I still have a lot of (original) tapes from my DV and HDV times and I regularly although not frequently have to recapture from those tapes. I have to capture Z1 material frequently, so for me it is absolutely essential to have firewire on board. That is the specific reason I bought the P9X79 WS mobo, because of that on-board firewire. Any motherboard without firewire was not on my shortlist. I definitely don't want a separate PCI firewire card in my system, because the quality often is not all too good, it takes precious space and reduces airflow around other PCI cards and increases temps.
Summary: Only mobo's with on-board firewire come on my shortlist.
PS. While we are at the stage of asking questions, I posed a question for Asus yesterday, see
Your mail request ID is WTM201209131558288760 and have not yet received an answer.
Basically the question is: On a P9X79 WS, can one use G.Skill F3-17000CL11Q2-64GBZLD memory fully populated, which shows the Rampage Extreme and the P9X79 Deluxe as compatible, but not the WS.
I second Harm's point of view.
Besides a lot of archival SD and HDV tapes, I also have analog tapes which, when I need a clip, I capture by running through a digital camera via firewire to my pc. I cannot foresee any time when I will not occassionally need the firewire capability, and I would never get a new mobo without firewire on board.
I think the majority of us still need a firewire port. Unlike my good friend Harm, I decided to purchase a motherboard through ADK that did not have a port, which means I had to pay for a card. It cost me $50 plus the space that it takes up in the PC, and the other issues Harm brought up. Well, I don't know about quality yet, because I haven't tried it yet. But I would not have thought ADK would allow me to have something that wasn't high quality.
I believe that if you can still put a port on the motherboard, and keep the suggested retail to under $50 extra, you really ought to do it. Probably for another decade. There are a LOT of people out there with DV and HDV cameras still.
I only buy Asus boards when I build. And yes, I only buy boards with 1394 built-in.
i would be shocked if you are really an Asus employee, and one who has access to decision makers if you are
but i will play.
while i realize that the pro audio/video market is at best 3% of your clients (lets say 5% for the hobbyiests as well)
firewire whilst definately becoming less important it is still of use to many of us. as mentioned dv tape be it cams or decks.
but also pro audio interfaces. howver being that asus uses only Via firewire chipset i really could care if its there or not other than on some of the cheaper boards
i would rather install a TI chipset firewire card into PCIe slot and then i know it will work with everything i throw at it. moany cams/decks and a fwe audio interfaces tend to not get along to well with
anything but TI firewire.
USB3 will be on every board esata is dying quickly now and TB is almost useless with so very few things out there for it..
and frankly really not needed other than for laptops.
with all that said i guess i would rather see an affordable TB board than anything else, $100 upcharge is way over priced considering what you pay for the chipset.
Is there really a difference in quality when capturing firewire from PCI vs. mobo?
My first purchase from you a couple of years ago had firewire on the mobo, but my latest purchase (an every day machine used as a backup to my editing machine) has a firewire card. My intention was to do all of my HDV tape capturing on the "backup machine."
not so much where it is but what chipset.. TI will work with everything Via can be problematic
Not Scott, but there is no difference in quality when capturing with an on-board connector or one on a PCI board. The capture quality is the same. Binary transfer is just that.
The quality difference I mentioned has to do with the quality of the IEEE-1394 PCI boards. I have used in my lifetime only three or four different PCI boards with firewire, but I had trouble with all of them, despite the fact they all had TI chips and none VIA. That is why I don't like a PCI board to expand on functionality that is easily incorporated on the motherboard. The problems I encountered were mostly related to timing issues, not responding, stopping withour apparent reason, and sudden hangs or one port disabling other ports, stopping external FW disks or causing data corruption.
Thank you for the clarification.
Like Haarm, I still have a lot of material on tape and I rely on my firewire connection. I have had a couple of firewire cards fail so when I bought my latest motherboard, I went with the Asus P9X79 WS, even tho it is an outsized board and I had to upscale my case. I could do with out the PS/2 connections, but not the 1394 port.
Odd I have never had issues with a PCI or PCIe firewire cards. Have had onboard FW die on me however.. (tyan mostly but happens on all brands)
Thank you to everyone so far for the feedback it is appreciated. In regards to my position I do actually work for ASUS my position is that of Senior Technical Marketing Specialist. I work with technical media across North America in the review and analysis of our products ( specifically our component products like motherboards ). In addition I spend considerable time with HQ and our development team to refine and improve our feature set and functionality based on that of feedback from users our partners and technical media ( as well as our own internal innovation refinement discussions ).
Seeing as based on the feedback you guys still have interest in having it on the board what about 1394B to provide some additional flexibility and is backwards compatible with 1394a? We previously did this on a few boards but overall did not have much feedback. Based on my analysis there are number of peripherals that could benefit from it while still providing backwards compatibility and usability for those that need 1394a. Lastly I would be interested in we can validate and ensure interoperability and would you prefer to see a native PCIe solution ( like the controller currently from LSI? ).
Thanks for the feedback!
In regards to your question QVL lists are miniamal essepecially or higher speed kits very early on for launch especially on WS boards. This is due to limited availbity and a lengthier validation time required for WS boards and the corresponding UEFI.Our focus on WS boards is specifically on stability, compatibility and complex option rom validation and other specific aspects that are required for the WS platform. With that in mind we continually work on improving the performance and compatibility of different hardware for the platform through releases of the UEFI. This has always been one of our key stregths compared to other vendors.
I can tell you internally we have validated up to 2400 speeds on the WS board but this is heavily dependent on the IMC quality ( intergrated memory controller ) of the CPU used. Just because the memory has an XMP profile does not guarantee functionality orstability. For the X79 platform and SandyBridge E 1866 is overall pretty much assured but 2133 can begin to see variance between cpus especially when fully populating dimms. With all that detailed I will note we have extensively tuned our UEFI to allow for as much flexibility and compatibility and auto adjustment as possible to ensure operation if possible.
That being noted there is no guarantee if you wnt to take advantage of higher bandwidth kits I woud advise ensuring you orde for a good etailer or retailer to ensure you can return it should it not be stable on your system.
Another option is considering buying a kit that will allow you to run tigther timmings which can provide the same bandwidth as higher frequency but with nowhere near the stress on the IMC.
An example is 1600 C6 or 1660 C7 vs 2133 CAS 10.
Hope this helps.
what about 1394B to provide some additional flexibility and is backwards compatible with 1394a?
My own experience is that it wasn't perfectly "backward compatible" and if you install a FireWire 800 driver, you FireWire 400 products may well not work. I had to roll back and remove the 800 driver and use a 400 driver.
I do not have and do not plan to buy any 800 hardware. 400 is what I need.
We use Firewire 400 on a daily base , was very disappionted with Asus when I bought my last Motherboard which had no Firewire. I would like to see it on the motherborads again. I would not like to move to another make Like ASRock.
Seeing as based on the feedback you guys still have interest in having it on the board what about 1394B to provide some additional flexibility and is backwards compatible with 1394a?
Like Jim and Anthony, I'm only interested in IEEE 1394a, fire-wire 400, since that is the only connection used by DV and HDV cameras or decks. Way back in the past, when the only connections for external disks were only USB2 or FW400 or FW800, it made sense to consider FW800, but now with SFF-8088, eSATA and USB3 for externals it no longer makes sense.
One of the PCI cards I had problems with had both FW400 and FW800 and I never got it to work correctly, similar to Anthony's experience, so my suggestion is to only keep IEEE 1394a on certain motherboards. However, to avoid disappointments when people buy a motherboard, the distinctive difference between mobo with or without FW400 may be put more in the foreground, so people can decide correctly.
For me, it was the overriding distinction to get the WS instead of other Asus models. But at the same time, I have some remarks about the limitations of the WS, but that may be caused entirely by the X79 chipset:
- Too few SATA 6Gb connections, only 2 x 2 ports on different controllers, precluding a four disk raid10.
- Physically the space between PCI slot 1 and the DIMM slots is very tight. Some more space would be welcome for cooling, especially with huge video cards and fast memory with sizable coolers. Even if it meant a bigger footprint of the mobo.
- The location of the IEEE 1394a connector on the mobo at the rear bottom would have been better placed at the front top, since most firewire connectors in cases are located at the front and top. Reduces cable length and clutter.
- Some more USB3 ports would be nice, since ingest from media based cameras can benefit greatly from a USB3 port.
As to FW 800 is pretty much dead and pointless. I would rather see TI chipset 400. Via works ok for many things but not all.
What controller from LSI? FW? I prefer Siig for FW, but at the same time love LSI Raid.
glad to see Asus (or you) taking a proactive look, particularly in a market that is so small for you.
