doesn't make any sense !!

but no need to rush out in every way... even HD 7970 which is the fastest single GPU now does not benefit that much from PCIe 3.0 and there's some tests around the web on the fastest CPU's also ( Intel as they have the fastest CPU's now and also support PCIe 3.0 ).. but don't worry AMD will move to PCIe 3.0 sooner or later.. but I don't see it in the few coming months... you have to wait for a new socket...



Originally posted by: zeus33

Would you please post your thoughts at the Tom's Hardware thread for discussion at:



"><br ">http://...../fo...os-promised



Believe it or not, I'm already a member there but the last post I posted was a Name change request

I'll try but I can't promise

Originally posted by: zeus33

You're the ONLY one I've ever seen explain these things about PCIe 3.


There's other peoples here and there and every where know this... but they don't see it as an interesting topic to discuss !!
 01/24/2012 07:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

So then, go with Intel at least until AMD comes out with a new CPU socket that will be able to support PCIe 3.0 then. I do get confused on all those Intel CPU sockets though, but, I've never had Intel before either.

I notice SSD's are coming out with PCIe cards. I wonder when they'll begin to support PCIe 3.

What's the next weak link in the chain? The article below seems a bit old ...

How PCI Express Works
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/pci-express.htm

Edited: 01/24/2012 at 07:40 PM by zeus33
 01/25/2012 03:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Xajel
Case Modder

Posts: 1554
Joined: 10/08/2003

Only if you really require PCIe 3.0 as I told you even the latest HD 7970 which is the currently only GPU capable of handling PCIe 3.0 and also the fastest GPU available.. does favor PCIe 3.0 that much.. there's small un noticed performance between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 2.0 ( x16 )

take a look here
http://vr-zone.com/articles/do...7970/14306.html


And FYI, you might need this line the previews test
Sandy Bridge-E/X79 does support PCIe 3.0, but it is not officially validated by PCI-SIG yet


SSD's coming with PCIe because there's a lot of performance hit when using some high-end SSD's with SATA... currently I don't see a major benefit for going from PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0 for SSD.. but they will later specially there's no ready chip that has direct PCIe 3.0 to NAND controller... the current only support PCIe 2.0...
 01/25/2012 11:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

"Only if you really require PCIe 3.0..."

What would you say qualifies as a PCIe 3 requirement? Adobe Creative Suite, Word, Photo Shop, Office, creating/rendering HD videos and music? Or what would gain the most from PCIe 3?
 01/25/2012 12:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Canis-X
The Frozen One

Posts: 4142
Joined: 01/19/2009

That is my point.....you can't even state what you "need" PCI 3.0 for, so why do you feel that you need it so badly? I can understand a thread being made to discuss the tech in a general sense, but you started the thread out as though you absolutely need this released by AMD, yesterday, but yet you can't even state why you need it.

Originally posted by: zeus33

Oh okay, I thought somebody here would at least know something about it. Fair enough. AMD never responds. I thought somebody here could contact AMD and be more likely to get a response.



You may be right about the PCI card due to the fact that GPU's currently cannot saturate the bandwidth yet but, that's for gamers. There are other much better reasons to have PCIe 3. I don't need it for games. I need it for work projects I do.


I am confused as to why you are being so pushy with this.

-------------------------
The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
 01/25/2012 01:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

There aren't any uses for PCIe 3 just yet, or at least there aren't enough to make supporting it worthwhile as anything other than a bullet point in someone's powerpoint slides. Those few who do have need of that much I/O bandwidth would probably be better off looking outside of mainstream desktop hardware anyway.

Some people get stuck on things like this though... it's weird. I mean, I guess there could be such a thing as a PCI Express fanboy, but fanboyism is always a one-on-one kind of thing. Fanboying for PCI Express would be decidedly more whoreish since you'd get shared with the entire industry. The only thing you could get from that is a nasty burning sensation... or so I've heard... I imagine... yeah.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

Edited: 01/25/2012 at 01:54 PM by Mime
 01/25/2012 03:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

Mime, PCIe 3 does double the bandwidth so, what I find really weird and ironic is why some actually complain about that. I don't see the arguments that GPU's can't take advantage of it or there's no use for it yet, as legit. Software doesn't need to do anything special for PCIe 3 - they just automatically utilize whatever hardware you have - if one has PCIe 3 then, they use it. If you only have PCIe 2 then that's what gets used.

I don't need it for GPU's and no products will EVER come out supporting it if they don't come out with it first. It's basic common sense, which has become rare these days. I don't think it's necessary for any suggested name-calling (not that anyone is).

PCIe 3 is part of the new, next generation PC. PCIe 3 makes PCIe 2 look like PCIe 1.0 when PCIe 2.0 came out. Did people complain when PCIe 2.0 came out too? It's simply time for a new build for me and I don't want a system that is not all that far off from being obsolete.
 01/25/2012 03:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

"That is my point.....you can't even state what you "need" PCI 3.0 for"

Canis-X, actually I can but, I was asking Xajel for his opinion.

"I am confused as to why you are being so pushy with this."

As I said, it's time for a new build for me and I want the new, next generation PC not the soon to be obsolete PC. PCIe 3.0 has been out since Nov 2010 so, it's been over a year now. It's simply time for it to come out. Intel came out with it in July.

August 3, 2010

PCI Express 3.0: On Motherboards By This Time Next Year?

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...i-sig,2695.html


"A spokesperson from Nvidia was a little more forthcoming: "Nvidia is a key contributor to the industry's development of PCI Express 3.0, which is expected to have twice the data throughput of the current generation (2.0). Whenever there is a major increase in bandwidth like that, applications emerge that take advantage of it. This will benefit consumers and professionals with increased graphics and computing performance from notebooks, desktops, workstations, and servers. "
 01/25/2012 03:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

Software needs to actually require that much bandwidth though, and nothing that fits on a desktop machine right now does. It's like attaching a drainage pipe to your washing machine that's six feet in diameter. Yeah, it will still work, but it won't do you any better than a standard 4-inch pipe. Everything new gets called "next generation" and has bigger numbers attached to it than what came before. That's what marketing people do... it doesn't mean you actually need it.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
 01/25/2012 04:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

Mime, do you still use your computer from like 1999? If not, why not? Did people complain like this when PCIe 2 came out in what 2004? This entire argument complaining about PCIe 3 is utterly ludicrous.
 01/25/2012 04:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

Yeah, actually... the machine I'm using now is about three years old, but it's still more than I need. I'm a software developer, so most of my day is spent tinkering inside glorified text editors. A machine from 1999 would probably do just fine for that. It would make the IT department nervous, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. They're nervous most of the time anyway.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
 01/25/2012 04:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
zeus33
Fanboi

Posts: 97
Joined: 02/02/2010

Oh well, why didn't you stick with your 1999 computer then? If that's all you need then, good for you but, that doesn't mean everybody else must do the same.

Did people complain like this when PCIe 2 came out in what 2004? Again, the entire argument complaining about PCIe 3 is utterly ludicrous.
 01/25/2012 05:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Mime
Troll Hunter

Posts: 8517
Joined: 10/06/2003

You didn't ask about everyone else, you just asked me. My 1999 machine died.... hence the reason why a machine that old would make IT nervous. I may still do that though... terrorizing IT is part of my responsibilities as a developer.

And yeah... I do remember people complaining about PCIe 2 with the same kind of attitude. "Nobody needs this yet, why is everyone pushing this on us?", yadda yadda, so on and so on. Also weird, but minus the Apple-ish reality distortion field we're seeing here.

-------------------------
Containment Breach

Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

Edited: 01/25/2012 at 05:13 PM by Mime
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information