usb question
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by badgolferman on May 25, 2006, 10:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options motherboard is USB 1.1 compatible how would installing a USB 2.0 plug-in card make the card and any peripherals operate at a higher speed? Isn't the buss speed of the motherboard the limiting factor? If not, why was it not compliant with the USB 2.0 standard in the first place? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by paulmd@efn.org on May 25, 2006, 11:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options badgolferman wrote: If you install a usb2 card, only the ports on the card will be USB2. It is am improvement for any peripherals that are usb2 compatible, AND can communicate above 12Bmbps. The speed of the PCI bus is much higher than either USB1, or 2, so it's not the bottleneck. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by MCheu on May 27, 2006, 12:02 am
Please log in for more thread options On 26 May 2006 02:59:56 GMT, "badgolferman"
>My ignorance may be showing but I wonder about this. If your
>motherboard is USB 1.1 compatible how would installing a USB 2.0 >plug-in card make the card and any peripherals operate at a higher >speed? > >Isn't the buss speed of the motherboard the limiting factor? If not, >why was it not compliant with the USB 2.0 standard in the first place? The bus speed is a limiting factor, *but* The PCI bus is capable of a top transfer of 132MBps (that's Megabytes per second). The USB 2.0 standard allows for a max of 60MBp (often quoted as 480Mbps) So the PCI bus isn't going to be a limiting factor for a USB card. The speed of the USB ports on the motherboard is determined by the USB controller chip. If a motherboard is determined as only being 1.1 capable, it likely has a USB controller that's only compliant with the 1.1 spec. As to why they used a 1.1 compliant controller? Presumably that was the best technology available at the time the motherboard was designed. The USB 2.0 spec didn't always exist -- heck, go back far enough and you won't even find USB ports. Even when the first USB 2.0 compliant controller chips came out, they were more expensive than the USB 1.1 chips. More recently, the USB 2.0 controllers have become integrated into motherboard chipsets, so they've become standard equipment -- just as expensive to have them as not. When you buy a USB 2.0 card, the controller on the expansion card governs the ports on the card. It doesn't do a thing for the ones on the motherboard, which are still governed by the controller on the motherboard. --------------------------------------------- Thanks. MCheu | |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| AT/ATX PS question | July 10, 2005, 11:49 pm |
| UPS Question | September 29, 2005, 9:55 am |
| Question about DSL | October 29, 2005, 11:29 am |
| LCD question | November 10, 2005, 12:07 pm |
| PSU question???/ | November 26, 2005, 11:30 pm |
| HDD Question | December 21, 2005, 12:00 pm |
| DVD-RW question | January 11, 2006, 9:51 am |
| Question regarding 32- and 64-bit PCI | March 8, 2006, 12:05 am |
| usb question | May 25, 2006, 10:59 pm |
| Question about PSU | August 13, 2006, 8:07 pm |
| UPS question | October 21, 2006, 3:24 pm |
| fsb question | October 29, 2006, 2:43 pm |
| Ram question... | November 6, 2006, 5:35 pm |
| DR2 question ? | November 29, 2006, 7:51 pm |
| RAN Question | January 11, 2007, 1:57 pm |
> motherboard is USB 1.1 compatible how would installing a USB 2.0
> plug-in card make the card and any peripherals operate at a higher
> speed?
>
> Isn't the buss speed of the motherboard the limiting factor? If not,
> why was it not compliant with the USB 2.0 standard in the first place?