ASUS announce full P55 series SATA6G support with SATA6G expansion card

As seen on P7P55D Premium, ASUS now use the same SATA6G solution to create a SATA6G expansion card.
It's a PCIE x4(Gen 1) card with Marvell 9123 and a bridge chip to give Marvell 9123 sufficient bandwidth for SATA6G.
With this expansion card, ASUS P55 series are now fully support SATA6G function.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/...06779aa4_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/...388c90e0_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3449/...cc00d7d9_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2600/...89e7e2a6_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/...33260f92_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/...1b9f1071_o.jpg

they didnt honestly test with a hdd right? LOL :D
those slides are terrible.. according to them the marvell controller talks to the hdd/ssd via pciE gen2? :lol:

4lanes should be good enough to really make a diference though... def a nice incentive from asus :toast:
i just hope this card will be available and wont cost too much or it would defeat the purpose...

They say P55 only but know if it works with x58 :p

meh. integrate wifi (n) and bluetooth with motherboards already

usable features please

Now let's see...
LGA1156 Lynnfield has on-die x16 2.0 PCIe for GPU and connects to the "SB"
by DMI, which is x4 PCIe 1.1 lanes. Through these 4 PCIe1.1 lanes, goes
the traffic of the Gb Eth, all SSDs/HDDs/ODDs, mice, webcam, external HDD,
other misc stuff; and on what's left over, this. Lol. DMI needs to die, fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodkin

They say P55 only but know if it works with x58 :p

---

by x4 PCIe all can run

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sxs112

by x4 PCIe all can run

---

Exelent, means I can keep my Rampage 2 for the forseable future (without having to invest in a Raid card I would not use)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Now let's see...
LGA1156 Lynnfield has on-die x16 2.0 PCIe for GPU and connects to the "SB"
by DMI, which is x4 PCIe 1.1 lanes. Through these 4 PCIe1.1 lanes, goes
the traffic of the Gb Eth, all SSDs/HDDs/ODDs, mice, webcam, external HDD,
other misc stuff; and on what's left over, this. Lol. DMI needs to die, fast.

---

totally agree... at LEAST make it pciE 2.0... at least...

I'll be waiting for native SATA 600mbps support, or better yet, 600mbps RAID cards and SSD's that support it.

Add one of these cards in there and you can't run ANYTHING but it and a video card on a p55.. yeah baby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnJoY

I'll be waiting for native SATA 600mbps support, or better yet, 600mbps RAID cards and SSD's that support it.

---

Yeah, I'm waiting for native support, too.

SSDs that support it? Will 525/340 MBps do? :D Unfortunately it's SAS-6Gbps

soo where's the part where they support their claim that it will only work on ASUS boards?

oh that's right, ASUS employs marketing groups instead of engineers and develoepers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Now let's see...
LGA1156 Lynnfield has on-die x16 2.0 PCIe for GPU and connects to the "SB"
by DMI, which is x4 PCIe 1.1 lanes. Through these 4 PCIe1.1 lanes, goes
the traffic of the Gb Eth, all SSDs/HDDs/ODDs, mice, webcam, external HDD,
other misc stuff; and on what's left over, this. Lol. DMI needs to die, fast.

---

DMI has 1 GigaByte of bandwidth in each direction (2 GigaByte agregate bandwidth). It is enough for 2 SATA 6 devices (500MB each). Mouse, webcam together rarely uses more the 2 MegaByte of bandwidth. Other disk devices (USB disk, SATA 3 e.t.c) also uses DMI but the situation when CPU reads sequential data from 3 devices simultaneously (from two SATA 6 + one SATA 3/USB disk) is hardly imaginable. In the case of copy (through CPU) from one disk to another, 2 GigaByte of agregate bandwidth is enough to copy from 2 SATA 6 disks to another 2 SATA 6 disks at full speed.

Mother of god, those ASUS press release slides read like something from an 8th grade science fair cardboard display.

