PCI-X vs. 3GIO

[Athlex]

Can anyone describe or point to a side by side comparison of 3GIO vs. PCI-X? Intel seems to really be pushing 3GIO, but PCI-X at 64 bits wide and between 66 and 133MHz seems like it ought to be able to push data faster than any peripheral needs (at least in a home system.)
Also, with PCI-X 2.0 forthcoming (Intel being the only "big" company not supporting it), that seems to make 3GIO seems even more irrelevant since PCI-X 2.0 will happen this year and we'll be lucky to see 3GIO systems before 2004.
Seems like PCI-X makes more sense...what am I missing?
/Atx

 

[Sohcan]

<< Also, with PCI-X 2.0 forthcoming (Intel being the only "big" company not supporting it) >>

From the EETimes article: "PCI-X 2.0 has been endorsed by AMD, Compaq, Fujitsu Siemens, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel and Server Works"



<< that seems to make 3GIO seems even more irrelevant since PCI-X 2.0 will happen this year and we'll be lucky to see 3GIO systems before 2004. >>

The specification may be released this year...the Serial ATA spec was released over two years ago, and we probably won't see it in mass until 2003....

 

[AGodspeed]

Yeah, pretty much what Sohcan said.

3GIO is just Intel's replacement for their PCI standard.

 

[Athlex]

oops, misread the article.
Still, seems like PCI-X provides more than enough bandwidth for users not to need a replacement by a different incompatible standard. Is PCI-X just a bandwidth band-aid for server systems until 3GIO takes over? Will 3GIO also be geared at the server market?

 

[Sunner]

When ATA100 came out the fastest HD's only sustained 25-30 MB/Sec.

When PCI came out, 133 MB/Sec was pretty much unheard of in the systems that used it.

These standards are produced with the future in mind, not the present.
Better to have ATA100 while 30 is all you need, than having ATA66 when 75 MB/Sec is what you'd need, no?

PCI-X and 3GIO will most certainly coexist for quite some time, before 3GIO takes over, just as ISA and PCI did.