%!@! - why only one USB 3 internal header?

[escrow4]

So, looking to build a new shiny APU box, and it looks like every single mobo has only one internal USB 3 header. Grrrr, Asus's best A88X board (the V PRO) only has an additional 2 USB 3 ports on the back via an extra controller but only one internal header. For some reason AMD put 7 SATA 3 ports but only a pitiful 4 USB 3 ports, and yet we have 2 or 3 USB 2 headers. Why, why, why?

Why is USB 2 still hanging around like XP? Who on earth even uses 6 USB 2 ports on the front panel? And why is USB 3 integration so glacial? %@@!!!

 

[Insert_Nickname]

If you need more internal USB3 headers, that's easily solved by an expansion card like this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA1NV1064576

About the USB2 headers, they're not only used for front ports, but also for stuff like card readers etc. That's why they keep hanging around...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not many USB 3 items out there compared to USB 2.

What benefit is a USB 3 mouse or headphones

what will a USB 3 giver me for a coffer warmer that a USB 2 port will not.

As the demand for USB 3 increases; then USB 3 support will expand. Plus you also need to have the drivers for USB 3

 

[Cerb]

OP, I wholly agree with you. Worse yet, it's the full-sized high-end mobos that get more USB headers, rather than the smaller ones! I can understand a few devices need just 2.0/1.1, so having that header is fine, but all ports, and most of the onboard headers, should be 3.0, by now.

Insert_Nickname: being used for card readers as well is precisely why I want more 3.0 headers on the board. A card reader and standard front USB ports means needing 2 headers, right off the bat, whereas we're only getting 1.

Eaglekeeper: USB 3 is just fine for mouse and keyboard. It runs at USB 2.0, or at 1.1, not using the extra pins. Should we also keep several USB 1.1 headers around, since those devices don't need 2.0? With new hardware, a single USB 2.0 header on the board will be enough--IE, a reversal of the current norm.

By the time USB 3.0 demand is high, my next computer will be a few years old. I want it to have enough ports, on the motherboard, when I buy it (probably around Black Friday), to handle those needs. I didn't need 12 USB 2.0 ports when I bought my current mobo, but I have gotten a lot of mileage out of them. I want lots of USB 3.0 ports, and I want them in a fairly small case, and I still want to have a spare PCI-e slot (3 will be for the video card). That is technically feasible, and it shouldn't cost all that much more, even with add-on chips.

Motherboards had USB 1 ports years before I even had a use for them, and that was good (though partly due to shabby 9x support, I'll admit). 2.0 came out and had all but replaced 1.1, before the time I had any need for it (early 00s). 3.0 came out just when it was needed, rather than before, and is not being adopted quickly, in contrast.

Worse, the Intel 6-series boards often had 2 USB 3.0 headers, which was good, while current-chipset boards do not, except a few full ATX OC/tweaker boards (both due to added chips).

 

[Sohaltang]

Was surprised how well stocked my new asrock is. 10 x SATA3, 1 x eSATA, 8 x USB 3.0, 7 x USB 2.0

 

[jhansman]

My aging Asrock 890FX Deluxe 5 has 2 USB 3.0 port in the rear (and a boatload of 2.0s), and only one header, but it came with a 3.5" bracket that uses that header to provide two 3.0 ports up front, which is all I've ever needed. The only thing I've ever use 3.0 for is external storage (drive enclosure or flash drive), so I'm good. I would, however, look for more ports if replacing this board. The speed difference in data copying is definitely noticeable.

 

[2is]

I don't particularly have a problem with a single header, but what confuses me is, why even keep USB 2 around with USB 3 available? My memory may be failing me, but I don't remember any hybrid USB 1/2 systems when USB 2 was introduced.

 

[Sohaltang]

I don't particularly have a problem with a single header, but what confuses me is, why even keep USB 2 around with USB 3 available? My memory may be failing me, but I don't remember any hybrid USB 1/2 systems when USB 2 was introduced.