80% MOAAAAAAAAAR

FASTER BETTER BIGGER SUPERGIGANTIC MEGA MORE!

http://dr.jeebus.sydlexia.com/simpsonsgood47.jpg


I like their boards, but cut the Asian ADHD marketing when not in Asia.

Not to mention the laughable placement of the bottleneck, sorry Asus but that lies squarely on the drives.

"[Sata 6G] fully unleashes HDD performance"

LOL! Most HDDs are perfectly fine with Sata 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodkin

They say P55 only but know if it works with x58 :p

---

And hopefully with any PCIe mobo... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

meh. integrate wifi (n) and bluetooth with motherboards already

usable features please

---

Couldn't care less about wifi - who wants to be limited by some crappy-slow wireless link? -, even less about BT (a USB BT stick is under $20 and works just fine.)

It is a lot more useful than any lame, el cheapo wireless gimmick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T2k

Couldn't care less about wifi - who wants to be limited by some crappy-slow wireless link? -, even less about BT (a USB BT stick is under $20 and works just fine.)

It is a lot more useful than any lame, el cheapo wireless gimmick.

---

There are routers and wifi cards with 100mbps transfer (not 802.11n stuff).
Wired 1gbps router/switch are still expensive if I'm not wrong, so having a wireless LAN at the same speed as a normal wired one sounds nice in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnJoY

I'll be waiting for native SATA 600mbps support, or better yet, 600mbps RAID cards and SSD's that support it.

---

i asked around at computex, the big raid card guys all expect it to show up in early 2010 or even mid 2010 only, and they target a 300$+ price range :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

DMI has 1 GigaByte of bandwidth in each direction (2 GigaByte agregate bandwidth). It is enough for 2 SATA 6 devices (500MB each). Mouse, webcam together rarely uses more the 2 MegaByte of bandwidth. Other disk devices (USB disk, SATA 3 e.t.c) also uses DMI but the situation when CPU reads sequential data from 3 devices simultaneously (from two SATA 6 + one SATA 3/USB disk) is hardly imaginable. In the case of copy (through CPU) from one disk to another, 2 GigaByte of agregate bandwidth is enough to copy from 2 SATA 6 disks to another 2 SATA 6 disks at full speed.

---

what? how can you claim dmi is fine? what kind of an engineer are you? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

In the case of copy (through CPU) from one disk to another, 2 GigaByte of agregate bandwidth is enough to copy from 2 SATA 6 disks to another 2 SATA 6 disks at full speed.

---

its 1GB/s in each direction = 1000MB/s, thats the theoretical max!
the theoretical max for sata3 is 600MB/s... PER CHANNEL, ie, PER DEVICE...
if you use 2 SSDs that can saturate the sata3 bus, dmi is limiting... and thats with dmi using for the ssds only and nothing else...

thats unlikely to happen for a normal oc these days, but there are people who do use that fast ssds... and its only a matter of time until ssds become mainstream and hdds and ssds saturate the 600MB/s sata3 at least in burst...

whats sata3 and usb3 all about? more bandwidth... then why would you connect them to a bottleneck bus that works ok now but will cr4p out as soon as those new interfaces are actually fully used?

and thats just bandwidth, how about latency and steadiness?
what if im using my gbit nic with a high dpi high refresh rate gaming mouse while copying from one ssd to another in the background?
id be very surprised if dmi isnt limiting at all in such a situation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pontos

There are routers and wifi cards with 100mbps transfer (not 802.11n stuff).
Wired 1gbps router/switch are still expensive if I'm not wrong,

---

Unfortunately you're dead wrong (a.k.a. clueless.) An 8-port gigabit switch is around $40, a router around $60.

Quote:

---

so having a wireless LAN at the same speed as a normal wired one sounds nice in my book.

