Are there any USB 3.0 interface chips available now ?

[NOPE9]

I would like to start experimenting with USB 3.0 using something like  
the FTDI FT2232H chip.
Is anything shipping or on the horizon ?
Gus
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Barry Gershenfeld-2]

TI has "announced" some products, the TUSB1310 (a transceiver), and a hub
(TUSB8040).

Don't know about a serial port chip. That strikes me as unnecessary, which
usually means it will be standard equipment in a year or two...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M. Adam Davis-2]

Check out

http://www.usb.org/press

There are lots of press releases from USB-IF and its members about
development kits, chips, and products using USB 3.0.

Although I'm curious why you want to experiement with a hi-speed USB
device on a USB 3.0 host?  USB2.0 Hi speed (480Mbps) is the maximum
the chip can go anyway.

-Adam

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, NOPE9 <yes@...> wrote:
> I would like to start experimenting with USB 3.0 using something like
> the FTDI FT2232H chip.
> Is anything shipping or on the horizon ?
> Gus
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[NOPE9]

What I meant to say ( and failed to ) was .......
I want a USB 3.0 chip / module that is analogous to the
FTDI FT2232H except for the speed.
Gus

> On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:32 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote:
>
> Check out
>
> http://www.usb.org/press
>
> There are lots of press releases from USB-IF and its members about
> development kits, chips, and products using USB 3.0.
>
> Although I'm curious why you want to experiement with a hi-speed USB
> device on a USB 3.0 host?  USB2.0 Hi speed (480Mbps) is the maximum
> the chip can go anyway.
>
> -Adam
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, NOPE9 <yes@...> wrote:
>> I would like to start experimenting with USB 3.0 using something like
>> the FTDI FT2232H chip.
>> Is anything shipping or on the horizon ?
>> Gus
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Tamas Rudnai]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:27 PM, NOPE9 <yes@...> wrote:
> What I meant to say ( and failed to ) was .......
> I want a USB 3.0 chip / module that is analogous to the
> FTDI FT2232H except for the speed.
> Gus

Isn't USB 1.1 and 2.0 compatible with 3.0?

Tamas

>
>> On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:32 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote:
>>
>> Check out
>>
>> http://www.usb.org/press
>>
>> There are lots of press releases from USB-IF and its members about
>> development kits, chips, and products using USB 3.0.
>>
>> Although I'm curious why you want to experiement with a hi-speed USB
>> device on a USB 3.0 host?  USB2.0 Hi speed (480Mbps) is the maximum
>> the chip can go anyway.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, NOPE9 <yes@...> wrote:
>>> I would like to start experimenting with USB 3.0 using something like
>>> the FTDI FT2232H chip.
>>> Is anything shipping or on the horizon ?
>>> Gus
>>> --
>>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>>> View/change your membership options at
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>>
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
/* www.mcuhobby.com */ int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="/*
www.mcuhobby.com */ int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=%s%s%s,
q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Oct 21, 2009, at 2:27 PM, NOPE9 wrote:

> I want a USB 3.0 chip / module that is analogous to the FTDI FT2232H  
> except for the speed.

I still don't get it.  You'd have a tough time getting UART-like  
devices to operate at even the top speeds of USB1.1 (~10Mbps), much  
less USB2 High-speed (~400Mbps)

The 5Gbps max rate of USB3 isn't a serial protocol; it's an <expletive  
deleted> microwave transmitter.  (I'm not sure I see the point of  
USB3, given eSATA and ethernet.  But then I didn't really see the  
point of USB2 when there was firewire, either.  I guess I'm just a  
luddite...)

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<westfw@...> wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 2:27 PM, NOPE9 wrote:
>
>> I want a USB 3.0 chip / module that is analogous to the FTDI FT2232H
>> except for the speed.

I do not think you will get things like that anytime soon. It is said
Intel will only have USB 3.0 PC chipset in 2011. So initially the
support will be from other vendors like NEC. And there will not
be so many peripherals available initially.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-10357-view-Intel-chipset-with-USB-3-in-2011.html

> I still don't get it.  You'd have a tough time getting UART-like
> devices to operate at even the top speeds of USB1.1 (~10Mbps), much
> less USB2 High-speed (~400Mbps)

I know that there are some JTAG debuggers which use FT2232C/D
and the update to FT2232H improves the performance by quite a bit.
The JTAG channel uses the MPSSE engine. The other channel can
be used as JTAG or Serial.
http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/FT2232H.htm

Example: Amontec JTAGkey2
http://www.amontec.com/jtagkey2.shtml

> The 5Gbps max rate of USB3 isn't a serial protocol; it's an <expletive
> deleted> microwave transmitter.  (I'm not sure I see the point of
> USB3, given eSATA and ethernet.  But then I didn't really see the
> point of USB2 when there was firewire, either.  I guess I'm just a
> luddite...)

