5 ms·
It's unfortunate that they have built in USB 3.0 controllers rather than 3.1, especially given that Thunderbolt wont be available with AMD based systems.
by tux1968 9y ago
It's unfortunate that they have built in USB 3.0 controllers rather than 3.1, especially given that Thunderbolt wont be available with AMD based systems.
- qubex 9y agoI hadn't been aware that Thunderbolt wouldn't be available on AMD systems... indeed my understanding was that Intel's release of Thunderbolt royalty-free open specs opened the path for inclusion by anybody. Was I wrong?
- theandrewbailey 9y agoThat spec opening was only announced a month ago. It's not going to be open until next year[0], far too late for inclusion into silicon that's probably being manufactured right now. [0] "In addition to Intel’s Thunderbolt silicon, next year Intel plans to make the Thunderbolt protocol specification available to the industry under a nonexclusive, royalty-free license." https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/envision-world-thunderbolt-3-everywhere/ https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/envision-world-thunder...
- fleetfox 9y agoWhat is the use of USB ports on server hardware?
- undersuit 9y agoNot just server hardware. The single socket versions will be used for workstations. USB 3.1 would have allowed use of the new high-end external storage systems. Luckily USB 3.0 is still kind of fast. Also, not all servers are set up to be controlled from some remote point. I bet some of these servers will need at least one USB port to install the OS in some smaller installations.
- theandrewbailey 9y agoAMD likely started designing Epyc before USB 3.1 was standardized. I don't think that it will hold anything back, as 3.1 controllers/ports can be provided by the chipset instead.