Intel's next-gen Thunderbolt rumored to hit 40Gbps transfer speeds with new connector

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 107
    bacarrbacarr Posts: 4member

    Quote:
    Originally posted by konquerror

    100% of all Apple laptops, given the max power brick is 85 W.
    And with that, the Thunderbolt display as docking station becomes even more elegant.
  • Reply 22 of 107
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,113member
    I'm just going to say what most everyone is likely thinking.

    Screw your stupid thunderbolt connector, your stupid expensive technology that mostly no one uses, that is going to change connectors yet again and then likely be bested or "good enough"ed by USB4. Stop wasting your time developing a standard that no one wants to implement.

    Better sucks if it costs too much or just isn't available.

    Ahhhhhhh. Now. How's that FireWire 1600 or 3200 coming along?
  • Reply 23 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    There is a difference. USB 2.0 can plug into USB 3.0 ports so it's physically backwards compatible. This will be electronically backwards compatible, like FW400 and FW800, but the port will need an adapter to work. It's unfortunately, but not a deal breaker, especially considering what's it's used for and the length of time between the original port the when the new port will reasonably find its way to Macs. We've had display adapter changes that were much more frequent.

     

    Okay, so with this new whatever, Thunderbolt will be able to carry power, video, audio, and generic data across it, correct?

     

    *sigh* I guess I’m okay with it, then. Because NOW we won’t need another port change. Ever.

  • Reply 24 of 107
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    1) What can 100W reasonably power?
    100 watts is a lot of power. Consider some of the following:
    1. a 100 watt light build is a pretty huge light bulb. The common size (back in the old days) was a 60 watt bulb.
    2. a very large number of laptop power supplies run in the 65 - 85 watt size.
    3. there is 740 watts in a horse power so this would be about 1/7 horse power.
    4. SSD's can idle in the .3 to 10 watt range, you could power a whole solid state disk array from this port.
    5. You could reasonably power a LCD display or TV off 100 watts. I suspect this is a real goal as you could run one cable to a display to support the display, USB ports for input devices and maybe even a port for a USB based CDROM drive.
    6. AMD's newest Jaguar cores run at 25 watts so if you add a memory and the few support chips required you could run an entire computer off one of these ports.
    7. a 100 watt soldering iron is one big iron! In the electronics world you would likely be using a 35 watt iron.

    In any event a boring list and frankly it does make you wonder what the rational behind 100 watts is. I'm leaning towards the idea that they want to run the computers LCD display with a single cable.

    2) Is this 20Gib/s in each direction with an aggregate of 40GiB/s or 40Gib/s in each direction with an aggregate of 40Gib/s?

    Wouldn't that last one be 80Bb/s aggregate?

    Either way it would be a considerable step forward if they can get this ready by 2015. Of course for the Mac Pro we would need a new CPU chip set to really keep up properly. The other problem becomes how does a Mac Pro even come close to supplying 100 watts per port? Even if the power is limited to 100 watts per controller that would still be 300 watts of power. Makes you wonder is Apple will adopt the full spec.
  • Reply 25 of 107
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Okay, so with this new whatever, Thunderbolt will be able to carry power, video, audio, and generic data across it, correct?

    *sigh* I guess I’m okay with it, then. Because NOW we won’t need another port change. Ever.

    Hopefully not. The FW400 port interface was a pro choice because they didn't make it future-fowward enough, but TB might the alright we're talking 4-6 years before we start seeing it in Apple products. Remember when Apple changed display connectors every couple years? This is the display connector which just happens to do a bunch of other cool stuff, isn't replacing USB, and any devices you have with the then old connector will work with an adapter.

    wizard69 wrote: »
    Wouldn't that last one be 80Bb/s aggregate?

    Perhaps I worded that incorrectly.

    TB2 is 20Gib/s in either direction but the total for both directions is still only 20Gib/s. TB1 was 10GiB in each direction but an aggregate of 20Gib/s. I'm wondering if the TB3(?) will use the same "lane reversal" as TB2 or go back to the strict paths of TB1.
  • Reply 26 of 107
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,719member
    GrangerFX wrote: »
    Yes of course I understand why the cables are so expensive.
    Apparently you don't!!!
    That is why Thunderbolt is an impractical design. I was at the IDF show when Intel first showed off Thunderbolt. Back then the plug looked like a standard USB but it carried an optical cable. There was no expensive processor on each end of the cable.
    The so called processor, matches the port to the cable which in effect is a transmission line. By putting the chip in the cable it allows for low cost ports that can easily support both copper and fiber optic lines.
    Unfortunately the design was broken so they had to hack together the processors in both connectors of a copper cable.
    It isn't a hack it is innovation!!!???????? Pretty smart innovation and frankly follows techniques used in some data centers. It really is advanced technology moved into the consumer space.
    Ask yourself why those processors could not have been in the plugs instead of the cable connectors? Why doesn't USB 3 or 3.1 need processors in its cables?

    Really it is simple. This approach allows the use of either optical or copper cable as the use demands. Beyond that the chip can be tailored to the specifics of the copper cable. Moving data along at the rates these chips operate at is not childs play, it takes real engineering that frankly is pretty advanced technology.
  • Reply 27 of 107
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Apparently you don't!!!
    The so called processor, matches the port to the cable which in effect is a transmission line. By putting the chip in the cable it allows for low cost ports
    Boy, that's really worked out well.
  • Reply 28 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

    Boy, that's really worked out well.

     

    Do you have evidence to suggest it hasn’t? What’s the per unit cost for a Thunderbolt port?

  • Reply 29 of 107
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Boy, that's really worked out well.

    Relatively speaking it is.

    Check out this 2-port 16Gibps fibre channel over PCIe: http://www.amazon.com/Brocade-1860-Fabric-Adapter-transceiver/dp/B00JQM6688/
  • Reply 30 of 107
    Do you have evidence to suggest it hasn’t?
    The fact that almost all Thunderbolt devices are priced right out of the market, being so expensive that they make FireWire look cheap?

    The fact that Thunderbolt's daisy-chaining feature is all but destroyed, since the most popular device controller is the cheaper one with only 1 port on it?
  • Reply 31 of 107
    ksecksec Posts: 1,551member

    We have always knew Next Gen TB will get double the speed with PCI-E 4.0, but the confirmation of using Skylake basically means there wont be PCI-E 4.0 on Broadwell Xeon.

     

    And what's the big deal about backward compatibility? Getting a thinner connector with faster speed and 100W power delivery is a major innovation. One that i hope will be future proof when 4K is mainstream and the pros moving to 8K.

     

    The only thing i want is rather this come sooner rather then later.

  • Reply 32 of 107
    Yea all these 2160P (4K) HDTVs and content needs are driving a new wave of technologies... Still haven't heard a peep from Apple about H.265 (HEVC) support in OS X...
  • Reply 33 of 107
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Still haven't heard a peep from Apple about H.265 (HEVC) support in OS X...

    And you won't until they can offer a HW option to make the decoding (and possibly encoding) easier on your system.
  • Reply 34 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

    The fact that almost all Thunderbolt devices are priced right out of the market

     

    Sounds far more like you’re just not in the market.

     

    …since the most popular device controller is the cheaper one with only 1 port on it? 


     

    This needs to be disallowed under penalty of revocation of certification. People aren’t stupid, as much as some of them would have us believe. If you want daisy chaining, you’ll buy the products that actually daisy chain. It’s pretty simple to get.

  • Reply 35 of 107
    Sounds far more like you’re just not in the market.
    How typical for you. All personal attacks, no actual substance.

    How well have TB devices been selling lately?
    This needs to be disallowed under penalty of revocation of certification. People aren’t stupid, as much as some of them would have us believe.
    Intel sells controllers that drive just 1 port. It's intended behavior. Do you think they're going to revoke their own certification?

    For Thunderbolt 2, for example, Intel sells two controllers. One drives two ports and is more expensive. The other one drives one port and is (relatively, of course) cheaper. The second one is, naturally, the most popular, since it makes devices only crazy expensive instead of super-turbo-atomic-insane expensive.

    Using Thunderbolt is supposed to make it impossible for you to have an external monitor. It's nuts, but that's how they designed it. There's no way to set up a star topology, either.
    If you want daisy chaining, you’ll buy the products that actually daisy chain. It’s pretty simple to get.
    If you're in the market for Thunderbolt devices, and you've never come across a Thunderbolt product that looked like what you needed, but had only one port on it without any two-port equivalent, frankly, I don't believe you.
  • Reply 36 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

    How typical for you. All personal attacks, no actual substance.

     

    YEP! It’s a personal attack to suggest that something isn’t designed to meet your needs.

     

    Intel sells controllers that drive just 1 port.


     

    Doesn’t matter unless they sell accessories that only have one port.

     

    It's intended behavior.


     

    Sounds like daisy chaining is the intended behavior. No, wait, sounds like using the product how it suits the user is the intended behavior. But daisy chaining should be on all external boxes.

     

    Using Thunderbolt is supposed to make it impossible for you to have an external monitor.


     

    YEAH. That sure explains why Apple explicitly makes a Thunderbolt Display.

  • Reply 37 of 107
    YEP! It’s a personal attack to suggest that something isn’t designed to meet your needs.
    Here's a hint: was this discussion about my personal needs, or was it about the viability of Thunderbolt as a standard? Are those the same discussion?
    Doesn’t matter unless they sell accessories that only have one port.
    WTF? Intel doesn't sell Thunderbolt accessories. They do sell the chips that you put into Thunderbolt accessories. And they specifically sell one whose purpose is to let you make accessories with only one port in them. I'm not sure how much more explicit I can get than that. It used to be called "Port Ridge" but now it goes by a plain old model number, and it's a really popular (well, relative to Thunderbolt as a standard) controller.
    Sounds like daisy chaining is the intended behavior. No, wait, sounds like using the product how it suits the user is the intended behavior. But daisy chaining should be on all external boxes.
    If that were intended, Intel wouldn't sell a chipset for use in external boxes that have only one port.

    If I'm trying to prohibit you from doing X, selling you a chipset that's explicitly meant to allow you to do X would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

    1000
    YEAH. That sure explains why Apple explicitly makes a Thunderbolt Display.
    Because no one would ever want to buy a display other than Apple's. No one ever would want a 4K monitor, for instance. Or would want to avoid spending hundreds on a TB dock with shitty USB 2.0 ports on it. Or would want to buy a monitor that will still be usable after TB dies.
  • Reply 38 of 107
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    WTF? Intel doesn't sell Thunderbolt accessories. They do sell the chips that you put into Thunderbolt accessories. And they specifically sell one for putting into accessories with only one port in them. I'm not sure how much more explicit I can get than that. It used to be called "Port Ridge" but now it goes by a plain old model number, and it's a really popular (well, relative to Thunderbolt as a standard) controller.

    A daisy chain will always have two ends and those ends don't need to have two ports that are connected. In fact, I don't think Macs can be in the middle of any chain. This means that one TB controller can be perfectly find for many uses, including peripherals as it can help reduce cost on certain products The chipset doesn't mean it can't have multiple chips in a product. If you find a vendor is too limiting then chose another vendor. If you need something more extensive for the daisy chaining of multiple TB devices you can choose to buy those. As always it's up to the buyer to choose what is going to suit their needs best.
  • Reply 39 of 107
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post

    Here's a hint: was this discussion about my personal needs, or was it about the viability of Thunderbolt as a standard?

     

    Your personal needs. Don’t you dare even try to question that.

     

    WTF? Intel doesn't sell Thunderbolt accessories. 


     

    So your point is meaningless and has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.

     

    Because no one would ever want to buy a display other than Apple's. 


     

    Thanks for moving the goalposts. Anything else you want to pretend you didn’t initially claim?

  • Reply 40 of 107
    solipsismx wrote: »
    A daisy chain will always have two ends and those ends don't need to have two ports that are connected. In fact, I don't think Macs can be in the middle of any chain. This means that one TB controller can be perfectly find for many uses, including peripherals as it can help reduce cost on certain products
    That would be one thing if TB didn't double as the display port, or if TB supported a star topology. But as it is, connecting most TB devices permanently blocks you from ever connecting a display (barring Apple's incredibly outdated and expensive one) without throwing away your incredibly expensive TB device. The single chipset reduces the cost, but not nearly by enough.
    The chipset doesn't mean it can't have multiple chips in a product.
    The idea that anyone would put two of the extremely expensive TB chips in a product when they could just use the dual chipset is insane.
    If you find a vendor is too limiting then chose another vendor. If you need something more extensive for the daisy chaining of multiple TB devices you can choose to buy those. As always it's up to the buyer to choose what is going to suit their needs best.
    Really. Can you find a two-port equivalent of the Echo ExpressCard adapter? I'd be extremely impressed.

    Too esoteric for you? Okay, let's look for the most basic of devices — a single-bay bare Thunderbolt dock with two ports on it. I found this and this and this and this and this. What do they all have in common? Only one port. Meaning of course, that you can't get any of them if you want to have a monitor.

    This kind of problem never happened with FireWire. The only FW devices I ever saw with only one port were camcorders, which were never devices you'd permanently attach to your computer. Everything else always had the two ports, and even if they hadn't, it wouldn't have mattered, because FireWire actually had hubs and didn't tie up your display port. It was also a lot cheaper than TB is, but so is everything.
Sign In or Register to comment.