---

Too bad none offers such a speed as baseline, only as peak speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

i asked around at computex, the big raid card guys all expect it to show up in early 2010 or even mid 2010 only, and they target a 300$+ price range :/


what? how can you claim dmi is fine? what kind of an engineer are you? :P


its 1GB/s in each direction = 1000MB/s, thats the theoretical max!
the theoretical max for sata3 is 600MB/s... PER CHANNEL, ie, PER DEVICE...
if you use 2 SSDs that can saturate the sata3 bus, dmi is limiting... and thats with dmi using for the ssds only and nothing else...

thats unlikely to happen for a normal oc these days, but there are people who do use that fast ssds... and its only a matter of time until ssds become mainstream and hdds and ssds saturate the 600MB/s sata3 at least in burst...

whats sata3 and usb3 all about? more bandwidth... then why would you connect them to a bottleneck bus that works ok now but will cr4p out as soon as those new interfaces are actually fully used?

and thats just bandwidth, how about latency and steadiness?
what if im using my gbit nic with a high dpi high refresh rate gaming mouse while copying from one ssd to another in the background?
id be very surprised if dmi isnt limiting at all in such a situation...

---

I'm not sure what are you guys talking about...


...but I have a ~1.4GB/s HPC storage piece at work I bought couple of years ago (though it's not big, under 20TB) and I know how many FC SCSI spindler needed to produce this speed all the time.
I also now what kind of controller it has...


...and now you guys are trying to tell me it supposed to be the same?

Because if you are then I think you guys are high. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

what? how can you claim dmi is fine? what kind of an engineer are you? :P

---

Ask Intel engineers what kind of engineers they are... :D but, I think - yes, DMI is fine.

Quote:

---

its 1GB/s in each direction = 1000MB/s, thats the theoretical max!
the theoretical max for sata3 is 600MB/s... PER CHANNEL, ie, PER DEVICE...
if you use 2 SSDs that can saturate the sata3 bus, dmi is limiting... and thats with dmi using for the ssds only and nothing else...

---

600Mb/s mainstream consumer level SSD's even not on the horizon. But, probabaly, having even 4 such devices you wont fill slowdown on P55. In the real life apps the actual speed is much less then max achivable burst read speed. The write speed is another story.

Quote:

---

thats unlikely to happen for a normal oc these days, but there are people who do use that fast ssds... and its only a matter of time until ssds become mainstream and hdds and ssds saturate the 600MB/s sata3 at least in burst...

---

It's only matter of time until storage devices saturate QPI & HT bandwidth.

Quote:

---

whats sata3 and usb3 all about? more bandwidth... then why would you connect them to a bottleneck bus that works ok now but will cr4p out as soon as those new interfaces are actually fully used?

---

Why? I dont see DMI as bottleneck at least for two SSD SATA 6Gb/s disks which is, imho, an overkill for the mainstream computer in the near future.

Quote:

---

and thats just bandwidth, how about latency and steadiness?
what if im using my gbit nic with a high dpi high refresh rate gaming mouse while copying from one ssd to another in the background?
id be very surprised if dmi isnt limiting at all in such a situation...

---

I think that DMI has low enough latency to handle high resolution mouse and you dont need DMI at all to copy from one HD to another (it is handled inside the chipset).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T2k

I'm not sure what are you guys talking about...


...but I have a ~1.4GB/s HPC storage piece at work I bought couple of years ago (though it's not big, under 20TB) and I know how many FC SCSI spindler needed to produce this speed all the time.
I also now what kind of controller it has...


...and now you guys are trying to tell me it supposed to be the same?

Because if you are then I think you guys are high. :D

---

Yes, I know it's a big number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

meh. integrate wifi (n) and bluetooth with motherboards already

usable features please

---

+1 although wifi n was only confimerd this week or last, but I agree with bluetooth been too long and would be a great feature

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

whats sata3 and usb3 all about? more bandwidth... then why would you connect them to a bottleneck bus that works ok now but will cr4p out as soon as those new interfaces are actually fully used?

---

Asus marketing telling Asus engineers to salvage a SATA III solution any way they can...

Considering it looks like they're using Office 97 era PowerPoint to create these slides, how much can you really expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T2k

And hopefully with any PCIe mobo... :D



Couldn't care less about wifi - who wants to be limited by some crappy-slow wireless link? -, even less about BT (a USB BT stick is under $20 and works just fine.)

