Intel Responds to AMD, NVIDIA USB 3.0 Allegations

jmke · 16th June 2008, 16:44

Knupffer points out that Intel is not developing the USB 3.0 specification. What Intel is developing is the host controller spec which Knupffer describes as a “Dummies Guide” to building a USB 3.0 compatible piece of silicon.

Knupffer says in the blog post that Intel has invested “gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours” in developing the open host controller and despite its significant investment still plans to give the specification to competing manufacturers for free. Knupffer also says that Intel loves it when CPU performance is used to the max and the huge increase in bandwidth of USB 3.0 will mean larger file transfers and more processor usage. This in turn is expected to lead to an increased demand for faster processors.

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Respo...ticle12068.htm

jmke · 16th June 2008, 16:45

I love Firewire for its fast transfer and minimal CPU usage, and it's passthrough system is very well thought out and works very well. Boooooooo USB

17th June 2008, 00:29

Firewire has licensing costs though, big reason why Firewire 800 didn't catch on in motherboards was due to the at the time significantly higher licensing costs above Firewire 400 chips.

jmke · 17th June 2008, 08:06

that's so sad, as they are cutting in their own profits by increasing licensing costs

14th August 2008, 00:14

Intel came to their senses: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15311

jmke · 14th August 2008, 00:31

USB 3.0 xHCI spec released

16th June 2008, 16:44	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Intel Responds to AMD, NVIDIA USB 3.0 Allegations Knupffer points out that Intel is not developing the USB 3.0 specification. What Intel is developing is the host controller spec which Knupffer describes as a “Dummies Guide” to building a USB 3.0 compatible piece of silicon. Knupffer says in the blog post that Intel has invested “gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours” in developing the open host controller and despite its significant investment still plans to give the specification to competing manufacturers for free. Knupffer also says that Intel loves it when CPU performance is used to the max and the huge increase in bandwidth of USB 3.0 will mean larger file transfers and more processor usage. This in turn is expected to lead to an increased demand for faster processors. http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Respo...ticle12068.htm __________________

16th June 2008, 16:45	#2
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	I love Firewire for its fast transfer and minimal CPU usage, and it's passthrough system is very well thought out and works very well. Boooooooo USB __________________

17th June 2008, 08:06	#4
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	that's so sad, as they are cutting in their own profits by increasing licensing costs __________________

14th August 2008, 00:31	#6
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	USB 3.0 xHCI spec released __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ASUS P6X58D-E: Intel X58 board with SATA 6 and USB 3.0	jmke	WebNews	0	28th May 2010 14:25
Intel preps USB 3.0 controller	jmke	WebNews	0	23rd March 2010 15:19
Super Talent Announces World's First USB 3.0 RAIDDrive	jmke	WebNews	0	4th November 2009 10:45
USB 3.0 adoption will be slow - No Intel backing yet	jmke	WebNews	1	23rd October 2009 04:19
Driverheaven Nvidia Mobility Modder Released V1.1.0.0	jmke	WebNews	0	6th August 2009 13:12
Intel USB 3.0 is Intel’s and no one else’s	jmke	WebNews	0	5th June 2008 13:43
AMD Introduces ‘AMD Business Class’, Designed With Business in Mind	jmke	WebNews	0	28th April 2008 09:33
Intel announces, demonstrates USB 3.0	jmke	WebNews	0	25th September 2007 16:04
nVidia nForce 590 for AMD and Intel - Details Leaked	jmke	WebNews	0	9th May 2006 12:24

17th June 2008, 00:29	#3
Kougar Posts: n/a	Firewire has licensing costs though, big reason why Firewire 800 didn't catch on in motherboards was due to the at the time significantly higher licensing costs above Firewire 400 chips.

14th August 2008, 00:14	#5
Kougar Posts: n/a	Intel came to their senses: http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15311