PCI-Express Gen 4 to arrive next year

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, Vode said:

PCI-e is such a greedy bastard. Taking all the bandwidth for itself.

 

Should give the old SATA a piece of the cake.

Or we should all just switch to PCI-e drives.

 

I wouldn't mind to be honest. MOAR SPEED!

 

#NEVERENOUGH #DEATHTOLOADINGSCREENS

[Energycore]

4 hours ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Great . Now AMD will stick to pcie 3.0 and upgrade to 4.0 when pcie 5.0 comes out ...

You sir got ninja'd

[patrickjp93]

4 hours ago, Swatson said:

PCI-E is probably the only data transfer/connetor standard to actually be ahead of the needs of the devices. I wish every other standard committee would follow their footsteps.

Uh, no, it's miles behind where it needs to be from the perspective of datacenters and supercomputers.

 

1 hour ago, Briggsy said:

Is fiber optics really that useful for a few inches of communication?

 

I'm not being rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. I would think switching from electrical to optical, then back again to electrical carries some kind of latency penalty. If used over thousands of miles its definitely worth eliminating signal repeaters by using fiber instead of copper, but you don't have that issue in a PC.

When your algorithms are tuned on the order of nanoseconds, yes. That's why high-speed trading is done using FPGAs with 4 200Gbps NICs attached directly to the card. The latency of copper wire is too much even for short-distance communications in some datacenters, and as we attempt to approach exascale computing, that applicability will only increase.

[AlwaysFSX]

5 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Sata is at its limits. That's why storage jumped to PCIE rather than Sata 4. The amount of power required for Sata 4 is what makes it an impossible standard. 

SATA 4 requires a lot of power? How much more over SATA 3?

[AresKrieger]

The only question I have is it backward compatible on both ends ie would a pcie 4.0 compliant card work on 3.0 and vise versa

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

SATA 4 requires a lot of power? How much more over SATA 3?

I don't know, it's just something I remember reading a couple years back -- and why the sudden jump to PCIE and no announcement for Sata 4. 

3 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

The only question I have is it backward compatible on both ends ie would a pcie 4.0 compliant card work on 3.0 and vise versa

I would be very surprised if they weren't compatible. 

[AresKrieger]

Quote

I would be very surprised if they weren't compatible. 

I only asked due to an old rumor I heard saying it would be compatible 1 way but not the other, granted it was a rumor and probably false

[Curufinwe_wins]

5 hours ago, manikyath said:

100Gbps network cards appareantly..

 

although i doubt there's many places that'll use those

100GB/s card...

[RagnarokDel]

What's the point?

[Prysin]

and still we cannot max out Gen2 under gaming loads

[patrickjp93]

27 minutes ago, Prysin said:

and still we cannot max out Gen2 under gaming loads

That's partly because studios now just dump all the data onto the GPU from the start instead of streaming it. In datacenters, there's no such luck.

[pyrojoe34]

You people realize that computers are used for more than just gaming and web browsing right? I can see these speeds being very useful for computational work and in datacenters that require massive clusters of computers working in sync. This will also improve coprocessor communication speeds and reduce drive bottlenecks when working with massive, complex datasets.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

That's partly because studios now just dump all the data onto the GPU from the start instead of streaming it. In datacenters, there's no such luck.

true, but as we both know. Mobo manufacturers are going to market this as the "you either have it or you suck" kind of feature. Despite it being completely irrelevant to gamers.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, pyrojoe34 said:

You people realize that computers are used for more than just gaming and web browsing right? I can see these speeds being very useful for computational work and in datacenters that require massive clusters of computers working in sync. This will also improve coprocessor communication speeds and reduce drive bottlenecks when working with massive, complex datasets.

Exactly, I'm sure a PHI could theoretically saturate PCIe Gen 3 if it was given a wider bus. 

[mariushm]

PCI Express link performance^[27][29]

PCI Express version	Line code	Transfer rate[a]	Throughput[a]
			×1	×4	×8	×16
1.0	8b/10b	2.5 GT/s	250 MB/s	1 GB/s	2 GB/s	4 GB/s
2.0	8b/10b	5 GT/s	500 MB/s	2 GB/s	4 GB/s	8 GB/s
3.0	128b/130b	8 GT/s	984.6 MB/s	3.938 GB/s	7.877 GB/s	15.754 GB/s
4.0 (expected in 2017)	128b/130b	16 GT/s	1.969 GB/s	7.877 GB/s	15.754 GB/s	31.508 GB/s
5.0 (far future)[28]	128b/130b	32 / 25 GT/s	3.9 / 3.08 GB/s	15.8 / 12.3 GB/s	31.5 / 24.6 GB/s	63.0 / 49.2 GB/s

 

100 gbps = ~ 12.5 GB/s ... close to the v3.0 x16 limits. Makes sense for that card to be backwards compatible with 3.0.