It is a lot more useful than any lame, el cheapo wireless gimmick.

---

Integrated wifi and bluetooth have been part of notebooks for a while now, not to mention, the n standard has substantially increased speeds. I'm talking about home users here and not for servers or data centers.

Not bad I guess, I still prefer something that doesn't take extra space in my case and slots on my motherboard.
Does Sata3 bring anything new but higher transfer speed anyway? Wasn't there some improved NCQ iirc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T2k

I'm not sure what are you guys talking about...


...but I have a ~1.4GB/s HPC storage piece at work I bought couple of years ago (though it's not big, under 20TB) and I know how many FC SCSI spindler needed to produce this speed all the time.
I also now what kind of controller it has...


...and now you guys are trying to tell me it supposed to be the same?

Because if you are then I think you guys are high. :D

---

Would be nice to be high, but I have to disappoint you: you are behind
the times a bit. See my earlier post in this thread: Pliant introduced
SAS-6Gbps SSDs with 525 / 340 MBps r/w speeds. I think that within
half a year, there will be consumer SATA-6Gbps SSDs with similar
speeds (though they will still be expensive).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Ask Intel engineers what kind of engineers they are... :D but, I think - yes, DMI is fine.

600Mb/s mainstream consumer level SSD's even not on the horizon.

---

Intel engineers said Netburst was good...

Not yet on the visible horizon, but up and coming.

DMI is ancient. The problem is not with two SATA-6Gbps drives on
DMI, but the fact that not just all I/O traffic (up to 6 drives RAID
array on P55 PCH, Gb Ethernet, sound, etc) go through that, but also
that all PCIe slots (beside the x16 or 2 x8 from the CPU PCIe controller)
are also branched off it. Why couldn't Intel just put 21 PCIe 2.0 lanes
in the processor, that way there'd be x16, x4 and x1 off the cpu, so
the latter two would be offloaded from the P55 PCH and so it would
have enough bw for I/O and drives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Intel engineers said Netburst was good...

---

Yes, it was good - in the timeline of Athlon XP. Or in the same way we can blame AMD engineers for Athlon64 (which has the same relation to Core2 as Pentium4 to Athlon64).

Quote:

---

DMI is ancient. The problem is not with two SATA-6Gbps drives on
DMI, but the fact that not just all I/O traffic (up to 6 drives RAID
array on P55 PCH, Gb Ethernet, sound, etc) go through that, but also
that all PCIe slots (beside the x16 or 2 x8 from the CPU PCIe controller)
are also branched off it. Why couldn't Intel just put 21 PCIe 2.0 lanes
in the processor, that way there'd be x16, x4 and x1 off the cpu, so
the latter two would be offloaded from the P55 PCH and so it would
have enough bw for I/O and drives.

---

Taking your logic, we should get rid of QPI and HT as well. Why? Simple. Lets see:
2000MHz HyperTransport bandwidth - 8GB/s in each direction (16GB/s agregate (bi-directional))
x16 PCIe 2.0 bandwidth - 8GB/s in each direction (16GB/s agregate)
Which mean that one graphics card alone saturates all the bandwidth of HT. And what about mouse, ethernet and... yes... storage (sata3, sata6, raid or whatever). And last, but not least, what is the point of the second x16 PCIe slot when the bandwidth of HT is already saturated by the first x16?
I would say that total CPU data bandwidth of linnfield is greater then the data bandwidth of Phenom II, since Phenom II has only HT (8GB/s each direction) whereas Linnfield has PCIe x16 2.0 (8GB/s each direction) + DMI (1 GB/s each direction dedicated for I/O).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Yes, it was good - in the timeline of Athlon XP.

