Hacker News Reader

Comment by tux1968 | Hacker News Reader

tux1968·

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.

View on HN

AMD 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.

I 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?

That 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-thunder...

What is the use of USB ports on server hardware?

Not 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com