The main problem I see with adoption is that it is a proprietary Intel option and AMD has come out pretty strongly against it. If only Intel systems have it and AMD never joins up, we'll never see it become as wide spread as it could be.
Seriously doubt that people will accept current offerings when they have the option to switch to 10Gb (soon 100Gb) transfers. AMD will see smaller sales. And good for that.
The main problem I see with adoption is that it is a proprietary Intel option and AMD has come out pretty strongly against it. If only Intel systems have it and AMD never joins up, we'll never see it become as wide spread as it could be.
I wonder, do that many machines come with AMD CPUs? I don't think this will affect Thunderbolt adoption much. In fact, I think AMD machines will sell in lower numbers if Thunderolt takes off and they aren't present on those machines.
The main problem I see with adoption is that it is a proprietary Intel option and AMD has come out pretty strongly against it. If only Intel systems have it and AMD never joins up, we'll never see it become as wide spread as it could be.
AMD doesn't have to join, motherboard and computer manufacturers would need to. The more urgent thing, however, is to get peripherals manufacturers to implement TBolt in devices (more storage, audio/video solutions), or to create new devices using TBolt (hubs, docking stations and else).
On paper, Thunderbolt's 10 gigabits/sec seems like a lot. But:
For people hoping for high performance external graphics cards, what is the bandwidth of a PCI Express x16 slot used by internal desktop graphics cards?
Even for just connecting monitors, Displayport 1.2 supports 17 gigabit/sec.
Is Thunderbolt already underpowered from the start?
It seems incredibly stupid to launch a new standard (Thunderbolt) and then not include it on your flagship product (the iPad)
Beyond that TB to many of the "I" devices would be a waste if they don't speed up access to flash! A fast port to sync with is of little use if you can't write fast enough to make use of the speed.
That being said a TB enhanced iPad would be just the nuts. The new dock connector patent ought to give everyone hope that this will happen soon. One does need to hope though that it isn't simply a display port only port.
On paper, Thunderbolt's 10 gigabits/sec seems like a lot. But:
For people hoping for high performance external graphics cards, what is the bandwidth of a PCI Express x16 slot used by internal desktop graphics cards?
Even for just connecting monitors, Displayport 1.2 supports 17 gigabit/sec.
Is Thunderbolt already underpowered from the start?
No, it is not. You have to put things in perspective. With 2 channels at 10Gb/s, it already has 4x the bandwidth of USB3/SATA III. But bandwidth is just one part of the specs, being based on PCIe, TBolt will offer better sustained rates (than USB3) and very low latency. It just doesn't concern storage, but also real-time applications for audio and video. It's more like FW vs USB, but 12 times faster or more. The goal of TBolt is not to offer external graphics cards. It's clear that for some applications like high performance graphics, RAID, DSP cards, TBolt won't compare to 4x, 8x and 16x PCIe slots available on tower computers/workstations/servers.
Beyond that TB to many of the "I" devices would be a waste if they don't speed up access to flash! A fast port to sync with is of little use if you can't write fast enough to make use of the speed.
That being said a TB enhanced iPad would be just the nuts. The new dock connector patent ought to give everyone hope that this will happen soon. One does need to hope though that it isn't simply a display port only port.
I'm afraid that the article about the patent is mistaken (it has nothing to do with TBolt), as the pins arrangement only describe displayport, USB2 and USB3. Displayport uses up to 4 lanes to offer up to 17Gb/s of bandwidth, dual-lane means up to 8.64Gb/s (DP 1.x), well enough for iDevices. 7 pins for DP is enough for 2 lanes and aux signals.
They did that with Firewire... remember the 1st gen iPod? Until PCs get Thunderbolt, it will fail.
That said, the iPod didn't have the following that it does now. So it may force Thunderbolt into PCs.
It depends on how it's implemented. If, as is possible, it's part of the newly designed 30 pin connector, then it wont need PC support. That's because it would also be able to support USB 2 and 3, according to reports. If it's a separate port, then Apple must either know something about where support for it is going that we don't, which is likely anyway, and they no longer care, because the benefit to them would outweigh the negatives, and costs.
No, it is not. You have to put things in perspective. With 2 channels at 10Gb/s, it already has 4x the bandwidth of USB3/SATA III. But bandwidth is just one part of the specs, being based on PCIe, TBolt will offer better sustained rates (than USB3) and very low latency. It just doesn't concern storage, but also real-time applications for audio and video. It's more like FW vs USB, but 12 times faster or more. The goal of TBolt is not to offer external graphics cards. It's clear that for some applications like high performance graphics, RAID, DSP cards, TBolt won't compare to 4x, 8x and 16x PCIe slots available on tower computers/workstations/servers.
And what about the DisplayPort portion? Apparently, the current version of Thunderbolt does not provide the full bandwidth of the latest DisplayPort standard.
I'm afraid that the article about the patent is mistaken (it has nothing to do with TBolt), as the pins arrangement only describe displayport, USB2 and USB3. Displayport uses up to 4 lanes to offer up to 17Gb/s of bandwidth, dual-lane means up to 8.64Gb/s (DP 1.x), well enough for iDevices. 7 pins for DP is enough for 2 lanes and aux signals.
Don't be so sure. Display port has 7 pins and is used to transmit Tbolt now on the MBP's. There is no reason yet to believe for certain it won't do so here. As Quoted from Patently Apple:
Quote:
Apple has been granted a powerful patent that packs quite the wallop. Somehow they snuck a secret patent application through the system for an all-new high speed connector that will combine at least USB 3.0 and DisplayPort. Although the patent illustrates an iPod as being one of the first to adopt this, the patent clarifies that it's for all future Mac hardware as well.
Notice the "at least"? Apple wouldn't need to put a technology in the patent it hadn't yet decided to add, or hadn't yet finished working on. The patent can always be amended later if required.
And what about the DisplayPort portion? Apparently, the current version of Thunderbolt does not provide the full bandwidth of the latest DisplayPort standard.
That's true it doesn't support DP 1.2, nor does Apple right now, let alone the gpus in the MBPs. But let's not forget that DP 1.2 is for 3840 × 2160 displays, there are very few displays like that on the market. AFAIK, only the latest AMD/ATI desktop HD Radeon 6850 and up, are "ready" for DP 1.2.
I think that TBolt has to be taken more as a multi-purpose port than as top-of-the-line at everything, which it's not. It will offer very good performance for storage/audio/video applications as well as the connection to up to 2 DP 1.1 displays (up to 2560 × 1600). No other port in the world can do that. But PCIe slots offer more bandwidth (& different applications) and some graphics cards (can) support bigger displays.
That's true it doesn't support DP 1.2, nor does Apple right now, let alone the gpus in the MBPs. But let's not forget that DP 1.2 is for 3840 × 2160 displays, there are very few displays like that on the market. AFAIK, only the latest AMD/ATI desktop HD Radeon 6850 and up, are "ready" for DP 1.2.
I think that TBolt has to be taken more as a multi-purpose port than as top-of-the-line at everything, which it's not. It will offer very good performance for storage/audio/video applications as well as the connection to up to 2 DP 1.1 displays (up to 2560 × 1600). No other port in the world can do that. But PCIe slots offer more bandwidth (& different applications) and some graphics cards (can) support bigger displays.
Let's not forget that Tbolt has two channels going each way at once. That's a total of 20Gbs each way. And this is just the first implementation. We know that if the path for this isn't interrupted, it will reach 100Gbs within ten years. As it's being described as 10Gbs now, that could actually mean 200Gbs each way on two channels. That would be fast enough for almost anything. And by that time, they'll figure out a way to have an even faster version, or a new bus.
Comments
To avoid a fiasco like the one with FireWire (which was a great product), Apple should include Thunderbolt in all products. And I mean it. All.
What fiasco? I have it on my Macs and I have it on my drives. Works perfect. I could care less if Dell or HP doesn't use. Seriously, I.don't.care!
The main problem I see with adoption is that it is a proprietary Intel option and AMD has come out pretty strongly against it. If only Intel systems have it and AMD never joins up, we'll never see it become as wide spread as it could be.
Seriously doubt that people will accept current offerings when they have the option to switch to 10Gb (soon 100Gb) transfers. AMD will see smaller sales. And good for that.
The main problem I see with adoption is that it is a proprietary Intel option and AMD has come out pretty strongly against it. If only Intel systems have it and AMD never joins up, we'll never see it become as wide spread as it could be.
I wonder, do that many machines come with AMD CPUs? I don't think this will affect Thunderbolt adoption much. In fact, I think AMD machines will sell in lower numbers if Thunderolt takes off and they aren't present on those machines.
All Macs with at least one Thunderbolt port by the end of 2011?
I'd say so.
I hope so. I'm in the mood for a mini, to play with Lion Server since it's included on the same disk now.
If they put it in iPhone etc then they will need to re-name sync.
I suggest: BlipSync.
Blip! - you're done.
BlitzSync... (Donder und Blitzen)
BlitzSync... (Donder und Blitzen)
Well I was thinking of the old Max Headroom "blipverts", but then again I'm old.
Donder und Blitzen works too.
The main problem I see with adoption is that it is a proprietary Intel option and AMD has come out pretty strongly against it. If only Intel systems have it and AMD never joins up, we'll never see it become as wide spread as it could be.
AMD doesn't have to join, motherboard and computer manufacturers would need to. The more urgent thing, however, is to get peripherals manufacturers to implement TBolt in devices (more storage, audio/video solutions), or to create new devices using TBolt (hubs, docking stations and else).
BlitzSync... (Donder und Blitzen)
BLITZKRIEG BOPSync
For people hoping for high performance external graphics cards, what is the bandwidth of a PCI Express x16 slot used by internal desktop graphics cards?
Even for just connecting monitors, Displayport 1.2 supports 17 gigabit/sec.
Is Thunderbolt already underpowered from the start?
It seems incredibly stupid to launch a new standard (Thunderbolt) and then not include it on your flagship product (the iPad)
Beyond that TB to many of the "I" devices would be a waste if they don't speed up access to flash! A fast port to sync with is of little use if you can't write fast enough to make use of the speed.
That being said a TB enhanced iPad would be just the nuts. The new dock connector patent ought to give everyone hope that this will happen soon. One does need to hope though that it isn't simply a display port only port.
On paper, Thunderbolt's 10 gigabits/sec seems like a lot. But:
For people hoping for high performance external graphics cards, what is the bandwidth of a PCI Express x16 slot used by internal desktop graphics cards?
Even for just connecting monitors, Displayport 1.2 supports 17 gigabit/sec.
Is Thunderbolt already underpowered from the start?
No, it is not. You have to put things in perspective. With 2 channels at 10Gb/s, it already has 4x the bandwidth of USB3/SATA III. But bandwidth is just one part of the specs, being based on PCIe, TBolt will offer better sustained rates (than USB3) and very low latency. It just doesn't concern storage, but also real-time applications for audio and video. It's more like FW vs USB, but 12 times faster or more. The goal of TBolt is not to offer external graphics cards. It's clear that for some applications like high performance graphics, RAID, DSP cards, TBolt won't compare to 4x, 8x and 16x PCIe slots available on tower computers/workstations/servers.
Beyond that TB to many of the "I" devices would be a waste if they don't speed up access to flash! A fast port to sync with is of little use if you can't write fast enough to make use of the speed.
That being said a TB enhanced iPad would be just the nuts. The new dock connector patent ought to give everyone hope that this will happen soon. One does need to hope though that it isn't simply a display port only port.
I'm afraid that the article about the patent is mistaken (it has nothing to do with TBolt), as the pins arrangement only describe displayport, USB2 and USB3. Displayport uses up to 4 lanes to offer up to 17Gb/s of bandwidth, dual-lane means up to 8.64Gb/s (DP 1.x), well enough for iDevices. 7 pins for DP is enough for 2 lanes and aux signals.
I can imagine a lot of slackers applying for that position, but I don't see much getting done as a result of the hire.
They did that with Firewire... remember the 1st gen iPod? Until PCs get Thunderbolt, it will fail.
That said, the iPod didn't have the following that it does now. So it may force Thunderbolt into PCs.
It depends on how it's implemented. If, as is possible, it's part of the newly designed 30 pin connector, then it wont need PC support. That's because it would also be able to support USB 2 and 3, according to reports. If it's a separate port, then Apple must either know something about where support for it is going that we don't, which is likely anyway, and they no longer care, because the benefit to them would outweigh the negatives, and costs.
No, it is not. You have to put things in perspective. With 2 channels at 10Gb/s, it already has 4x the bandwidth of USB3/SATA III. But bandwidth is just one part of the specs, being based on PCIe, TBolt will offer better sustained rates (than USB3) and very low latency. It just doesn't concern storage, but also real-time applications for audio and video. It's more like FW vs USB, but 12 times faster or more. The goal of TBolt is not to offer external graphics cards. It's clear that for some applications like high performance graphics, RAID, DSP cards, TBolt won't compare to 4x, 8x and 16x PCIe slots available on tower computers/workstations/servers.
And what about the DisplayPort portion? Apparently, the current version of Thunderbolt does not provide the full bandwidth of the latest DisplayPort standard.
I'm afraid that the article about the patent is mistaken (it has nothing to do with TBolt), as the pins arrangement only describe displayport, USB2 and USB3. Displayport uses up to 4 lanes to offer up to 17Gb/s of bandwidth, dual-lane means up to 8.64Gb/s (DP 1.x), well enough for iDevices. 7 pins for DP is enough for 2 lanes and aux signals.
Don't be so sure. Display port has 7 pins and is used to transmit Tbolt now on the MBP's. There is no reason yet to believe for certain it won't do so here. As Quoted from Patently Apple:
Apple has been granted a powerful patent that packs quite the wallop. Somehow they snuck a secret patent application through the system for an all-new high speed connector that will combine at least USB 3.0 and DisplayPort. Although the patent illustrates an iPod as being one of the first to adopt this, the patent clarifies that it's for all future Mac hardware as well.
Notice the "at least"? Apple wouldn't need to put a technology in the patent it hadn't yet decided to add, or hadn't yet finished working on. The patent can always be amended later if required.
And what about the DisplayPort portion? Apparently, the current version of Thunderbolt does not provide the full bandwidth of the latest DisplayPort standard.
That's true it doesn't support DP 1.2, nor does Apple right now, let alone the gpus in the MBPs. But let's not forget that DP 1.2 is for 3840 × 2160 displays, there are very few displays like that on the market. AFAIK, only the latest AMD/ATI desktop HD Radeon 6850 and up, are "ready" for DP 1.2.
I think that TBolt has to be taken more as a multi-purpose port than as top-of-the-line at everything, which it's not. It will offer very good performance for storage/audio/video applications as well as the connection to up to 2 DP 1.1 displays (up to 2560 × 1600). No other port in the world can do that. But PCIe slots offer more bandwidth (& different applications) and some graphics cards (can) support bigger displays.
That's true it doesn't support DP 1.2, nor does Apple right now, let alone the gpus in the MBPs. But let's not forget that DP 1.2 is for 3840 × 2160 displays, there are very few displays like that on the market. AFAIK, only the latest AMD/ATI desktop HD Radeon 6850 and up, are "ready" for DP 1.2.
I think that TBolt has to be taken more as a multi-purpose port than as top-of-the-line at everything, which it's not. It will offer very good performance for storage/audio/video applications as well as the connection to up to 2 DP 1.1 displays (up to 2560 × 1600). No other port in the world can do that. But PCIe slots offer more bandwidth (& different applications) and some graphics cards (can) support bigger displays.
Let's not forget that Tbolt has two channels going each way at once. That's a total of 20Gbs each way. And this is just the first implementation. We know that if the path for this isn't interrupted, it will reach 100Gbs within ten years. As it's being described as 10Gbs now, that could actually mean 200Gbs each way on two channels. That would be fast enough for almost anything. And by that time, they'll figure out a way to have an even faster version, or a new bus.