---

Not even then -- clock for clock, it lost badly to it's predecessor, P-III.
NetBurst was such a dead end, that it's successor, Core, was descended
from P-III, not P-4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Taking your logic, we should get rid of QPI and HT as well. Why? Simple. Lets see:
2000MHz HyperTransport bandwidth - 8GB/s in each direction (16GB/s agregate (bi-directional))

---

First, your numbers are way off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Computer_buses
See HT3.0 and HT3.1 at the end of the list. Even if those are 32-link
numbers, 16-link numbers are still much higher than PCIe 2.0 x16 bw.

Second, you make the mistake of aggregating Lynnfield's bw whereas
you can't. DMI is limited to x4. Even if it is saturated while the x16 to
the graphics is not, it still won't get extra bw, it will stay limited to x4.

Some1 needs to make a PCIe2 8x card with lots of SATA3 + USB3 ports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Not even then -- clock for clock, it lost badly to it's predecessor, P-III.
NetBurst was such a dead end, that it's successor, Core, was descended
from P-III, not P-4.

---

It was not supposed to be faster clock for clock. Netburst was designed as "speed demon" while Athlon/Pentium were designed as "brainac". It was arguable what style of cpu design is better but you will never know until you try it. BTW many technologies that have emerged in the Netburst, now successfully used in Nehalem (such HT, Loop detector or prefetchers).

Quote:

---

First, your numbers are way off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Computer_buses
See HT3.0 and HT3.1 at the end of the list. Even if those are 32-link
numbers, 16-link numbers are still much higher than PCIe 2.0 x16 bw.

---

No. My numbers are OK. Check it up again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport
Look at the table "HyperTransport frequency specifications"
Max. Bandwidth at 16-Bit unidirectional for 2.6GHz is 10.4GB/s which means that for 2.0GHz it will be 8GB/s in each direction.
PCIe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express
PCIe 1.x is often quoted to support a data rate of 250 MB/s in each direction, per lane. This figure is a calculation from the physical signaling rate (2.5 Gbaud) divided by the encoding overhead (10 bits per byte.) This means a sixteen lane (×16) PCIe card would then be theoretically capable of 16×250 MB/s = 4 GB/s in each direction. Which means 8GB/s in each direction for PCIe 2.0.

Quote:

---

Second, you make the mistake of aggregating Lynnfield's bw whereas
you can't. DMI is limited to x4. Even if it is saturated while the x16 to
the graphics is not, it still won't get extra bw, it will stay limited to x4.

---

Right. It can't. But at least it doesn't interfere with graphics when it needs full bw. Also graphics often more bw hangry then storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

Why couldn't Intel just put 21 PCIe 2.0 lanes
in the processor, that way there'd be x16, x4 and x1 off the cpu, so
the latter two would be offloaded from the P55 PCH and so it would
have enough bw for I/O and drives.

---

That way they couldn't market it as great new achievement inyear or two when they actually decide to put it inside cpu :D And beside there's already pci-e x16 link that they must have for there proprietary graphics (igp) they'll put on chip so they're would need more investment in die-space if they put 21-24 or more pcie lanes directly on chip. And they still need to sell their chipsets for some reason, if they'll put all that pcie lanes why not put 10GB NIC 10x USB 3.0 controller aso on chip also :p:

no for x58? sad

they will sell some of these too early adopters


no thanks personally. SATA 3 needs time to growup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by junkun13

no for x58? sad

---

Why would it not work with an x58?

Asus does a good job :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterFlex

Asus does a good job :)

---

At what? Just everything, or do you have something in mind?

Everything, I like ASUS products :)

I would like to get one of these controllers and use it on my x58 MB. I don't see why it would not work. I want it because it is 4x PCI E

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kgk

Mother of god, those ASUS press release slides read like something from an 8th grade science fair cardboard display.

80% MOAAAAAAAAAR

FASTER BETTER BIGGER SUPERGIGANTIC MEGA MORE!

http://dr.jeebus.sydlexia.com/simpsonsgood47.jpg


I like their boards, but cut the Asian ADHD marketing when not in Asia.

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I see no use for this :|
Waiting for native solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

I see no use for this :|
Waiting for native solutions.

---

Couldn't agree more... :up: