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

[Juncar]

Companies are lazy I guess...
It does not cost much in terms of hardware and material effort. I guess the only work to be done is in the driver

 

[amitkher]

For an honest effort at providing lots of USB 3.0 ports, motherboard manufacturers would have to reserve maximum amount of USB 3.0 bandwidth for each port. At the expense of SATA ports, or PCI express slots. To increase USB 3.0 ports by 6, remember that 5 SATA 3.0 6 Gbps ports will be reduced.


So if a motherboard currently has 2 USB 3.0 and 6 SATA 3.0, it will be converted into 8 USB 3.0 and 1 SATA 3.0. Reducing 6 USB 2.0 ports would not support even a single extra SATA 3.0 port! For most people, this is a far worse configuration because a typical USB 3.0 device would use a few kbps or hundreds of kbps (mouse, audio etc.) bandwidth, whereas SATA 3.0 devices actually use the bandwidth available, SSDs nearly saturate it. 2xUSB + 6xSATA is much much more likely to actually use the bandwidth than 8xUSB + 1xSATA.


If motherboard manufacturers share the bandwidth of USB 3.0 instead of providing dedicated bandwidth for all USB 3.0 ports, you (or someone else) would complain that why do motherboard manufacturers provide so many USB 3.0 ports when they don't have the bandwidth for it?


In comparison with USB 2.0 days, bandwidth has increased slower than CPUs' capability to process the bandwidth.

 

[bononos]

For an honest effort at providing lots of USB 3.0 ports, motherboard manufacturers would have to reserve maximum amount of USB 3.0 bandwidth for each port. At the expense of SATA ports, or PCI express slots. To increase USB 3.0 ports by 6, remember that 5 SATA 3.0 6 Gbps ports will be reduced.

So if a motherboard currently has 2 USB 3.0 and 6 SATA 3.0, it will be converted into 8 USB 3.0 and 1 SATA 3.0. Reducing 6 USB 2.0 ports would not support even a single extra SATA 3.0 port! For most people, this is a far worse configuration because a typical USB 3.0 device would use a few kbps or hundreds of kbps (mouse, audio etc.) bandwidth, whereas SATA 3.0 devices actually use the bandwidth available, SSDs nearly saturate it. 2xUSB + 6xSATA is much much more likely to actually use the bandwidth than 8xUSB + 1xSATA.
......

You're right, just 1 usb3 port would suck up an equivalent bandwidth of 10 usb 2 ports (480Mb/s vs 5Gb/s). And then theres that possible bottleneck with the DMI which is 20Gb/s.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

And then theres that possible bottleneck with the DMI which is 20Gb/s.

You -could- of course just place the USB3 controller (or PCIe card) on one of the PCIe lines (or slots if an expansion card) driven by the CPU, if you need serious bandwidth.

What Intel CPUs are lacking are a couple more general purpose PCIe lanes coming of the CPU (from 16 lines to 20 or thereabouts). Ironically enough AMD APUs already have four extra GP PCIe lines coming of the CPU in addition to the 16 used for graphics cards.

 

[CakeMonster]

This is something I would have liked to be better specified by motherboard makers and reviewers. I am one of those who will never run SLI/CF, so ideally I'd like a configuration where more lanes are available for other stuff like native USB3 rather than a 2nd graphics card slot. But there's rarely any discussion of this even on forums dedicated to hardware...

 

[glugglug]

The number of lanes Intel has on all the LGA115x boards is seriously anaemic. I guess I was spoiled by my last machine being LGA1366.

Took me awhile to figure out the reason one of my PCIe-x1 slots wasn't working was because the bandwidth is shared with 2 of the SATA ports that got turned on in the BIOS. And after reading up on that I found out that if I use the 3rd PCIe-x16 slot in x4 mode it disables 3 of the other x1 slots.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

This is something I would have liked to be better specified by motherboard makers and reviewers. I am one of those who will never run SLI/CF, so ideally I'd like a configuration where more lanes are available for other stuff like native USB3 rather than a 2nd graphics card slot. But there's rarely any discussion of this even on forums dedicated to hardware...

