Originally Posted by dukeReinhardt
The 3.0 standard is fully backwards compatible so the only reason a 3.0 port would be laggier than a 2.0 port is if it's a 3.0 port on a third party controller - and there are many of those out there. Any Sandybridge mobo with 3.0 ports, or any Ivy mobo with more than four ports, or Haswell with more than six ports use third party.
I was talking about how it is now on my and other people's chipsets that noticed the delay from it.
only reason a 3.0 port would be laggier than a 2.0 port is if it's a 3.0 port on a third party controller
And those are best-case numbers on the best consumer chipsets. There isn't even one LGA 2011 chipset with native 3.0 support.
So your saying that very few boards actually have non third party controller?
Without a doubt, USB 3.0 is the best current interface for KB and Mice
Will be when kb and mice will use it. Right now theres lots of 3rd party controllers as even you said, so its worse than 2.0, because of the delay from 3rd party controller =D
No mice "use" 3.0 because no mice are 3.0 - both mouse and port need to be 3.0.
Why did you say this I dont even know.
Developers don't need to make "better drivers" since 3.0 drivers are packaged in Windows.
I actually needed driver for usb 3.0. Idk if windows has drivers for 3rd party controllers. And my drivers caused a little bit of delay.
There is no "1000hz" in 3.0 - the standard abandons polling once and for all, apart from for backward compatibility.
I wasnt comparing non existent usb 3.0 mouse with usb 2.0 mouse.Edited by Berserker1 - 7/17/13 at 12:26pm