Funny I should see this post immediately after browsing your website for M/Bs with Thunderbolt tech. My answer is YES- still provide Firewire - at least the 400 variety.
I still have hookups to DV cameras, DVD recorders and other devices )canopus, etc.). At least put the pins on the M/B, but still prefer having an outboard slot and inboard pin set available.( Intel is still provifing Firewire on most new 77 and 79 series boards.)
We build lots of systems for editors and animators and we use Asus motherboards in all of them.
My answer: Yes, there is still a need for Firewire. I would much rather see it onboard than wasting a PCIe slot.
And I would rather have TI firewire that works with everything.. onboard preferably but Asus wont do that so.. add on in the right way
The Problems with different Firewire controllers that I have spoke to Intel board engineers about when they asked the same question have to do with C-State functions/sets in the firmware of the controller. The Firewire controller chips such as J-Micron, Via, LSI, and others run very aggressive C-state changes that throttle bandwidth hence the many Pro Audio device and HDV Deck compatibility issues. TI however has not by default included bandwidth throttling in their Firewire firmware by default. The onboard TI FireWire controllers have shown bandwidth throttling based on the ACPI/C-State sets used by the motherboard manufacturers in the bios/UEFI coding. If you are going to look at the continued inclusion of Firewire then these bandwidth throttling states have to be removed from the controller firmware and the bios/uefi code since that inherently removes the reason to still require the connectivity. LSI is definitely not a controller you want to look at. Intel used those for a short time on certain boards and the compatibility was horrible once again due to the throttling. TI seems to give the systemboard manufacturers the cleanest control regarding C-States so that is the way you want to go if you are serious about including a usable interface with today's hardware. Firewire 800 is not truely supported in Windows 7 and on average you only see about a 5MB/s increase in bandwidth over FW400. Since Microsoft has taken a position that 1394 is legacy, I would not even bother concerning yourself with the FW800 standard.
As a side note to the XMP comments, I have stated before the Ram manufacturers are using DDR3 2000+ modules for the most part with the LV ram. Since the bandwidth is so high on X79, low latency ram even in the DDR3 1600 realm at standard voltage is asking for trouble with ram compatibility on the board with the current memory controllers used in the SB-E chips. The lower the latency on the ram, the more voltage regulation can cause issues with the ram used. I would highly suggest you stay away from ram below CL9 rating on this platform regardless of the speed. The Ram bandwidth on X79 is over 35GB/s a sec. A few clock cycles on ram instructions is not going to effect that much if at all.
And that, my friends is one reason why I chose Eric to build my PC. I didn't understand much of that, but I know he does.
Thanks for the feedback.
Overall the discussion on the LSI 800 choice is based on 2 factors.
1. Is that it is a native PCIe express solution so it would offer faster performance with reduced latency and a one less transmission hop. ( PCI solutions ) would require a PCI controller to be put on the board along with the PCI firewire controller. While these are generally mature and implementation should not be an issue it can slightly reduce performance and in some rare situations cause latency and timing issues.
2. For some of the external enclosure available on the market 800 could be an improvement for disk storage needs. Although when compared to USB3 there is of course no competition.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
Thanks appreciate the kudos. We have always actually monitored the community and over the last 4 years taken to spend more time in direct discussion with the community to ensure the best incorporation of feedback into our products. As for us our WS division and as a whole content creation are actually a large market for us especially when considering our system integrators. With that note we hope to continue to support and show the content creation community the benefits of the the DIY platform and flexibility and performance of components.
Thanks again for the feedback and support.
Please enjoy the rest of your day!
Thank you for your feedback.
In regards to the controllers and aspects of optionrom and cstate management you are correct. This can be a complex process at ensuring the best functionality, compatibility and overall interoperability for a controller when implemented. In this respect we do take considerable time though to ensure functionality. Depending if we do maintain the spec implementation it may be worth looking into secondary validation process to ensure that lab analysis functionality corresponds to end user " it works ".
In regards to comments on voltage you are correct if you can ensure less voltage is supplied to the IMC the better. In this respect though XMP generally fails as many vendors increase XMP applied values for the IMC to ensure "greater compatibility" while this can help lower quality boards that have poor trace layouts and poorly tuned MRC code case along with other DRAM implementation considerations it does not helps vendors like us. ASUS spends extensive time to support a wide number of high density and high frequency memory configurations that include full population. In many cases we do not need the high increase voltages applied by XMP tables.