The problem is that PCIe slot configuration is completely up to the mainboard vendor. Not all of them provide a block diagram, which is very helpful when figuring what PCIe lanes go where. Then there is the problem of different chipsets supporting/not supporting different configuration for the lines coming of the CPU.

Took me awhile to figure out the reason one of my PCIe-x1 slots wasn't working was because the bandwidth is shared with 2 of the SATA ports that got turned on in the BIOS. And after reading up on that I found out that if I use the 3rd PCIe-x16 slot in x4 mode it disables 3 of the other x1 slots.

Let me guess, you have a gigabyte board...?

Generally, be sure to read the fine print on PCIe configuration in the mainboard manual (you can usually download it from their website), before you buy it. Just a little friendly advice, I have been burned myself...

 

[Nec_V20]

The advantages of USB3 for USB2 devices are:

A) USB2 devices will work faster on a USB3 port (obviously NOT faster than the USB2 maximum) because in developing the USB3 protocol the backwards comparability to USB2 removed a lot of the overhead associated with the original USB2 protocol.

B) USB3 supplies more power to devices, this means that one no longer needs a Y-cable if one is attaching something like a USB2 hard drive.

 

[hackerballs]

3 x USB3 (for 6 ports) Headers on MB + 2 x USB2 (for 4 ports) Headers on MB
4 x USB3 ports on rear panel

Case has 2 x USB3 ports + 2 x USB2 ports on front panel.

and YA, had it for a few years

the MB's and Cases with USB3 are out there, just look and buy one if you need them

 

[glugglug]

Let me guess, you have a gigabyte board...?

Nope, Asus. Been using them since 1995, except for one MSI board that literally had a cap explode. Granted the power from Con Ed is terrible, but it was on an APC UPS.

I'm disappointed by this latest board on multiple fronts. Not sure who I will get for my next build. Sad to hear Gigabyte apparently isn't what it used to be either? I've had good experience with Gigabyte boards used in prebuilt OEM PCs before...

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I'm disappointed by this latest board on multiple fronts. Not sure who I will get for my next build. Sad to hear Gigabyte apparently isn't what it used to be either? I've had good experience with Gigabyte boards used in prebuilt OEM PCs before...

I think that's more of a general problem. All manufacturers have their ups and downs. I usually don't judge a board based on brand-name for that reason. Even the lower end vendors occasionally makes good boards. Its just that I have noticed gigabyte being most consistent with "funny" PCIe configurations.

 

[Gliktch]

3 x USB3 (for 6 ports) Headers on MB + 2 x USB2 (for 4 ports) Headers on MB
4 x USB3 ports on rear panel

Case has 2 x USB3 ports + 2 x USB2 ports on front panel.

and YA, had it for a few years

the MB's and Cases with USB3 are out there, just look and buy one if you need them

Well, I've just looked up both boards in your sig (GA-Z77X-UD3H and GA-Z77X-UD5H) and neither of them have the mystical multiple USB3 headers you mention - so hopefully, 2 years later, someone can point me to a board suitable for use with this BitFenix Shinobi XL. And yes, I do have a use for more than two front USB3 ports operating simultaneously at >USB2 speeds. Ideally I'd also like to have something with at least 6 SATA3 ports inbuilt.

Happy to spend up to a couple hundred, it's for a workshop machine doing data recovery and backing up customer data prior to work (data management, deduplication and other batch processing, full malware/AV scans on large datasets, and so on). The aim is to have 12-16TB in RAIDZ-on-LUKS along with a 3TB 'scratch' drive, plus an SSD boot drive. So likely 4x3TB + 3TB + 120GB. Would prefer 5x3T+3T+120G but wanting to minimise potential points of failure (so avoiding extra add-on cards would be nice).