With the support of vendors like Intel, I think USB 3 will be popular,
beating Firewre finally to real niche. USB 3 will probably first used
in mass storage like device.
Example:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/10/20/dane-elec-usb-3-0-external-hard-drive-and-solid-state-devices/

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@...> wrote:

>> On Oct 21, 2009, at 2:27 PM, NOPE9 wrote:
>>
>>> I want a USB 3.0 chip / module that is analogous to the FTDI FT2232H
>>> except for the speed.
>
> I do not think you will get things like that anytime soon. It is said
> Intel will only have USB 3.0 PC chipset in 2011. So initially the
> support will be from other vendors like NEC. And there will not
> be so many peripherals available initially.
> http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-10357-view-Intel-chipset-with-USB-3-in-2011.html

Better analysis: PC maker sees slow road for USB 3.0. The major is
the Intel decision to delay the motherboard chipset support to 2011.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=220700486

Peripheral chips will tend to lag. So I would not think FTDI or similar
vendors (Prolific, Silicon Labs, TI, etc) will have any USB 3 solution for easy
to use USB Serial I/O anytime soon. The need to have USB 3.0 support
for this kind of smart serial I/O is also moot.

But things like USB 3 to SATA bridge chip are already out.
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=218600246

Quote:
"LucidPort said its USB300 chip, announced July 23, will
support throughput up to 210 Mbytes/s using the standard
Windows Mass Storage driver. It supports higher data rates
using the new USB Attached SCSI driver."

The 210MB/s is impressive and is really useful if you have
1TB/2TB external hard drive.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

William Chops" Westfield" wrote:
> But then I didn't really see the
> point of USB2 when there was firewire, either.

I think that was the point, so you don't need FireWire.  It's much nicer to
use one standard for everything than have to worry about which type of bus
this thingy plugs into and whether my PC has it.

When USB 2.0 came out I figured FireWire would eventually go away or get
stuck in a niche.  When I had the opportunity to get a video camera a few
years later, there was choice between USB 2.0 and FireWire.  I got the USB
2.0 version, hoping I'd never need to bother with FireWire.  Looks like it
worked.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Tamas Rudnai]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@...> wrote:
> When USB 2.0 came out I figured FireWire would eventually go away or get
> stuck in a niche.  When I had the opportunity to get a video camera a few
> years later, there was choice between USB 2.0 and FireWire.  I got the USB
> 2.0 version, hoping I'd never need to bother with FireWire.  Looks like it
> worked.

In the other hand I have a WD MyBook external hard disk with both USB
2.0 and FireWire A ports. USB 2.0 connection is way slower than the
FireWire (about 20MB/s vs/ 30MB/s). Whenever I can I use the FireWire
port because of this.

Tamas

>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> [phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
/* www.mcuhobby.com */ int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="/*
www.mcuhobby.com */ int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=%s%s%s,
q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M. Adam Davis-2]

The 2232 is a serial chip.  To get the current Hi speed USB 2.0 you'd
have to have that chip output a 400+ Mbps serial stream, or, I
suppose, two 200+ Mbps streams.

Even if you went with the parallel version of the chip, and used both
8 bit ports you're dealing with a 16 bit bus running at 30MHz.

If you want to go faster and use USB 3.0, then you're going to have to
contact a few of the chipset manufacturers and find out what they have
in the pipeline, or roll your own.

What are the requirements of the project that can't be fulfilled with
USB 2.0 Hi speed?

It's going to be a few years before USB 3.0 is considered stable and
worth targeting.  If you need a fast interface right now your best bet
(cheapest, available now, widespread use) is to implement a PCI or PCI
Express bus in your device, and install a gigabit or 10gigabit
ethernet card.

-Adam

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:27 PM, NOPE9 <yes@...> wrote:

> What I meant to say ( and failed to ) was .......
> I want a USB 3.0 chip / module that is analogous to the
> FTDI FT2232H except for the speed.
> Gus
>
>> On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:32 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote:
>>
>> Check out
>>
>> http://www.usb.org/press
>>
>> There are lots of press releases from USB-IF and its members about
>> development kits, chips, and products using USB 3.0.
>>
>> Although I'm curious why you want to experiement with a hi-speed USB
>> device on a USB 3.0 host?  USB2.0 Hi speed (480Mbps) is the maximum
>> the chip can go anyway.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, NOPE9 <yes@...> wrote:
>>> I would like to start experimenting with USB 3.0 using something like
>>> the FTDI FT2232H chip.
>>> Is anything shipping or on the horizon ?
>>> Gus
>>> --
>>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>>> View/change your membership options at
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>>
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[NOPE9]

I want to thank Xiaofan for his in-depth replies.  I see from what is  
said that USB 3.0 may be slow developing as a ubiquitous bus.
I want to thank Adam for reminding me that USB 3.0 will be too fast to  
be used effectively for some applications.
Tamas and Olin
      I like Firewire a lot and have always seen it as a superior  
technical solution.  Too bad it did not win the perception war.

Gus

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

NOPE9 wrote:
>       I like Firewire a lot and have always seen it as a superior
> technical solution.  Too bad it did not win the perception war.

