USB bandwidth issues MOBO host controllers recomm'd needed

[optical10]

I have just purchased a motion simulator chair [usb 2.0] and I've run into the USB bandwidth issue where the simtool software will disconnect intermittently if other USB devices with heavy bandwidth like fanatec clubsport wheel and especially Samsung VR/any headset is plugged in as well. A pci Express USB card like the "Starech 4 Dedicated 5Gbps Channels" was recommended @ xsimulator.net forum but unfortunately I have a mini ATX Asrock Fatal1ty itx/ac which obviously doesn't have any PCI Express slots so hence the need for help to choose stable multiple host controller mobo as the x299 or x399 for future proofing. I was able to get the problem reduced by implemented the recommended "disabling of the USB suspend" in the power settings of Windows 10 but it's still not cured the problem completely.
I was thinking of the x299 Asrock Taichi XE or X299 OC Formula after the Anandtech reviews but I'm not really ok with the x399 AMD equivalent (to save monies) as I've been an Intel user for so long. The Host controllers on the x299 Taichi are (ASM3142 PCIe 3.0 x2, ASM1074 Hub), so does anybody have any experience /issues with these controllers?
Is not quite top on the HD tune USB charts here so any thoughts that would be appreciated, have those results a real problem?
Also why does the AMD x399 Taichi have NO USB controllers, is this limitation of the AMD platform vs intel?
I can't believe this USB bandwidth issue isn't addressed specifically in manufacturers feature list more often now that VR is becoming a thing and the Oculus sensors USB sensitivity is a known thing.
So any other manufacturers mobo recommendations much appreciated Intel or AMD if I AMD can be an equivalent host controller equal.

Edit: man that's an old signature but obviously I'm unable to change it.

 

[optical10]

I guess AMD is out of the question as I'm struggling to find a single motherboard with more than one USB controller, can anybody else shed some light as to why this is the case or am I looking in the wrong places?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

You're looking in the wrong place. Intel is often augmented with additional USB Controllers because Intel does not yet put integrated USB on their CPUs, but put USB on their chipsets. AMD already has a USB 3.1 Gen 1 controller (and 2.0) on the Ryzen CPU, as well as an additional USB 3.1 Gen 1 controller on the Chipset. You would of course need to rely on the block diagram to determine how an individual motherboard delves out those connections to the ports.

 

[Ketchup]

I suppose I don't see how that (switching boards and cards) is going to help, if all devices are USB 2.0. The easiest solution would be to find a USB 3.1 device (or devices) that isn't limited to the bandwidth of an 18-year-old specification.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I suppose I don't see how that (switching boards and cards) is going to help, if all devices are USB 2.0. The easiest solution would be to find a USB 3.1 device (or devices) that isn't limited to the bandwidth of an 18-year-old specification.

That will not help unfortunately. USB controllers only have one host controller (1) of each version (O/UHCI, EHCI, xHCI). An xHCI controller is effectively a single EHCI controller when you plug in a USB 2.0 device. Though it will perform better then a "normal" EHCI controller because it isn't interface/bandwidth limited.

An xHCI controller usually has a single EHCI controller built-in for legacy purposes. USB2 and USB3 has some pretty fundamental differences, which is why this is required.

To the OP,

What I think you need from your description is multiple host controllers. If you are limited to ITX boards, then you're SOL unless you can find a board with a 3rd party controller.

Otherwise, just add a few USB3 PCIe cards, and you're all set. That Startech controller you linked to only makes sense if you only have a single expansion port.

 

[optical10]

You're looking in the wrong place. Intel is often augmented with additional USB Controllers because Intel does not yet put integrated USB on their CPUs, but put USB on their chipsets. AMD already has a USB 3.1 Gen 1 controller (and 2.0) on the Ryzen CPU, as well as an additional USB 3.1 Gen 1 controller on the Chipset. You would of course need to rely on the block diagram to determine how an individual motherboard delves out those connections to the ports.

Thanks for that information it's good to know and makes more sense that a competitor to Intel would have comparable USB solutions it if in fact that is the case as its not transparent which makes me feel as though if they had comparable solutions like the gigabyte Intel X299 aorus gaming 7 (which I've now decided on buying) 4 host USB controllers they would shout about it and each manufacturers features webpage for the AMD equipment board.

