In 2003 SATA did 150MB/s and PCIe x1 did 250MB/s. In 2004 SATA did 300MB/s. In 2007 PCIe x1 did 500MB/s. In 2008 SATA did 600MB/s. In 2010 PCIe did 1GB/s.
The only reason SATA fell behind on a per-lane basis is because they stopped updating it.
PCIe has no special sauce for running faster, just more lanes. It's taking over drives, but mostly for other reasons.
DVI was replaced by HDMI. HDMI 2.1, which came out in 2017, is about 2/3 as fast per lane as PCIe gen4, which also came out in 2017. For an external passive cable that's really good.
USB 3.1 jumped to 1.2GB/s in 2013, which means it was faster than PCIe for four years. And USB4 is twice that speed per lane, making it faster than PCIe gen4.
So the constraining factor is not the type of signalling, it's the number of wires and transceivers. You can make anything go faster with more wires, but that's expensive.
The only reason SATA fell behind on a per-lane basis is because they stopped updating it.
PCIe has no special sauce for running faster, just more lanes. It's taking over drives, but mostly for other reasons.
DVI was replaced by HDMI. HDMI 2.1, which came out in 2017, is about 2/3 as fast per lane as PCIe gen4, which also came out in 2017. For an external passive cable that's really good.
USB 3.1 jumped to 1.2GB/s in 2013, which means it was faster than PCIe for four years. And USB4 is twice that speed per lane, making it faster than PCIe gen4.
So the constraining factor is not the type of signalling, it's the number of wires and transceivers. You can make anything go faster with more wires, but that's expensive.