Next gen PCI standard delayed

The editor should read better.. it's not about the "old" PCI bus, but PCI express, which is maintained by the same organization who first managed PCI.

So will this bus enable the long sought FPS game "Doom 12: Murder Simulator"?

Seriously though, it seems kinda like 6Gb SATA or GigE to the desktop. No disk can do 6 Gb, almost no desktop can do 1 Gb into ethernet unless data is generated entirely in core - not the most common case.

So why should anyone care about this? Why should anyone see it as other than a marketing ploy?

Does it bring better protocols with the raw speed - like how SATA acquired some SCSI features at some point?

Forgot to add: the difference in performance of same high end card in a PCIe2 8x slot vs in a PCIe16x slot is effectively zero.

So let's massively increase the bandwidth! But to what end?

PCIe 3.0 makes sense at least for the power reduction. It is also needed if you want to reduce MB cost and size: you can do on a x4 slot what was possible on a x16 slot before.

My desktop is making full use of the 1 Gbps (~120 MB/sec) network connection and there are also SSD drives that are limited by the current 3 Gbps (300 MB/sec) SATA connection.

One reason - Market Churn.

It enables a new wave of motherboards, cards etc. that can be differenciated and packaged as a superior product. So folks buy them even though its pretty useless in real world usage.

The fact that certain aspects of PC hardware have far surpassed what is currently usable doesnt stop the marketing folks from pushing more bandwidth whether we need it or not.

Chances are You'd buy the PCI3 board rather then the slightly older and cheaper but just as performant PCI2 wont you?

most important thing is for these dual GPU cards sharing a single slot. however there is no real difference between performance of a 4870 X2 in a pcie 16 x 1.1 slot, or 2.0 slot.

another important factor- i want to reduce power consumption, but in reality i think we constantly also need more juice to the slot, as graphic card consumption continues to rise. i dont want to be needing three 8 bloody pin power leads to get high end graphics in the next couple of years!!

really it depends if graphics card designers go mad soon and start adding more than two GPUs to a card, we will need the extra bandwidth soon enough. ever onward i say :-)

Requirements VS needs balance has sharply shifted in the last 5-6 years.

A single high-end Core I7 setup @ 4Ghz with 8 threads, 24GB of ram and 8TB RAID of disk space (4 X 2TB drives) is as fast and capable as a Cray super computer of the 90s...

You can now make Hollywood quality 3D production and recoding studio quality music, right at home. Add to this visualization and cloud/grid computing for even more power and flexibility.

The product cycles are shorter (Intel's tick-tock model) and the increase in net productivity for the average users is lower at a very cycle. Going from the Pentium 133 to the Pentium 200 provided nearly 50% increase in raw cpu power, within the same generation of chip and socket (P54CS on socket 7).

A core 2 quad @ 3.2Ghz bought 3 years ago is roughly 10 to 20% slower than a Core I7 clocked at the same speed. Beside Hollywood production, thermonuclear simulation and protein folding, the average Joe doings web browsing, word documents and some Excel spreadsheet won't notice the 1.7 seconds difference. There is no substantial value added for them, even 3 years later.

You may now skip 1 generation of everything in your machine before making the switch to a new one. 65NM dual core to 45NM quad 8 threads, DDR to DDR3, SATA to SATA III, DirectX 9 to DirectX 11, and so on.

Netbook, ION and ATOM platforms are all the craze those days. That's one big sign of raw crunching power needs saturation. Those platform, albeit using a lot less electric current to run, offer about the same processing power than a 6 years old P4 machine...

The software side of the equation is also lagging, that's one big problem. Transparent integration of GPGPU, mainstream fully multi-threaded 64 bit code, artificial intelligence driven interface, 99% efficient voice recognition in a noisy room and other such advances on the software front is badly required to justify the otherwise significant untaped power in current systems.

Basically, the current hardware technology greatly outclass the general needs, and new needs, fueled by much more advanced software is simply not there yet.

Ramon Zarat

Yo, All of You!!

Isn't nice that when you do need more bandwidth in your PCI-e buss that it is there and you don't have to wait and wait for more performance? Sometimes too much quickly changes to just enough.

the Mad Winemaker

First off is the comment that a PCIv3.0 card will draw less power than PCIe. Every little bit of power saving adds up when you go to pay the bill.

Second a use for the high bandwidth today. A SATA 3GB RAID PCIv3.x card with connectors for 4 drives.

Oops that is 12GB max and this card supports *only* 6GB bandwidth...Oh well guess we'll have to wait for PCIv4.0 to see the full benefits of today's hard drives :P

Next up is video cards. If you think that ATI, Nvidia and other video card manucturers will stop increasing the capabilities and required bandwidth well I hope you're happy with you Diamond Stealth 64. The rest of the world keeps moving on :D

With this adapter you would be able to add a quad SLI on single card video. Of course no one needs workstation class video...unless you stop and think that today's entry level cards are yesterday's $2k workstation video adapters :)

The are holding off so the manufacturers can unload all their old stock.

Back in Old days, early 2005, it became clear that Vista Ultimate wasn't going to fit into that eras hardware. In fact using crayon,Ultie' found 64X to be needed Magic Number.

I'm Coming, Martha. When stewart uses pci for pci-e, know that drashek has many forms.

vondrashek

http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/pci_30/
It's NOT PCI-express. Remember, the latest spec for PCI so far is 2.3. Although why they'd want to do this is beyond me... I'm sure even the server crowd would be migrating from PCI-X to PCIe.

There is hole in vacumn of information. Being Holy, projected into future & found PciSIG or pci 3.0 ECN; Engineering Change Notice here:

http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/faqs/faq_pci30/pci30_faq.pdf

First big point is voltage, pci is 5 v-3.3v while pciSIG is 3.3 volt only. however, pci 2.3, todays standard, is one way per lane, while pci SIG is two way on each lane, mere switching complexity. Worse is sata SSD problem with voltage. pciSIG should help make usb 3.0 work properly, yet SSD works at mere ~1.33 volt. so still step above/below, just NOT right be guess.if that be your port.arrrgh.
However,potentially, controller must clip heads off voltage peaks & reduce 3.3 to about 1.7 volts for SSD or endure stutter.Queeen of Hearts Reigns in this land, apparently.
Cut their heads off, then try them, normal Computer developement.Called mysteriously Wanna pciSIG developement by Queen ?Drashek.hehehe

ALL new Controllers are for pciSIG & pci 3.0 IS NOT compatible with other pci standards.

At any rate, "true" pciSIG details are available by seminar or thru membership only, so go figure, its NO brainer of Semi-Brainer porportions. its also best hope at present for ?good data flow.

@Ramon Zarat
for the general e-mail, office apps the i7 may be an overkill but for the multimedia and 3d app user, photoshop plug-in user i7 is still not enough. The standard of enough processing will be when there is enough processing power to render a superhd game with hollywood cinematics beyond 1200p in realtime would processing power suffice like office apps, web browsing and e-mail. But there will never be enough processing power for future applications like interactive holodeck gaming that has yet to be materialized... Someone once said 640k memory was more than enough but really it's not even like a drop in the bucket?