Gigabyte own equivalent AMD Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi shows one additional ASMedia 3.1 Gen 2 USB host controller, presuming the chipset like you say features USB controller, that makes two irrespective of its bandwidth is still a total of two and that's a motherboard price of £235 - (or £335 for the more comparable as rock X339 taichi AMD with zero extra usb controller), compared to their own Intel gaming 7 I mentioned above at £385 but with a total of four separate USB controllers and the price of individual 4 x 0 USB 3.0 PCI express cards I mention below is still a better option to go for the Intel with the guaranteed number of USB controllers and easy available documentation as to each controllers USB bandwidth.

It could be just that most people haven't run into this issue but believe you me with the USB bandwidth issues that VR is causing, especially the sensors, it's gonna be a thing consumers and manufacturers need to be aware of. And with a 4 x USB 3.0 PCI express cards costing between £80 - 120 is worth solving the issue on the motherboard.

I never thought my current ASRock Z270 mini ITX/AC with Intel JHL6240 Thunderbolt 3 USB controller (40gb/s total bandwidth) wouldn't be able to cope with only five USB connected devices (of my usual 13 devices including external USB 3.0 hubs and monitor USB 3.0 hub taking the strain) albeit two of them being high-powered, that's my fanatec pedals and wheel USB 2.0, P3 racing motion simulator USB 2.0, USB keyboard with internal hub and mouse connected, of the rest of the 13 it's only the two monitor and external hubs plus the Samsung VR HMD that are USB 3.0.

Don't get me wrong there has been times with all 13 items plugged in including the VR headset that I have had full functionality on the P3 racing simulator but it's far and few between with multiple reactivation of hardware/software is and restarts of Windows to achieve. Inadequate PSU berthing was also neutered by the P3 manufacturer as a possible issue which can be investigated once have installed a new motherboard with the four USB host controllers on the same PSU/case chassis.

Was beginning to think I had a faulty simulator but my mind was put at rest by speaking to other owners of the same and other manufacturers units the report the same USB bandwidth issue but they've been able to buy one or two internal PCI express USB cards to alleviate the problem, not a solution for me on this single mini ITX PCI express motherboard!

 

[optical10]

I suppose I don't see how that (switching boards and cards) is going to help, if all devices are USB 2.0. The easiest solution would be to find a USB 3.1 device (or devices) that isn't limited to the bandwidth of an 18-year-old specification.

It's not the USB 2.0 devices that are the issues. With the brand-new current fanatec V2 .5 pedal and the 3.0 wheels and DOF reality P3 racing simulator being the leader in their field for specialist equipment it's the motherboard USB controllers that are the Achilles heel in my setup rather than the specialist and limited availability at their price items mentioned above.
It was just unfortunate that I bought previously bought in 2017 the single PCI express mini ITX motherboard that really is a 4K Ultra Blu-ray media setup with the single thunderbolt 3.0 USB controller.
There is just not that many £1500 steering wheel setups in £2500 racing simulators to pick from never mind those that would bother with USB 3.1 as an Arduino input interface when it's not needed. In fact it's the VR headsets, which are USB 3.0 that is the biggest USB bandwidth offender!

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Thanks for that information it's good to know and makes more sense that a competitor to Intel would have comparable USB solutions it if in fact that is the case as its not transparent which makes me feel as though if they had comparable solutions like the gigabyte Intel X299 aorus gaming 7 (which I've now decided on buying) 4 host USB controllers they would shout about it and each manufacturers features webpage for the AMD equipment board.

Gigabyte own equivalent AMD Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi shows one additional ASMedia 3.1 Gen 2 USB host controller, presuming the chipset like you say features USB controller, that makes two irrespective of its bandwidth is still a total of two and that's a motherboard price of £235 - (or £335 for the more comparable as rock X339 taichi AMD with zero extra usb controller), compared to their own Intel gaming 7 I mentioned above at £385 but with a total of four separate USB controllers and the price of individual 4 x 0 USB 3.0 PCI express cards I mention below is still a better option to go for the Intel with the guaranteed number of USB controllers and easy available documentation as to each controllers USB bandwidth.