I'm no expert but doing some trouble shooting on a mouse resulted in incompatibility problems with usb3. Also when flashing my bios the Asrock instructions said must use a flash drive USB2 and not USB3 during the process. It was bolded really big. Ill assume the backwards compatibility of USB3 is not as good as USB2 was from USB1.

 

[2is]

I'm no expert but doing some trouble shooting on a mouse resulted in incompatibility problems with usb3. Also when flashing my bios the Asrock instructions said must use a flash drive USB2 and not USB3 during the process. It was bolded really big. Ill assume the backwards compatibility of USB3 is not as good as USB2 was from USB1.

Certainly possible, but there are also known issues with Haswell chipsets and USB 3 flash drives so the warning could have been due to that as well.

 

[Sohaltang]

Certainly possible, but there are also known issues with Haswell chipsets and USB 3 flash drives so the warning could have been due to that as well.

That was for my kids 3770k. Bio crashed while using Internet flash.

 

[Red Squirrel]

It's odd how it seems to be taking bloody ages for USB 3 to be adopted fully yet it's a standard that's forward and backward compatible (as far as actually being able to work) so there's no reason not to just jump to it. Same with SATA3. Even newer motherboards only have like 2 sata3 ports and then like 4 sata 2. Though that matters less, since no single drive can saturate that link anyway.

 

[ViRGE]

I don't particularly have a problem with a single header, but what confuses me is, why even keep USB 2 around with USB 3 available? My memory may be failing me, but I don't remember any hybrid USB 1/2 systems when USB 2 was introduced.

My understanding is that USB 3 ports are comparatively expensive to implement; they require more pins and more complex controllers, so you can't just easily drop them in place of USB 2. That said, the cost clearly isn't that high and we're probably looking at Intel and AMD trying to save a few dimes per chipset.

 

[jkauff]

I have five USB 3.0 external drives, so I went with a powered USB 3.0 hub. Not expensive, and works great.

 

[Wall Street]

Unlike the USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 transition, the USB 3.0 headers require way more pins than what it is replacing. There are so many USB 2.0 boards because USB 2.0 is still implemented in the chipsets. Intel doesn't want to implement 10+ USB 3.0 ports in the chipset because of the costs, and since laptops are now more than 50% of units sold, so many of them will go to waste.

 

[escrow4]

Unlike the USB 1.1 to USB 2.0 transition, the USB 3.0 headers require way more pins than what it is replacing. There are so many USB 2.0 boards because USB 2.0 is still implemented in the chipsets. Intel doesn't want to implement 10+ USB 3.0 ports in the chipset because of the costs, and since laptops are now more than 50% of units sold, so many of them will go to waste.

And? Update already. Leave no more than 2 USB 2 headers on a desktop mobo and dedicate the rest to 3.0. Laptops, put at least 3 USB 3 ports, rest USB 2. Its not difficult, and I seriously doubt its THAT much more expensive.

 

[86waterpumper]

stupid to see ANY new motherboard come out lower end or n ot without at least one onboard usb 3.0 and yet there are new ones all the time being released without it at all on the rear panel let alone a fancy header What is bad is alot of cases now finally are getting front panel 3.0 usb ports, but you have to downgrade them to 2.0 via a adapter to fit the 2.0 only motherboard headers where they will work

 

[glugglug]

It's only 4 extra pins per port. They should have just made a motherboard USB3 plug that was a widened USB2.0 plug that you could put either type of header onto (put the 4 additional pins to the right or left of the existing pins, maybe spacing them closer).

Throwing away backward compatibility seems stupid in this case.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Remember when we had ATA/133 and SATA/150 on the same motherboards for a while?

Or PCI and ISA?

USB3 is new. In a gen or two, boards will be shipping with nothing but. For now, it's only really useful for storage devices and everything else can be 2.0.

*shrug*

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Remember when we had ATA/133 and SATA/150 on the same motherboards for a while?

