No, it means the graphics in the 13" MacBook Pro suck and can't drive two external displays. It doesn't have anything to do with the Thunderbolt chip being smaller.
Why does everything suck with you? The graphics happen to be decent in the 13 inch MBP.
What is the point of adding a TB port to the iPhone? It feels a bit like adding a turbo-charger to your bicycle because your car has one.
Why would Apple want to replace the dock connector with a thicker plug? Right now the speed of the iPhone processor and flash storage is the limiting factor (plus the inefficiency of iTunes), not USB 2.
I never said to replace the 30-pin dock connector with a TB port interface. I clearly stated "TB chip" implying faster data rates than currently offered over USB 2.0.
Quote:
One 27" display is 2.25 m pixels, each with 24 bit of colour, add a refresh rate of 75 Hz and you get: 4 Gbit/s. If a 2x channel is 40 Gbit/s, you could run 10 displays. Or what am I overlooking here?
I never said to replace the 30-pin dock connector with a TB port interface.
And who really believes that Apple won't be making the 30-pin connector eventually carry Thunderbolt data in the near future? We'll soon see a 30-pin Dock Connector to branched USB & Thunderbolt cable, just like the old-timey FireWire 400 & USB branched cables.
And who really believes that Apple won't be making the 30-pin connector eventually carry Thunderbolt data in the near future? We'll soon see a 30-pin Dock Connector to branched USB & Thunderbolt cable, just like the old-timey FireWire 400 & USB branched cables.
The only question I have is: Will they be able to work with the current Dock connector design or will they change up the dock design they've been using for a decade?
What is the point of adding a TB port to the iPhone? It feels a bit like adding a turbo-charger to your bicycle because your car has one.
Why would Apple want to replace the dock connector with a thicker plug? Right now the speed of the iPhone processor and flash storage is the limiting factor (plus the inefficiency of iTunes), not USB 2.
One 27" display is 2.25 m pixels, each with 24 bit of colour, add a refresh rate of 75 Hz and you get: 4 Gbit/s. If a 2x channel is 40 Gbit/s, you could run 10 displays. Or what am I overlooking here?
DisplayPort is a separate interface on the same cable. You can't actually drive up to the bandwidth limits. It depends on how many display port interfaces are implemented on the host. I'm pretty sure there is also a maximum of two because thunderbolt has two full-duplex channels and only one can be put on each channel. I think you mean 4x channel above too.
This limit could be exceeded up to available bandwidth if you had an external video card though. I don't know of any coming out, but external PCI Express cabinets are coming out soon. You can probably use one to drive a video card. In theory you could drive at least 6 displays (assuming 16X cards) off one port with bandwidth to spare.
The only question I have is: Will they be able to work with the current Dock connector design or will they change up the dock design they've been using for a decade?
I'm confident that they won't have to change it.
Because just IMAGINE what we'd have to go through if they did. Hundreds of millions of accessories, all obsolete. Even VEHICLES with Dock Connectors all useless...
What are the pins that were carrying FireWire doing now? Just sitting there? Could put it through those...
Because just IMAGINE what we'd have to go through if they did. Hundreds of millions of accessories, all obsolete. Even VEHICLES with Dock Connectors all useless...
What are the pins that were carrying FireWire doing now? Just sitting there? Could put it through those...
They aren't being used, but when I look at the FireWire pinout and the full TB pinout for data and power there are too many pins to make it work. That said, they don't need to offer the full bandwidth, just something significantly better than they currently offer for data and charging rates with USB 2.0 (and assumed arsekicking of USB 3.0 data rates).
However, If they want to finally switch the design of the Dock Connector to something, say, smaller for the next decade of iDevices the switch to TB-capale iDevices would be a good time to transition. If you look at the iPad 2 the Dock Connector cable feel natural with how thin the device has become. For peripherals a simple adapter from the old-style dock connector to the new-style dock connector could be used.
They aren't being used, but when I look at the FireWire pinout and the full TB pinout for data and power there are too many pins to make it work.
Well, they could do the full bandwidth and just drop the USB pins. Thunderbolt is backwards compatible, after all; just have the USB port on the branch exist through the Thunderbolt pinning.
