Slashdot Mirror
PCI Express - Coming Soon to a PC Near You
Max Romantschuk writes "I've been following the emerging of PCI Express for some time now. PCI Express, previously known as "Third Generation I/O" or "3GIO", is the technology set to replace PCI. PCI has been with us for around ten years now, and is rapidly running out of bandwidth. Last week Anandtech ran an interresting story on PCI Express. The techology has previously been covered by Hexus and ExtremeTech aswell. I feel this technology looks all set to replace PCI, and we really do need some new bus technology to keep up with the bandwidth demands of today's applications. Or is this just yet another way to force us into a new upgrade cycle?"
Due to its high bandwidth, it's expected to replace AGP as well.
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
More than bandwidth, what I need would be a bus
that doesn't have a problem with too many extensions
because of a limited number of IRQs.
Today most mainboard come with many onboard PCI componentes. If you really are going to put in 3-5 extra PCI components in a stock PC, you usually end up in a nice game of 'let's see what order works best', or cannot use all cards together at all.
I'd say a new standard every 10 years is a pretty reasonably upgrade cycle compared to most other PC technologies...
OK, so yes we can probably live with PCI for longer (possibly much longer), but why not introduce a new standard with better potential? It maintains complete backwards compatability with regular PCI components, so manufacturers of harware don't even have to change anything. Of course another issue is motherboard cost, but there will always be new features put into successive motherboard generations that aren't in widespread use yet... like serial ATA, gigabit ethernet, etc. And there will probably be motherboards available for a lower cost without those features as well.
As I understand it, using serial there is no having to worry about whether all the bits arrive at the same time (as there obviously is with parallel), and so the speed of transmission can be dramatically increased past the point at which it becomes faster than the "equivalent" parallel technology... bits arrive in the order they were sent - guaranteed.
University - a box of academia nuts.
Or is this just another way to force an upgrade cycle?
It may well be one of the intentions of it, but one thing I don't get is that with CPU speeds and hard disk capacities where they are now, the average computer buyer (which probably is not very well represented on slashdot) no longer really needs to upgrade their computer, so changing interface/slot shape/etc won't really matter to them.
I know I'm generalising, but the only applications that really push today's computers are games (and high end scientific programs, but they're a fairly minor special case) and I would guess that most computers are not used primarily for games (ie. "serious gamers" - think families). Serious gamers will always be upgrading their computer to the latest and greatest anyway - they don't need to be forced into an upgrade cycle.
It's getting to the point now where by the time the average family decides they need to upgrade their computer, it is easier (and maybe even cheaper) to just buy the latest middle-of-the-line computer package.
I'd almost question whether the idea whole idea of upgrading is itself becoming obsolete for an average computer user?
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
One high end hard disc delivers 50MB+/s.
One gigabit Ethernet card can do >80MB/s
Together they are limited by PCI.
Now try Raid, TV-Card with PCI-OVerlay, GFX-Cards (Yes, they need a few 100MB/s)...
Plus remember that you NEVER EVER reach 133 MB/S with PCI. Even a single device can be happy to get 110MB with long bursts, and if you have many devices, effective total bandwith is more like 66 than 133 MB/s.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
using serial there is no having to worry about whether all the bits arrive at the same time (as there obviously is with parallel), and so the speed of transmission can be dramatically increased past the point at which it becomes faster than the "equivalent" parallel technology... bits arrive in the order they were sent - guaranteed.
:-l
I'm afraid this might add to the confusion about serial interfaces being 'faster' than parallel. While it is true that you don't have to worry about data/clock skew when using serial interfaces, enabling you to clock them faster, a parallel interface running at the same clock speed as a serial interface will always be faster in terms of data throughput. The reason for this is simple: serial == 1 bit per clock, parallel = > 1 bit per clock.
So, saying that serial is faster than the "equivalent" parallel interface is confusing, and incorrect, because one could be referring to equivalent clock rates being used for each interface, in which case parallel will provide at least twice the data throughput. On the other hand, "equivalent" could be referring to identical throughput rates, in which case the serial and parallel interfaces would provide, by definition, identical data rates.
The real advantage that PCI Express has over PCI/PCI-X is that it is a point-to-point, rather than a multi-drop, bus. This setup requires less time between pin transitions, meaning that it can be clock faster. Also, like Ethernet, a serial protocol can imbed the clock into the data stream so clock/data skew is no problem whatsoever.
Serial is not better than parallel anymore than digital is better than analog, there are just physical reasons why implementing point-to-point serial at significantly higher clock rates is easier than multi-drop parallel.
Anyone still awake?
Didn't think so
If it's not one thing, it's Steve's Mother