It could be just that most people haven't run into this issue but believe you me with the USB bandwidth issues that VR is causing, especially the sensors, it's gonna be a thing consumers and manufacturers need to be aware of. And with a 4 x USB 3.0 PCI express cards costing between £80 - 120 is worth solving the issue on the motherboard.

I never thought my current ASRock Z270 mini ITX/AC with Intel JHL6240 Thunderbolt 3 USB controller (40gb/s total bandwidth) wouldn't be able to cope with only five USB connected devices (of my usual 13 devices including external USB 3.0 hubs and monitor USB 3.0 hub taking the strain) albeit two of them being high-powered, that's my fanatec pedals and wheel USB 2.0, P3 racing motion simulator USB 2.0, USB keyboard with internal hub and mouse connected, of the rest of the 13 it's only the two monitor and external hubs plus the Samsung VR HMD that are USB 3.0.

Don't get me wrong there has been times with all 13 items plugged in including the VR headset that I have had full functionality on the P3 racing simulator but it's far and few between with multiple reactivation of hardware/software is and restarts of Windows to achieve. Inadequate PSU berthing was also neutered by the P3 manufacturer as a possible issue which can be investigated once have installed a new motherboard with the four USB host controllers on the same PSU/case chassis.

Was beginning to think I had a faulty simulator but my mind was put at rest by speaking to other owners of the same and other manufacturers units the report the same USB bandwidth issue but they've been able to buy one or two internal PCI express USB cards to alleviate the problem, not a solution for me on this single mini ITX PCI express motherboard!

You do understand you're comparing an HEDT socket (x299 Aorus Gaming 7) do a General Purpose socket (X470 Ryzen) right? I would certainly expect, and hope that something far more expensive for both CPU and motherboard would have additional connectivity. That being said, if you look, you'll notice on the Intel platform there that all USB connectivity on the board shares the same PCI-e 3.0 4x equivalent interface along with all other chipset functions to the CPU.

The X470 Gigabyte platform you mentioned has 3 controllers, all with their own connection (1 set directly from the Ryzen CPU, a second set directly from PCI-e lanes, and a third set from the Chipset, which shares bandwith with other components back to the CPU).

When simply having extra controllers seems to be the issue, why not just have your preferred AMD or Intel ATX board with a couple PCIe cards vs. getting an enthusiast board just to get a bunch of controllers that still share the same bandwidth back to the CPU?

On motherboards that are more about productivity and workstation use vs. gaming, you can often get block diagrams that show the layout of these sorts of ports to help solve these issues. For instance if you look at this rather standard Intel board's manual: https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Core/Z370/C7Z370-CG-L.cfm

You'll see that all USB Connectivity, even with additional controllers, goes through the Chipset's PCI-e connectivity. This is pretty standard practice on Intel boards until you get to their HEDT line, and even then you have to check specifically to see if its using dedicated PCI-e from the CPU (in the case of the X299 board from gigabyte, they don't, they all go through the chipset).

It seems like PCI-e cards in an ATX board is the most sure-fire way of getting what you want.

 

[optical10]

You do understand you're comparing an HEDT socket (x299 Aorus Gaming 7) do a General Purpose socket (X470 Ryzen) right? I would certainly expect, and hope that something far more expensive for both CPU and motherboard would have additional connectivity. That being said, if you look, you'll notice on the Intel platform there that all USB connectivity on the board shares the same PCI-e 3.0 4x equivalent interface along with all other chipset functions to the CPU.

The X470 Gigabyte platform you mentioned has 3 controllers, all with their own connection (1 set directly from the Ryzen CPU, a second set directly from PCI-e lanes, and a third set from the Chipset, which shares bandwith with other components back to the CPU).

When simply having extra controllers seems to be the issue, why not just have your preferred AMD or Intel ATX board with a couple PCIe cards vs. getting an enthusiast board just to get a bunch of controllers that still share the same bandwidth back to the CPU?

On motherboards that are more about productivity and workstation use vs. gaming, you can often get block diagrams that show the layout of these sorts of ports to help solve these issues. For instance if you look at this rather standard Intel board's manual: https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Core/Z370/C7Z370-CG-L.cfm

You'll see that all USB Connectivity, even with additional controllers, goes through the Chipset's PCI-e connectivity. This is pretty standard practice on Intel boards until you get to their HEDT line, and even then you have to check specifically to see if its using dedicated PCI-e from the CPU (in the case of the X299 board from gigabyte, they don't, they all go through the chipset).

It seems like PCI-e cards in an ATX board is the most sure-fire way of getting what you want.

No I didn't realise that I was comparing HEDT socket to General-purpose socket hence the reason I've been asking this question on so many forums and I'm grateful that you have at least put me right. I knew that there had to be an AMD competitive solution that is not been made obvious because this is such an unusual specific requests that's not even really covered in most reviews you to the when you the usual nature of the specialist Sim racing simulators but as I said this will become more of an issue with VR headsets but I suppose the PCI express cards will solve that problem as it would solve my very didn't have such a restrictive mini ITX motherboard.

So I've asked gigabytes support for their recommendations (Block diagrams) and even though I bought the Intel setup I haven't opened any of it so I'll just have to be patient to see if anybody can provide me with block diagrams that meet my needs or as you say just go for a basic preferred motherboard and just add extra PCI express cards as and when I need them.
Anyway once again thanks for your help and if you do come across any block diagrams that will help me please don't hesitate to link them here.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Gigabyte doesn't generally publish it, but fortunately your question has already been similarly asked by other people in regards to the M.2 Drive layout on the x299 Aorus Gaming 7 in this thread: http://forum.gigabyte.us/thread/1649/x299-aorus-gaming-7

The "Chipset+USB Controller" mentions on the specifications page is what gives it away that all the USB ports are being provided through the Chipset, but a Gigabyte staff member posted a block diagram that confirms it on the thread I linked above:

As you can see above, all USB, Wifi, LAN, SATA, a PCIE slot, and 2/3rds of the M.2 drives all go through the X299 Chipset and share the chipset's upstream connection to the CPU. This is common on many x299 boards because Intel has CPU's in their HEDT line that only have 28 PCIE lanes. Because of that, manufacturers have to design boards catering to this lowest common denominator, ensuring that critical functionality (like USB, LAN, and SATA connections) aren't cut off because someone bought one of the 28 PCIE lane CPUs vs. the 44 PCIE lane CPUs. Because of that, almost all that critical functionality gets piped through the Chipset. Alot of boards that have a X399 (AMD Threadripper) variants end up being the same way.

That's why I mentioned the best way most likely to avoid all of that is to use PCI-e cards in slots that you know go straight to the CPU. That way you know the card is getting dedicated bandwidth.

 

[LTC8K6]

Q370 board?

 

[optical10]

Gigabyte doesn't generally publish it, but fortunately your question has already been similarly asked by other people in regards to the M.2 Drive layout on the x299 Aorus Gaming 7 in this thread: http://forum.gigabyte.us/thread/1649/x299-aorus-gaming-7

The "Chipset+USB Controller" mentions on the specifications page is what gives it away that all the USB ports are being provided through the Chipset, but a Gigabyte staff member posted a block diagram that confirms it on the thread I linked above:

As you can see above, all USB, Wifi, LAN, SATA, a PCIE slot, and 2/3rds of the M.2 drives all go through the X299 Chipset and share the chipset's upstream connection to the CPU. This is common on many x299 boards because Intel has CPU's in their HEDT line that only have 28 PCIE lanes. Because of that, manufacturers have to design boards catering to this lowest common denominator, ensuring that critical functionality (like USB, LAN, and SATA connections) aren't cut off because someone bought one of the 28 PCIE lane CPUs vs. the 44 PCIE lane CPUs. Because of that, almost all that critical functionality gets piped through the Chipset. Alot of boards that have a X399 (AMD Threadripper) variants end up being the same way.

That's why I mentioned the best way most likely to avoid all of that is to use PCI-e cards in slots that you know go straight to the CPU. That way you know the card is getting dedicated bandwidth.

Many thanks and sorry about the delay in replying.

Looks like I'll be returning the Intel setup, Intel 2066 i7-7820X CPU £536, Gigabyte Aorus x299 Gaming 7 Pro £385 but with it being on Amazon purchase I should be able to return it opened or unopened, so happens I haven't opened it.
I found a Abandtech x399 Overview article inc my preferred AMD Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7 £348.46 @amazon (with block diagram)

So it seems like this is a confirmed with the above diagram to be a AMD solution that doesn't involve me using PCI express 3.0 cards as they range from £80 - £120, Although that still an option if this isn't successful.
The cheaper Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wi-Fi I mentioned £236.54 @amazon, Socket AM4, and a Startech card I linked above It is tempting with the similar number of USB headers and ports but seems in a lower league to the x399 boards (haven't found a block diagram confirming USB path's as good as the X399 above also) and it doesn't take the superior TM4 gen 1 Threadripper 1950X £679.47 (Can't see the advantage in more expensive gen 2) CPUs which I prefer against the I've already purchased Intel I will be returning, what do you think?
I was also thinking that the Threadripper cores/threads and speed would help the USB that are connected so the more it has and faster the better hence my thinking for the 1950X, S TR4, 16 Core, 32 Thread, 3.4GHz, 4.0GHz Turbo £679 purchase against the 1920X, S TR4, 12 Core, 24 Thread, 3.5GHz, 4.0GHz Turbo £409 at Amazon?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Personally, I don't see any reason to get an AMD Threadripper system for gaming. You can get higher performance with Ryzen. Threadripper has the same amount of USB I/O from the CPU as Ryzen does.

If you got the Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming motherboard and a Ryzen 2 CPU, you'd have USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB from the CPU you could use, as well as USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB from the Chipset.

Why not split the bandwidth-hungry stuff between those two chipsets and see if you have issues? If you do, you still have another PCIE-e x16 (x8 electrical) slot next to your GPU that you could connect another 4-controller USB card to (the Startech card you mentioned in your OP) and have a direct connection to your CPU (it won't steal from your Chipset bandwidth). But the two controllers might be enough to get you by.

 

[optical10]

Personally, I don't see any reason to get an AMD Threadripper system for gaming. You can get higher performance with Ryzen. Threadripper has the same amount of USB I/O from the CPU as Ryzen does.

If you got the Gigabyte Aorus X470 Gaming motherboard and a Ryzen 2 CPU, you'd have USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB from the CPU you could use, as well as USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB from the Chipset.

Why not split the bandwidth-hungry stuff between those two chipsets and see if you have issues? If you do, you still have another PCIE-e x16 (x8 electrical) slot next to your GPU that you could connect another 4-controller USB card to (the Startech card you mentioned in your OP) and have a direct connection to your CPU (it won't steal from your Chipset bandwidth). But the two controllers might be enough to get you by.

Okay ended up with workstation Gigabyte x399 Aorus Extreme + Startech 3.0 PCI-e with success after rolling back Windows 10 insider preview . X470 would have been more than adequate but as I have a E-ATX case and have ended up mid larger motherboards built to a higher standard and using blender for thread ripper CPUs makes more sense but I have to say your help was invaluable so many thanks friend.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Which Threadripper did you choose? You got to be careful with those and gaming. Blender will run very well, but for games you might need to boot into "Gamer" mode so that half the cores get disabled. It depends on your workload. If I were doing Threadripper, I'd probably use the 2950X.

 

[optical10]

Hi sorry for the delay in replying it's been an absolute crazy week!
I ended up going for a 1920X as I'm waiting for the 2920X which hasn't dropped yet and if that goes well I'll go for the 2950X for its improved efficiency.
Yeah after Threadripper was set up I was immediately confronted with this gamer mode issue however the games that had issues , according to older Internet reports, seem to have been fixed even the older games.

Reporting back on the USB host controllers situation I'm currently going onto my third StarTech USB controller, one USB 3.0 two USB 2.0 to try and share the load. The more expensive 3.0 kept on reporting power overload even though I was feeding it Molex power so as I don't need 3.0 connectivity I thought if I could get the 2.0 at a third of the price £29 and is also Molex powered too if I got the same power overload I will liaise with start X customer service to solve the issue. The first 2.0 only had one of the four host controllers successfully installed in device manager as I think the others had a fault so I sent it back. If the replacement is unsuccessful I will change to a different brand but StarTech customer support are excellent to communicate with and arrow was offering a solution even though I'm dealing with Amazon under warranty.
The gigabyte extreme only has two host controllers but it's so much more superior as a robust motherboard/workstation Threadripper tested compared to the z470 gamer 7's 3 x host controllers and I always end up having a E-ATX case with workstation motherboards like the MSI Big Bang Marshall back in the day, what a motherboard!