 

IMHO Since the same data encoding is used, depending on how they're designed, existing processors could be 4.0 compatible and possible be upgraded to that through some microcode. But, I doubt anyone would actually do it. (if possible) The microcode would have to be pushed to users through motherboard bios updates or through cpu/chipset drivers or something like that.

It's like with the current video cards, which say they support some version of displayport officially, but the cards actually support or can be made to support through firmware update newer version, they just don't advertise it because the new version wasn't fully standardized at the time of release.

 

// chart above from Wikipedia

[laminutederire]

11 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

WHAT NEEDS THIS BANDWITH? like its getting freaking silly, everything should be PCI-e lol, screw USB, just have a 1x slot  but still the through put speed is just getting insaine...

Hmmm Linus for the swag and videos?

[DXMember]

9 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Except in data centers where it is the single biggest bottleneck after accessing disk (SSD OR HDD). It's actually an enormous problem for exascale computing.

 

No, it's 100GB/s, just like Omnipath, NVLink, and Infiniband.

Edit: Whoops, didn't read the picture label.

plus 4.0 speeds wouldn't be enough for 100GB/s either, they're supposed to cap out at 32GB/s on x16

and we don't measure NICs in bytes, because history

[manikyath]

6 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

100GB/s card...

Gb/s, look at OP's picture

(i prefer to write Gbps like so, and GB/s like so to keep them more seperate in my brain )

[sof006]

12 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

WHAT NEEDS THIS BANDWITH? like its getting freaking silly, everything should be PCI-e lol, screw USB, just have a 1x slot  but still the through put speed is just getting insaine...

Google does...

[Doobeedoo]

9 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Is fiber optics really that useful for a few inches of communication?

 

I'm not being rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. I would think switching from electrical to optical, then back again to electrical carries some kind of latency penalty. If used over thousands of miles its definitely worth eliminating signal repeaters by using fiber instead of copper, but you don't have that issue in a PC.

Well bandwidth I guess. Since copper can't keep up. It's still giving good speeds though. But to go faster they'd have to make connection like PCIe optical based I guess.

[Senzelian]

Can it also supply more power through the slot? It would be pretty awesome if it could.

[Godlygamer23]

15 hours ago, Djole123 said:

So as you might know, PCIe Gen 3 was out for quite a while now.

But, fear no more, PCIe Gen 4 is coming next year!

 

It's promised to have double the data rate (8 GT/s vs 16 GT/s) and PCI-SIG already has some plans for PCIe Gen 5!

 

First card with PCIe Gen 4 did appear, it's a ConnectX PCIe 16x 100GB/s card.

[image removed]

 

Source:

http://videocardz.com/63305/pci-express-4-0-to-arrive-next-year

The image showcasing the product says 100 gigabits per second, not gigabytes.

[mariushm]

3 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Can it also supply more power through the slot? It would be pretty awesome if it could.

Power is a product of voltage and current. There's only so much current those tiny contacts in the slot can transfer to the video card, without adding more contacts (and therefore changing the slot shape) you really can't increase the current by a huge amount (probably safe to go up to around 100w through those contacts).

 

One solution would be going for higher voltage, but that would break compatibility. Maybe in the near future, we'll see video cards work with 20v or something like that through different pci-e power connectors (for example 4 pin 20v connector or 6 pin 20v connector, a 4 pin connector would be capable of safely delivering up to about 10-15A which at 20v means 200-300 watts) 

The pci-e slot can be left alone with 12v for backwards compatibility, the 75w that can be provided through that can be used by video cards just to power the memory on the card or something like that. 8 GB GDDR5 uses about 20-30 watts, well below the limits of the slot.

 

USB 3 is already designed to allow devices to negociate between 5v and 12v and 20v but usb controllers that would respond to device requests for higher than 5v are not implemented in computers yet. There are motherboards designed to accept DC input from a regular laptop adapter jack (which is 18.5-19v, close enough to 20v) ... it seems lots of things are gravitating towards 20v figure.

 

I'm just hoping we'll see at some point a new ATX power supply standard that would add 20v voltage besides 12v and 5v (and make 3.3v and -12v obsolete, because it's fairly easy to put a dc-dc converter on the motherboard to produce 3.3v for m.2 and ssd devices and not waste energy through voltage drops in the cables between power supply and motherboard.

[Curufinwe_wins]

9 hours ago, manikyath said:

Gb/s, look at OP's picture

(i prefer to write Gbps like so, and GB/s like so to keep them more seperate in my brain )

Dah! I fell prey to the OP's mistyping. My bad.

[Djole123]

To everyone who can't stand the GB/Gb mistake, here, it's fixed.