In these cases the user is better off setting the timings manually by the recommend XMP values and then leaving voltages ( outside of primary DRAM voltage to AUTO ). In addition Intel has only qualified 1600 on SandyBridgeE they have not qualified the IMC for greater speeds in any respect while the memory controller supports dividers that can operate at that speed ( and many do ) their is no assurance or validation. This is also why no board had auto enable speeds greater than 1600 as the base jedec/spd for most modules are coded at 1333 ( which some finally being 1600 ). In regards to your commentary on low latency causing issues this is not an accurate statement confirmed by Intel's MRC team or our RD team. The only situation that would be a negative for the board would be if a user used a high voltage input for the IMC and DRAM to achieve the low latency. If achieved at default operating voltages ( which for most modules is now 1.5 or 1.65 with some being lower now but not generally qualified or validated there is not issue )
You feedback and insight though is sincerely appreciated. Individuals such as yourself that bring knowledge to communities such as this should be sincerely appreciated.
Please enjoy the rest of your day.
Actually regardless of the response from the RD teams my comments are accurate and are how I am able to manually time out ram that does not work for paid support clients when the XMP will not. I have often spoke to the Ram engineers I deal with in TW and that is how they deal with fluctuating grades with the chips themselves. The engineer explained to me the voltage level variance and the effects on the modules latency. Any time the XMP does not work which is often because the timings are to aggressive, manually timing them out to jedec spec at 1333 or even 1600 resolves that. If you disable the XMP and manually set the Primary timings to the rated value as you suggest above, the sub timings will still remain at the default profile detected by the board which with most ram is jedec spec. The compatibility issues we have seen with ram at lower latency have been the sub timings and those seem to be the most effected by voltage regulation as confirmed by the ram engineer I speak to from TW often. If people decide to run low latency then that is up to them, however I would not recommend it right now with the chips used in the market at the current pricing. If the ram manufacturers can find a greater pricing structure/margin to work with per piece then this may change. Right now the market pressures have pushed the pricing to low for higher grade chips on the majority of ram modules.
I just built a new PC for editing on Premiere CS6.
I chose the motherboard ASUS P9X79 Pro because it was recommended. I knew it was without onboard Firewire, but I thought I'd move the old Firewire card I have in my old computer.
Of course, when I removed it, I realized that it was of the old regular PCI type, while the ASUS P9X79 Pro only has PCIe 3.0 and PCI Express 2.0.
I stumbled onto this conversation in my search for whether PCIe 1.0 cards will fit into the PCIe 2.0 slot. (All Firewire cards I've come across so far are PCIe 1.0.)
Does anyone know if the PCIe 1.0. cards will fit in the PCIe 2.0 slot?
The connector size LOOK the same.
Look for pci e/ sata convreter card. I got one with 4sata inputs and firewire
Check out these
Startech 2-port Pci-e Firewire 400 Adapter Card W/digital Video Editing (pex1394a2dv) (PEX1394A2DV
Syba (Best Connectivity) Low Profile PCI-Express 1394b/1394a (2B1A) Card with Regular Bracket, TI Chipset (SD-PEX30009)
SIIG DP FireWire 2-Ports PCIe (NN-E20012-S2)
I found the concrete answer to my own question.
Thought I'd post it here, in case someone else bumps into this thread for the same reasons I did.
- - - - -
"PCIe 2.0 motherboard slots are fully backward compatible with PCIe v1.x cards. PCIe 2.0 cards are also generally backward compatible with PCIe 1.x motherboards, using the available bandwidth of PCI Express 1.1. Overall, graphic cards or motherboards designed for v2.0 will work with the other being v1.1 or v1.0a."
"PCIe 2.0 is 100% backward compatible. Any PCIe 1.x card should work in any PCIe 2.0 motherboard. The link will have to clock down to the slower PCIe 1.x speed. But since that is as fast as the card is designed to communicate anyway, no performance will be lost."
Thank you & so long!
For music production it is vital that i have firewire due to my MOTU audio interface. I am very happy with it and do not need to replace it.
Only 2 weeks ago i updated my pc and brought the ASUS Sabretooth X79 specifically because it had a firewire port as opposed to other MB's in the same range that didn't.
Interesting thanks for the feedback on your purchase consideration.
Enjoy the rest of your day!