Quote:
However, If they want to finally switch the design of the Dock Connector to something, say, smaller for the next decade of iDevices the switch to TB-capale iDevices would be a good time to transition. If you look at the iPad 2 the Dock Connector cable feel natural with how thin the device has become. For peripherals a simple adapter from the old-style dock connector to the new-style dock connector could be used.
I'm sure Apple would love to move to a wireless connection for data, as the final models of iPod nano (before the current redesign) were thinner than the casing of the male Dock Connector on the cable, and the newest iPod touches, I'm told, are curved in such a way that the connector itself is seen when fully plugged in.
When's PoWE (Power over Wireless Ethernet) coming out? We have Wireless Power already and Power over Ethernet, so just combine the two!
The only question I have is: Will they be able to work with the current Dock connector design or will they change up the dock design they've been using for a decade?
It seems like they are just going to go wireless. If the dock remains it will probably just be for accessories and service. It will probably be replaced altogether by Bluetooth 4.0 (optimized for small devices) at some point.
Well, they could do the full bandwidth and just drop the USB pins. Thunderbolt is backwards compatible, after all; just have the USB port on the branch exist through the Thunderbolt pinning.
Hopefully you are right and the TB controller in iDevices can switch to the USB protocol making it simple to use the current Dock Connector cable but I wonder if it's possible in that direction.
Let me restate that... With the ATD (Apple Thunderbolt Display) the connection going out to the Mac is TB and the ports going out to peripherals is varied. With the iPhone getting TB access the the cable going into Macs and non-Mac 'PCs' will have to work with both TB ports and USB ports. That's the opposite direction.
It seems like they are just going to go wireless. If the dock remains it will probably just be for accessories and service. It will probably be replaced altogether by Bluetooth 4.0 (optimized for small devices) at some point.
They have added WiFi, but I don't think it will be replacing the full tethered sync anytime soon. It's just too slow even at 802.11n speeds.
Er... for one thing Video RAM? Not just for the framebuffer but also for textures, antialiasing etc. since a lot of the interface actually uses 3D acceleration and so on.
I was replying to a post about the TB port bandwidth not about graphic card 'bandwidth'. Obviously the graphic card is the limiting factor on the current MBA but it was suggested that the TB chip also was limiting things (via the only 2x bandwidth). This was the part I was not 100% convinced about.
I never said to replace the 30-pin dock connector with a TB port interface. I clearly stated "TB chip" implying faster data rates than currently offered over USB 2.0.
And my point was the that iPhone is still far from using the USB 2 bandwidth, so currently there would be no benefit to switching to TB (or USB 3).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
What am I overlooking here?
Quote:
Yes.
I am not sure what the answer 'yes' to a 'what' question means.
DisplayPort is a separate interface on the same cable. You can't actually drive up to the bandwidth limits. It depends on how many display port interfaces are implemented on the host. I'm pretty sure there is also a maximum of two because thunderbolt has two full-duplex channels and only one can be put on each channel. I think you mean 4x channel above too.
This limit could be exceeded up to available bandwidth if you had an external video card though. I don't know of any coming out, but external PCI Express cabinets are coming out soon. You can probably use one to drive a video card. In theory you could drive at least 6 displays (assuming 16X cards) off one port with bandwidth to spare.
I understand that the MBA TB chip only implements one DP signal meaning only one non-TB DP displays can be connected (remember to a DP device the TB port looks like a standard DP port). But once you have a proper TB display (which the new 27" is), the DP signalling is not used anymore, the DP signal is encapsulated into one of the TB channels.
Why? There's no point in faster NAND chips unless the transfer cable can move the data.
The maximum transfer rates I am seeing with my iPad (which for some reason is faster than my iPhone) are about 16 MB/s or 50% of the real-life maximum USB 2 speed. There would be a point in faster NAND chips if Apple put transfer speed on their priority list. But they don't. It is clear that current storage speed is governed by cost, heat and space considerations, not by the interface.
Comments
No, it means the graphics in the 13" MacBook Pro suck and can't drive two external displays. It doesn't have anything to do with the Thunderbolt chip being smaller.
Why does everything suck with you? The graphics happen to be decent in the 13 inch MBP.
Why does everything suck with you? The graphics happen to be decent in the 13 inch MBP.
Yes, we know you have one. The truth of the matter is, Intel integrated graphics suck for all purposes outside just displaying an OS on the screen.
What is the point of adding a TB port to the iPhone? It feels a bit like adding a turbo-charger to your bicycle because your car has one.
Why would Apple want to replace the dock connector with a thicker plug? Right now the speed of the iPhone processor and flash storage is the limiting factor (plus the inefficiency of iTunes), not USB 2.
I never said to replace the 30-pin dock connector with a TB port interface. I clearly stated "TB chip" implying faster data rates than currently offered over USB 2.0.
One 27" display is 2.25 m pixels, each with 24 bit of colour, add a refresh rate of 75 Hz and you get: 4 Gbit/s. If a 2x channel is 40 Gbit/s, you could run 10 displays. Or what am I overlooking here?
Yes.
I never said to replace the 30-pin dock connector with a TB port interface.
And who really believes that Apple won't be making the 30-pin connector eventually carry Thunderbolt data in the near future? We'll soon see a 30-pin Dock Connector to branched USB & Thunderbolt cable, just like the old-timey FireWire 400 & USB branched cables.
And who really believes that Apple won't be making the 30-pin connector eventually carry Thunderbolt data in the near future? We'll soon see a 30-pin Dock Connector to branched USB & Thunderbolt cable, just like the old-timey FireWire 400 & USB branched cables.
The only question I have is: Will they be able to work with the current Dock connector design or will they change up the dock design they've been using for a decade?
What is the point of adding a TB port to the iPhone? It feels a bit like adding a turbo-charger to your bicycle because your car has one.
Why would Apple want to replace the dock connector with a thicker plug? Right now the speed of the iPhone processor and flash storage is the limiting factor (plus the inefficiency of iTunes), not USB 2.
One 27" display is 2.25 m pixels, each with 24 bit of colour, add a refresh rate of 75 Hz and you get: 4 Gbit/s. If a 2x channel is 40 Gbit/s, you could run 10 displays. Or what am I overlooking here?
DisplayPort is a separate interface on the same cable. You can't actually drive up to the bandwidth limits. It depends on how many display port interfaces are implemented on the host. I'm pretty sure there is also a maximum of two because thunderbolt has two full-duplex channels and only one can be put on each channel. I think you mean 4x channel above too.
This limit could be exceeded up to available bandwidth if you had an external video card though. I don't know of any coming out, but external PCI Express cabinets are coming out soon. You can probably use one to drive a video card. In theory you could drive at least 6 displays (assuming 16X cards) off one port with bandwidth to spare.
The only question I have is: Will they be able to work with the current Dock connector design or will they change up the dock design they've been using for a decade?
I'm confident that they won't have to change it.
Because just IMAGINE what we'd have to go through if they did. Hundreds of millions of accessories, all obsolete. Even VEHICLES with Dock Connectors all useless...
What are the pins that were carrying FireWire doing now? Just sitting there? Could put it through those...
I'm confident that they won't have to change it.
Because just IMAGINE what we'd have to go through if they did. Hundreds of millions of accessories, all obsolete. Even VEHICLES with Dock Connectors all useless...
What are the pins that were carrying FireWire doing now? Just sitting there? Could put it through those...
They aren't being used, but when I look at the FireWire pinout and the full TB pinout for data and power there are too many pins to make it work. That said, they don't need to offer the full bandwidth, just something significantly better than they currently offer for data and charging rates with USB 2.0 (and assumed arsekicking of USB 3.0 data rates).
However, If they want to finally switch the design of the Dock Connector to something, say, smaller for the next decade of iDevices the switch to TB-capale iDevices would be a good time to transition. If you look at the iPad 2 the Dock Connector cable feel natural with how thin the device has become. For peripherals a simple adapter from the old-style dock connector to the new-style dock connector could be used.
They aren't being used, but when I look at the FireWire pinout and the full TB pinout for data and power there are too many pins to make it work.
Well, they could do the full bandwidth and just drop the USB pins. Thunderbolt is backwards compatible, after all; just have the USB port on the branch exist through the Thunderbolt pinning.
However, If they want to finally switch the design of the Dock Connector to something, say, smaller for the next decade of iDevices the switch to TB-capale iDevices would be a good time to transition. If you look at the iPad 2 the Dock Connector cable feel natural with how thin the device has become. For peripherals a simple adapter from the old-style dock connector to the new-style dock connector could be used.
I'm sure Apple would love to move to a wireless connection for data, as the final models of iPod nano (before the current redesign) were thinner than the casing of the male Dock Connector on the cable, and the newest iPod touches, I'm told, are curved in such a way that the connector itself is seen when fully plugged in.
When's PoWE (Power over Wireless Ethernet) coming out? We have Wireless Power already and Power over Ethernet, so just combine the two!
The only question I have is: Will they be able to work with the current Dock connector design or will they change up the dock design they've been using for a decade?
It seems like they are just going to go wireless. If the dock remains it will probably just be for accessories and service. It will probably be replaced altogether by Bluetooth 4.0 (optimized for small devices) at some point.
Well, they could do the full bandwidth and just drop the USB pins. Thunderbolt is backwards compatible, after all; just have the USB port on the branch exist through the Thunderbolt pinning.
Hopefully you are right and the TB controller in iDevices can switch to the USB protocol making it simple to use the current Dock Connector cable but I wonder if it's possible in that direction.
Let me restate that... With the ATD (Apple Thunderbolt Display) the connection going out to the Mac is TB and the ports going out to peripherals is varied. With the iPhone getting TB access the the cable going into Macs and non-Mac 'PCs' will have to work with both TB ports and USB ports. That's the opposite direction.
It seems like they are just going to go wireless. If the dock remains it will probably just be for accessories and service. It will probably be replaced altogether by Bluetooth 4.0 (optimized for small devices) at some point.
They have added WiFi, but I don't think it will be replacing the full tethered sync anytime soon. It's just too slow even at 802.11n speeds.
Er... for one thing Video RAM? Not just for the framebuffer but also for textures, antialiasing etc. since a lot of the interface actually uses 3D acceleration and so on.
I was replying to a post about the TB port bandwidth not about graphic card 'bandwidth'. Obviously the graphic card is the limiting factor on the current MBA but it was suggested that the TB chip also was limiting things (via the only 2x bandwidth). This was the part I was not 100% convinced about.
I never said to replace the 30-pin dock connector with a TB port interface. I clearly stated "TB chip" implying faster data rates than currently offered over USB 2.0.
And my point was the that iPhone is still far from using the USB 2 bandwidth, so currently there would be no benefit to switching to TB (or USB 3).
What am I overlooking here?
Yes.
I am not sure what the answer 'yes' to a 'what' question means.
And my point was the that iPhone is still far from using the USB 2 bandwidth, so currently there would be no benefit to switching to TB (or USB 3).
Why? There's no point in faster NAND chips unless the transfer cable can move the data.
Thunderbolt's a natural progression, regardless of if USB 2 has been saturated.
DisplayPort is a separate interface on the same cable. You can't actually drive up to the bandwidth limits. It depends on how many display port interfaces are implemented on the host. I'm pretty sure there is also a maximum of two because thunderbolt has two full-duplex channels and only one can be put on each channel. I think you mean 4x channel above too.
This limit could be exceeded up to available bandwidth if you had an external video card though. I don't know of any coming out, but external PCI Express cabinets are coming out soon. You can probably use one to drive a video card. In theory you could drive at least 6 displays (assuming 16X cards) off one port with bandwidth to spare.
I understand that the MBA TB chip only implements one DP signal meaning only one non-TB DP displays can be connected (remember to a DP device the TB port looks like a standard DP port). But once you have a proper TB display (which the new 27" is), the DP signalling is not used anymore, the DP signal is encapsulated into one of the TB channels.
Why? There's no point in faster NAND chips unless the transfer cable can move the data.
The maximum transfer rates I am seeing with my iPad (which for some reason is faster than my iPhone) are about 16 MB/s or 50% of the real-life maximum USB 2 speed. There would be a point in faster NAND chips if Apple put transfer speed on their priority list. But they don't. It is clear that current storage speed is governed by cost, heat and space considerations, not by the interface.
Jk, if I did buy a MBA and was crazy enough to get the Thunderbolt monitor, I would never be able to get a second monitor anyways
I would have been happier if we got a GPU rather than thunderbolt, but then the air would be more powerful than the pro.
I would have been happier if we got a GPU rather than thunderbolt, but then the air would be more powerful than the pro.
Well, no, but then again, it couldn't have received a better GPU, anyway.