You can obviously see why I'm interested to find out to which board/series you were referring.

EDIT: It didn't take much longer after posting this that I came across a few contenders

The MSI Z79A Gaming 6 was one such, though the unnecessary price and SATA limitations ruled it out for me.

Asrock Z87 Professional looks like a winner! None of the later boards appear to fit this brief anywhere near as well. This Z87 board has enough spare SATA ports that I can also incorporate some extra front docking which is ideal for our use case. Just leaving this info here for anyone in a relatable scenario

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Asrock Z87 Professional looks like a winner!

If you really can't wait the ~3 weeks for Skylake, at least get a Z97 board like the Asrock Z97 Extreme6. 6x SATA3 from the PCH plus 4x from the two Asmedia controllers. There is absolutely no reason to get a Z87 board at this time.

For more then 6 SATA3 ports from the PCH, you'll have to go X99.

 

[Gliktch]

There is absolutely no reason to get a Z87 board at this time.

Thank you for your input Nick.

Is there any compelling reason to spend the extra AUD$130 (USD100) just for the later chipset, when it has the same USB3 and SATA capabilities? (Price disparity from about $95 price difference in board, $25-30 less in included accessories that will likely get used)

And I definitely wouldn't be using a brand new released board on a system where reliability is much more of a focus than a few % in performance. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on any of this though!

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Is there any compelling reason to spend the extra AUD$130 (USD100) just for the later chipset, when it has the same USB3 and SATA capabilities? (Price disparity from about $95 price difference in board, $25-30 less in included accessories that will likely get used)

Ouch. When you put it that way, no there isn't. One thing to keep in mind is the Z97 has out-of-box support for the Haswell refresh CPUs. The Z87 can use an older BIOS/UEFI without support. This can usually be fixed with a BIOS update, if you can get into the BIOS that is.

About the pricing, make sure you're looking at the plain vanilla Extreme6, not the Extreme6/ac or Extreme6/3.1.

And I definitely wouldn't be using a brand new released board on a system where reliability is much more of a focus than a few % in performance. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on any of this though!

The killer feature of Skylake from your point of view is the greatly increased bandwidth between the CPU and PCH (from 2 to 4GB/s). It's quite possible to fully saturate the current DMI link when running that many drives.

Although I can fully understand your stability concerns. I'm (more then) a little paranoid myself...

 

[escrow4]

Thank you for your input Nick.

Is there any compelling reason to spend the extra AUD$130 (USD100) just for the later chipset, when it has the same USB3 and SATA capabilities? (Price disparity from about $95 price difference in board, $25-30 less in included accessories that will likely get used)

And I definitely wouldn't be using a brand new released board on a system where reliability is much more of a focus than a few % in performance. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on any of this though!

Where in Australia is there such a price gulf? MSY doesn't even sell Z87 anymore.

 

[Eelectricity]

So, looking to build a new shiny APU box, and it looks like every single mobo has only one internal USB 3 header.

I just recently got a new MB and thought the USB3 header was 20 pins and could therefore handle 2 USB3 ports. Do I misunderstand the header?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I just recently got a new MB and thought the USB3 header was 20 pins and could therefore handle 2 USB3 ports. Do I misunderstand the header?

You are correct.

 

[GAO]

If you really can't wait the ~3 weeks for Skylake, at least get a Z97 board like the Asrock Z97 Extreme6. 6x SATA3 from the PCH plus 4x from the two Asmedia controllers. There is absolutely no reason to get a Z87 board at this time.

For more then 6 SATA3 ports from the PCH, you'll have to go X99.

Or Asus Z97 board implements all 6 Z97 USB ports (the hero has 4 on back and internal header for 2 more for example - all Intel USB3 from the chipset).

 

[Blue_Max]

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.

Agreed - plus I've never had a single problem with USB2 headers, I've broken three of the USB3 headers because they're so fragile.