I don't think the technical perception of FireWire is bad, mine certainly
isn't.  My problem with FireWire is that it's yet another bus my PC would
have to have, when I haven't encountered any compelling reason for it that
USB 2.0 hasn't handled.  FireWire was also too Apple.  I realize it's
meanwhile become a IEEE standard, but it was Apple back when it could
possibly have taken over its niche.  It was also ahead of its time.  Back
when it first came out, few people needed that kind of speed.  By the time
digital video recorders got widespread enough, USB 2.0 was available to fill
the need without requiring yet another interface.  FireWire is still a
little faster, but not enough for enough people to care, including me.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> My problem with FireWire is that it's yet another bus my PC would  
> have to have, when I haven't encountered any compelling reason for  
> it that USB 2.0 hasn't handled.

I agree completely, even though I was the one who was questioning the  
need for USB2.

But I would have been happy with USB1 for lower speed peripherals and  
firewire for higher speed peripherals, and eSata or fiberchannel or  
whatever for the really high speed stuff.  I don't see the need for a  
single plug on the back of the PC to be able to handle EVERY  
peripheral from the 300byte/s mouse to the 3Gb/s disk array.

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Mark Rages]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@...> wrote:

> NOPE9 wrote:
>>       I like Firewire a lot and have always seen it as a superior
>> technical solution.  Too bad it did not win the perception war.
>
> I don't think the technical perception of FireWire is bad, mine certainly
> isn't.  My problem with FireWire is that it's yet another bus my PC would
> have to have, when I haven't encountered any compelling reason for it that
> USB 2.0 hasn't handled.  FireWire was also too Apple.  I realize it's
> meanwhile become a IEEE standard, but it was Apple back when it could
> possibly have taken over its niche.  It was also ahead of its time.  Back
> when it first came out, few people needed that kind of speed.  By the time
> digital video recorders got widespread enough, USB 2.0 was available to fill
> the need without requiring yet another interface.  FireWire is still a
> little faster, but not enough for enough people to care, including me.
>

You'll probably never need to care.  Apple dropped FireWire in its
consumer laptops announced this week.  Ironically, Apple was in a
large part responsible for early proliferation of USB by making the
original iMac USB-only.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markrages@...

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[peter green-2]

> You'll probably never need to care.  Apple dropped FireWire in its
> consumer laptops announced this week.
They did, OTOH all thier desktops (even the bottom end mini) have
firewire 800

Apple got a lot of bad PR when the 13 inch aluminium unibody came out
without firewire. Soon afterwards they removed that model and replaced
it with a 13 inch macbook pro with firewire 800.

I wonder if the new 13 inch white unibody macbook is more or less (they
changed the CPU and some of the perhipheral stuff but most of the core
stuff seems the same) just a reboxed version of the ill-fated 13 inch
aluminium macbook. That along with the need for some differenciation
between the 13 inch macbook and the 13 inch macbook pro would explain
the lack of firewire.


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-5]

On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 22:16 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> (I'm not sure I see the point of  
> USB3, given eSATA and ethernet.  But then I didn't really see the  
> point of USB2 when there was firewire, either.  I guess I'm just a  
> luddite...)

As is so often the case people don't see the "need" for a faster
interface, until a few years later applications that weren't even
thought of are common place.

eSATA is OK for mass storage (some machines have plug and play issues),
nothing else.

Ethernet is SLOW, even gigabit is routinely saturated by even modest
RAID arrays, never mind SSD based storage (some single SSDs can easily
saturate a gigabit link).

USB3, aside from these applications, will allow for things that work
very poorly now (USB video cards come to mind) and for things we haven't
even though of as being useful.

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Alan B. Pearce-2]

>I don't see the need for a single plug on the back of the
>PC to be able to handle EVERY peripheral from the
>300byte/s mouse to the 3Gb/s disk array.

The problem there is that Joe Bloggs consumer doesn't want to be going
buying peripherals and then finding that on his PC box the manufacturer
hasn't given him the appropriate interface port.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M.L.-2]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<westfw@...> wrote:

> But I would have been happy with USB1 for lower speed peripherals and
> firewire for higher speed peripherals, and eSata or fiberchannel or
> whatever for the really high speed stuff.  I don't see the need for a
> single plug on the back of the PC to be able to handle EVERY
> peripheral from the 300byte/s mouse to the 3Gb/s disk array.
>
> BillW

Why not? It would make hardware simpler if all you needed were 12 USB
ports and AC power.


--
Martin K.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Barry Gershenfeld-2]

USB 3 operates at 5 gigabits/sec (like PCI-Express), uses separate transmit
and receive differential pairs, (like PCI-E), data scrambling (like PCI-E),
a link training phase (like PCI-E), and spread-spectrum clocking (like
PCI-E)...One naturally wonders why we couldn't all just use External PCI-E,
so I have to assume the advantage is not going to be found in the electrical
specs.  Probably more to do with the failing of PCI, SATA, and so on, that
you have to reboot the operating system after you change a configuration.
With USB, you just plug it in, and go.  Yet, I think the shortcomings in the
other protocols are in the driver software, and not the protocol.

The opinion of a co-worker is that External PCI won't catch on because it's
way too fast for anything you'd plug into a PC (except for video cards).
And I'd apply that to all the other fast busses.  But, we are engineers, not
marketers :)
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist