Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USB 3.x PCIe Cards for Classic Mac Pro
- Thread starter ActionableMango
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
It looks like that card tops out at 5 Gbps. Go for one that has a true USB type C input to reach 10 Gbps with a dedicated throughput channel as usually any backwards technology adapters will bottleneck at that tech's throughput speed (USB 3.0 type A adapter would bottleneck to 5 Gbps). Also, that card looks like it has internal switches for full function copy (USB to USB on same PCIe card, but I may be wrong) but causes its internal throughput to only be 5 Gbps additionally because thats what speed a USB 3.0 output would allow.
Last edited:
but this card says its 3.1
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...1hcHh8r4ORQImMaAqgpEALw_wcB&lsft=BI:514&smp=Y
i do like the idea of thinking ahead and getting usb C and using adapters for regular USB if i have to.. i wonder if i can hook a hub to one USB C and have more USB 3.0
"USB 3.0, which is also known as USB 3.1 Gen 1, supports data transfer rates up to 5 Gb/s and this card has a dedicated controller for each port. This allows each port to achieve speeds up to 5 Gb/s, instead of having to share that bandwidth between the four USB 3.0 ports"
There isn't much difference between USB 3.0 and 3.1 type A. Type C (USB-C, which I believe is 3.1 Gen 2) is where the bandwidth gains begin and that can be dependent on how it's routed into your system (which slot you use, what other slots are occupied-and the load you have on your system all play-in).
I know it can be confusing-but just remember USB 3.0/3.1 usually referring to type A (the blue rectangles which replaced the white 2.0 terminals), which tops out at 5 Gbps. USB-C is perfect for running hubs, but we'll top out around TB1 speeds (10 Gbps) from most cards I've come across-which isn't bad at all.
You might want to consider a x2 USB 3.0/1x USB-C card, since the more items you plug in, the more you split your bandwidth. A x4 connection tops out at 15 Gbps real-world throughput so a dual channel USB-C would be pushing the theoretical boundaries of 20 Gbps, but still moving quite well on I/O (copying from one external drive to another external drive connected via hub). Single direction data flow would fly unhindered (copying to external drive from internal drive, or vice versa) dependent on the cable, hub, drive, etc.
Last edited:
The type of port has nothing to do with the speed of the port. Some USB-C ports are only USB 2.0. Some USB Type A ports are USB 3.1 gen 2.
Only devices that are currently transmitting will affect other devices. Usually you're only using one device at a time so it doesn't matter how many ports there are.
Over-committing bandwidth is never a good idea is the basis of my statement for the less tech-savy. Usually if a port is occupied or plugged in, you are dividing the available bandwidth so limit your port to the available bandwidth to ensure you don't bottleneck anything. Always assume full load on your port and you'll never be bottlenecked. It's a suggestion of preventative design and planning-nothing more.
A x4 throughput is 20 Gbps-so stay within those bounds and you'll maintain max throughput on all ports. And the type of port has everything to do with the speed its capable of achieving or there would not be USB standards. Lower speeds are seen on higher speed connections due to bottlenecking, by flawed or intentional design (lane-splitting).
3.1 Type A can achieve 1 0Gbps though-I was incorrect about that:
https://superuser.com/questions/138...sb-2-0-usb-3-0-esata-firewire-and-thunderbolt
Last edited:
Please explain how one would go outside the “bounds” of the hardware limit.
You have no choice in the matter, the hardware is always within it’s own limits.
Thats my point, an example of a poor choice IMO would be:
Over-committing ports, ie 6 USB-C ports on a x4 connection.
You are bound by the logic boards available bandwidth, why spend money on ports you can't use at full bandwidth? Anything more than 20 Gbps worth of ports will have the possibility of bottlenecking and you've now stepped outside the boundaries of the capabilities of the hardware and becomes self restricting under load.
Last edited:
Simple... because you have 6 storage devices that you don’t want to constantly connect/disconnect. It doesn’t mean they’re all activity transfering data at the same time. You’re using it as a hub.
And AFAIK the way it's been since the time of PCI, a hub with something plugged into it reserves bandwidth.
https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/white_papers/wp350.pdf
Last edited:
I don’t know if it does or doesn’t, it’s not something I’ve ever needed to be concerned with. I would still have my devices connected since I’m never using more than 2 actively at the same time. It’s a matter of convenience. I’m only using USB 3.0 devices, and each has an independent controller for each port. I leave 4 storage devices connected at all times. Your scenario is unlikely. Having the extra connections available is good thing for me.
Even IF one needed to remove a device from the chain, it’s easier to leave the cable connected at the rear of the tower, and disconnect it elsewhere (depending on where your tower is located).
In my case for instance, each port gets x1 PCIe lanes (the card itself serves as my hub) and it never shares bandwidth. I have no experience with USB 3.1, but if it has to meter all of it’s connected devices across x4 lanes, it couldn’t reserve a particular bandwidth for each port. I would imagine it only uses x2 lanes per 3.1 connection. I may be wrong, but having more ports increases usefulness to me.
Last edited:
My suggestion came from someone wanting to achieve full speed 3.1 speed on a x4 connection and I suggested a 2x 3.1 Type A/ 1x USB-C which is a rock solid middle ground for future proofing, someone disagreed.
I was under the impression Type C was the only one that could achieve 10 Gbps, but now know 3.1 Type A is capable. But even under this load you could run software RAID and not bottleneck on the Type A side, really.
Also, with 4x 3.0 Type A's you would be sitting perfectly balanced and unaffected at 20 Gbps reserved (5*4) with 20 Gbps available (x4 PCIe 2.0), but in the 10 Gbps connections is where you become self limiting much more quickly, and at 3 ports could theoretically see 66% of full connection speeds when fully occupied.
If someone wants 4x 10 Gbps ports and full speed-get two dual 10 Gbps cards and drop them in lanes 3 and 4. It's still cheaper than most 4 port cards with switches, only drawback is both lanes become consumed-but you'll get full speed on all ports.
The situation I imagine is a basic copy and paste from one 10 Gbps drive to another and a card with dual 10 Gbps is the only way I see that unrestricted on a x4 throughput; any more and it's just extra ports that will slow down the entire reason for the card IMO; fast I/O. Not everyones application is the same though-but a simple dual 3.1 card also sets up for 1 dedicated drive port and 1 transfer port.
Point being-use your bandwidth wisely.
Last edited:
i currently have this card in my 3.1 and it works great..
https://www.amazon.com/Inateck-Ports-Express-Version-KT4004/dp/B00I027GPC
but i was really looking into because of the dedicated controller
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1016794-REG/sonnet_usb3_4pm_e_allegro_usb_3_0_pcie.html
so after i read into it it seems that the sonnet card has interference with bluetooth.. i havent experienced anything like that with the Inateck..
I need a new card for my 5.1 2012 Mac Pro definitely need USB 3.0 and eventually I will add a 2 port USB C
can anyone elaborate?
https://www.amazon.com/Inateck-Ports-Express-Version-KT4004/dp/B00I027GPC
but i was really looking into because of the dedicated controller
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1016794-REG/sonnet_usb3_4pm_e_allegro_usb_3_0_pcie.html
so after i read into it it seems that the sonnet card has interference with bluetooth.. i havent experienced anything like that with the Inateck..
I need a new card for my 5.1 2012 Mac Pro definitely need USB 3.0 and eventually I will add a 2 port USB C
can anyone elaborate?
The Sonnet is a great card. Read the full review here.
It causes no more, or no less BT interference than any other USB 3.0 card/device.
Inateck KT4004 works great in my authentic Mac Pro 5,1. No driver needed.
Believe the Allegro just adds 2A/charging functions and uses same chipset as Inatek KT4004:
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/allegrousb3pcie4port.html
The Allegro PRO is dedicated controller, which B&H discontinued.
From 1st page of this thread:
Sonnet Allegro USB 3.0 4-Port (and Sonnet Allegro Pro $130)
If you want to charge battery-powered devices or connect bus-powered devices needing up to 2A each.
- $60
- Supports the following power-related features: 2Amps of power per port (10 Watts at 5V) for bus-powered devices, USB 3.0 charging port handshake protocol, USB battery charging 1.2 compliant, and simultaneous charge and sync for iPhones, iPads, and similar devices at 1.5A.
- This card uses the same FL1100 chipset as the nMP, so drivers are built into ML 10.8.2 and newer.
- The Allegro has a single USB controller, so all 4 ports share a single controller.
- The Pro model has a 4 dedicated USB controllers (one for each port).
I have all 3 of the mentioned cards. They all perform similarly (except the pro performs better with multiple active drive operations).
Any of those are a good choice.
Any of those are a good choice.
Is there anybody here having problem usb3.1 disc ejection after mac pro going in sleep mode. I am using dodocool d26 usb3.1 2 port pcie adapter and my devices getting ejected after the mac sleeps. When waking up it does not insert any of the media on it. Is there any solution for that?
ps: the card connected on pcie slot 3 and powered from 4th sata power.
ps: the card connected on pcie slot 3 and powered from 4th sata power.
Sonnet just released the Allegro Pro USB 3.1 PCIe card with USB-A ports and a new USB 3.1 card with four USB-C ports. They're both ASM1142 based and support UASP.
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/allegro-pro-usb31-pcie.html
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/allegro-usbc-4port-pcie.html
Both offer transfer speeds up to 660 MB/sec, both are slot based and don't need additional power, both use one controller dedicated to two ports at a time.
All ports are powered with 7.5W available on each.
Also nice are dedicated resettable fuses on the card so that if you plug in something exotic that the card doesn't like, you just shut down and power on to reset the fuses.
Compatible with PCIe expansion boxes, macOS 10.10.x, 10.12.x and higher. (once again, El Capitan not supported because it has the cursed USB stack)
Cost for the Allegro Pro is about $140 on Amazon.
Might get the Allegro Pro USB 3.1 to replace my current HighPoint 1144C USB 3.0 card, although the Highpoint still has the advantage of one dedicated controller per single port.
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/allegro-pro-usb31-pcie.html
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/allegro-usbc-4port-pcie.html
Both offer transfer speeds up to 660 MB/sec, both are slot based and don't need additional power, both use one controller dedicated to two ports at a time.
All ports are powered with 7.5W available on each.
Also nice are dedicated resettable fuses on the card so that if you plug in something exotic that the card doesn't like, you just shut down and power on to reset the fuses.
Compatible with PCIe expansion boxes, macOS 10.10.x, 10.12.x and higher. (once again, El Capitan not supported because it has the cursed USB stack)
Cost for the Allegro Pro is about $140 on Amazon.
Might get the Allegro Pro USB 3.1 to replace my current HighPoint 1144C USB 3.0 card, although the Highpoint still has the advantage of one dedicated controller per single port.
Last edited:
It's only 2 controllers because of the bandwidth limitations of the pcie lanes. The usb 3.0 with 4 controllers, each has 1 pcie lane dedicated to it, for 5gb/s per lane and total 20gb/s for the whole card.
Bumping to usb 3.1 and keeping 4 controllers would still be limited 5gb/s for each port. Going to 2 controllers with 2 pcie lanes each gives each controller 10gb/s. The total bandwidth for the card using all 4 ports is still 20gb/s, but now a single device has the opportunity to use that 10gb/s.
I just saw they finally press-released the card.....I can confirm it's been in my computer for over a month and still works very well.
I can confirm that I've had the card for over a month and it still works very well....somehow it took them a month to press-release something that's been for sale for over a month lol
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...classic-mac-pro.1501482/page-87#post-26954184
I can confirm that I've had the card for over a month and it still works very well....somehow it took them a month to press-release something that's been for sale for over a month lol
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...classic-mac-pro.1501482/page-87#post-26954184
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you use bluetooth peripherals? I have a cheaper card with the ASM 1142 controller, and it causes massive amounts of interference. Curious if any of these higher-end cards alleviate that issue.
I don't believe inteference is the fault of the controller chip itself, but from shortcuts in pcie board layout & design, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if this isn't the case.