Or PCI and ISA?

USB3 is new. In a gen or two, boards will be shipping with nothing but. For now, it's only really useful for storage devices and everything else can be 2.0.

*shrug*

Exactly. As I wrote further up in the thread, if you really need an extra internal header, its very easy to solve with an add-on PCI/PCIe card.

Just like when we went from USB1.1 to 2.0 or needed extra IDE or SATA ports. Call me old fashioned, but I simply fail to see any problem. But I do wish somebody would make a USB3 version of one of these...

 

[2is]

Remember when we had ATA/133 and SATA/150 on the same motherboards for a while?

Or PCI and ISA?

USB3 is new. In a gen or two, boards will be shipping with nothing but. For now, it's only really useful for storage devices and everything else can be 2.0.

*shrug*

Those are two different form factors. USB 3 is not. You couldn't plug in an ATA 133 drive into a SATA port. You CAN plug in a USB 2 device in a USB 3 slot so it's really not at all the same thing. Same thing for PCI and ISA, completely different form factors. Completely ditching ISA when PCI was introduced would render all your ISA devices useless. Ditching USB 2 for USB 3 wouldn't render your USB 2 devices useless.

 

[glugglug]

Those are two different form factors. USB 3 is not. You couldn't plug in an ATA 133 drive into a SATA port. You CAN plug in a USB 2 device in a USB 3 slot so it's really not at all the same thing. Same thing for PCI and ISA, completely different form factors. Completely ditching ISA when PCI was introduced would render all your ISA devices useless. Ditching USB 2 for USB 3 wouldn't render your USB 2 devices useless.

Exactly. SATA I and SATA II drives work with a SATA III port just fine.

Old 14MHz IDE drives will work on a ATA33, ATA66, or ATA100 port without issue.

Although for both of those examples, the number of connector pins remained constant. USB3 doubles the number of connector pins, but the port could have been widened with some kind of keying to make the old USB2 connector only fit on the side with the legacy pins.

One thing kind of surprising is that before AGP there was VESA. The VESA and PCI connectors are the same size, just facing the opposite direction. (and farther down on the board so it could coexist with an EISA slot) I'm surprised we never heard about people putting the video card backwards in a PCI slot.

 

[piasabird]

Should have a USB3 Dock. Doesn't that work? How many USB3 Devices do you have? I think a lot of cases should have more USB SLOTS on the front. 2 is never enough. Especially if you have a USB Headphone or microphone. My Dell came with 4 USB2 slots on the front.

 

[glugglug]

Should have a USB3 Dock. Doesn't that work? How many USB3 Devices do you have? I think a lot of cases should have more USB SLOTS on the front. 2 is never enough. Especially if you have a USB Headphone or microphone. My Dell came with 4 USB2 slots on the front.

Yes. Generally the only USB device that needs enough bandwidth to justify taking its own USB port is an external drive. And how many ports are people typically using for that?

For everything else, I find a hub way more convenient, especially with most devices now shipping with super short USB cables. The hub sits on my desk for the keyboard/mouse/webcam, modem, phone charging etc. More convenient that way. Or for the folks who are inevitably going to say the hub is too much clutter, you can get a 7 port hub that sits in a 5.25" bay.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

One thing kind of surprising is that before AGP there was VESA. The VESA and PCI connectors are the same size, just facing the opposite direction. (and farther down on the board so it could coexist with an EISA slot) I'm surprised we never heard about people putting the video card backwards in a PCI slot.

I guess it's true. People _are_ getting stupider!

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Remember when we had ATA/133 and SATA/150 on the same motherboards for a while?

Or PCI and ISA?

USB3 is new. In a gen or two, boards will be shipping with nothing but. For now, it's only really useful for storage devices and everything else can be 2.0.

*shrug*

No it isn't. Its sitting on my +3 year old computer. Something +3 years old in PC technology isn't new unless you've crawled out from under a rock or something.