Intel makes 'Thunderbolt 2' official with 20Gbps speeds, late 2013 launch

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 137
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


     


     


    Many Macs except for the Pro have TB.  The new devices therefore will work with older computers that don't have TB2.


     


    That would be thousands.



     


    Except for the fact that there's like 50 TB devices total on the market right now...That was my point. Not the Macs themselves. 

  • Reply 42 of 137
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Oflife View Post



    The mini DisplayPort / Thunderbolt connector is not really that good. I have a 2011 MBA 13" connected to a superb Dell monitor via DisplayPort, but the plug that goes into the MBA is not as well thought out as say Lightening, and likewise, the large connector that plugs into the monitor (looks like an HDMI with only one chamfered corner) is very very difficult to unplug.



    It is a pity the industry could not agree on the anyway up Lightening connector for Thunderbolt and use it to usurp the ageing and not very imaginative USB connectors.


    ???


     


    The Thunderbolt connector is great. And you're complaining about Displayport connector, which is on your Dell monitor, in an Apple forum. And your complaint is that its is difficult to UNPLUG? What are you looking for in a monitor connector, fast and loose? image

  • Reply 43 of 137
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    My thoughts were that it is not widely adopted yet. It is still in its infancy as far as being widely used. There isn't a wide range of affordable accessories for TB yet....and now we have TB2 coming. So i don't see prices dropping to where everyone will buy one. The thing about DVI was that the display manufacturers and video card makers all started incorporating them into their products. They advertised it was going to make gaming faster. They had a very eager audience that willingly adopted DVI based on the fact that it made their gaming experience better. There was no price difference in the products......



    Considering the same machines now have USB 3, what makes you think the intention ever was or ever will be for "everyone to buy one"?


     


    Its a professional level connector.

  • Reply 44 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    pmz wrote: »
    Is there anyone besides the manufacturers who believe that Retina Cinema Displays, or Retina TVs, have any real world purpose?

    In what scenario is 1080p not good enough from 10 feet away?

    I do. At 60" 1080p isn't likely to have the Retina effect for a great many viewers. The 27" iMac with WQHD is now below the MBP and not too much higher than the pixel count on the iPad and soon to be iPad mini. Going 4K on an HDTV is double the resolution but on the 27" iMac it's only 50% more resolution. That is the change I expect, not going double to 5120x2880 despite Apple having down that with iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, 15" MBP and 13" MBP without any deviation.
  • Reply 45 of 137
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) And what is keeping people from plugging in a monitor that supports DP signaling?



    2) I seem to recall that GPUs and PCs cost more if they supported DVI and DP when they were first released.


    you bring things up that I never talked about in my original post..... I never mentioned USB nor did i mention DVI or DP. You brought those things up in the TB discussion.


    A PC did not need to cost more to plugin a video card that supported DVI.


    The rapid adoption of DVI was because it filled a need for the gaming community. They wanted a faster video throughput. The same environment does not exist for TB. Peripherals are more expensive than the alternatives and are not as widely available. Thats what my comment was about.

  • Reply 46 of 137
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 207member


    twice nothing is still nothing until this standard is more widely adopted

  • Reply 47 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    macxpress wrote: »
    Except for the fact that there's like 50 TB devices total on the market right now...That was my point. Not the Macs themselves. 

    What about all the monitors that support the DisplayPort protocol?
  • Reply 48 of 137
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    Considering the same machines now have USB 3, what makes you think the intention ever was or ever will be for "everyone to buy one"?


     


    Its a professional level connector.



    I agree with you....... My original statement was in alignment with that very fact. 

  • Reply 49 of 137
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by sirdir View Post

    Isn't 2x10 in fact the same as 20?

    i.E. the total possible throughput on todays Thunderbolt is the same?


     


    No… Because Thunderbolt is 10Gbps each way right now. And this is 20Gbps each way… image

  • Reply 50 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    geekdad wrote: »
    you bring things up that I never talked about in my original post..... I never mentioned USB nor did i mention DVI or DP. You brought those things up in the TB discussion.

    I brought up things that the mDP port that supports TB an do. You can't simply ignore all the displays on the market that will work with that port to make your argument.
    A PC did not need to cost more to plugin a video card that supported DVI.

    Sure it did. A newer, more advanced that supports more advanced display communications does cost more. If it does then tell me why netbooks typically only had VGA ports and not DVI or DP?
    The rapid adoption of DVI was because it filled a need for the gaming community. They wanted a faster video throughput. The same environment does not exist for TB.

    So we don't need faster (I assume you mean more bandwidth) video throughput since DVI was released? Seriously?
    Peripherals are more expensive than the alternatives and are not as widely available. Thats what my comment was about.

    I bet I can find plenty of displays that work with my TB port on my Mac. They are surely more expensive than a VGA monitor but they support much higher bandwidths that I contend we need today and will need in the future despite your assertion that there is no environment that exists for video out capabilities beyond what DVI offers.
  • Reply 51 of 137
    brunzillabrunzilla Posts: 39member
    Ohhh... Apple 4k TV???? I want!
  • Reply 52 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    No… Because Thunderbolt is 10Gbps each way right now. And this is 20Gbps each way… :no:

    The recent wording from Intel is painting a different picture. Before it was 10Gb/s in each direction with a total aggregate of 20Gb/s due to the separate channels, but now it appears that it can be 20Gb/s in each direction but with a total aggregate of 20Gb/s due to its bi-directional nature. So in total it's the same throughput but with the ability to now support 4K video which needs at least 11.6Gb/s in one direction. Intel is still very spotty with the specifics so we'll just have to wait until Falcon Ridge gets closer to know for sure.
  • Reply 53 of 137
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

    Because Thunderbolt 1 was such a hit! (Rolls eyes)




    Don't you have some bridges to clean?





    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

    Backwards compatible...for all of those thousands of thunderbolt devices that are out there.


     


    So Apple has sold 1,999 Macs with Thunderbolt?


     



    Originally Posted by jmc54 View Post

    twice nothing is still nothing until this standard is more widely adopted


     


    Go away.





    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Before it was 10Gb/s in each direction with a total aggregate of 20Gb/s due to the separate channels, but now it appears that it can be 20Gb/s in each direction but with a total aggregate of 20Gb/s due to its bi-directional nature.


     


    That's just foolish… The last thing Thunderbolt needs is idiotic, confusing standard changes like USB: the "universal" bus with six different connectors. What, I suppose there will be a "Thunderbolt 2.5" eventually that does 20 both ways simultaneously, and then a Thunderbolt 3 that does 40Gbps one way… 




    Thanks, though.

  • Reply 54 of 137
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    I brought up things that the mDP port that supports TB an do. You can't simply ignore all the displays on the market that will work with that port to make your argument.

    Sure it did. A newer, more advanced that supports more advanced display communications does cost more. If it does then tell me why netbooks typically only had VGA ports and not DVI or DP?

    So we don't need faster (I assume you mean more bandwidth) video throughput since DVI was released? Seriously?

    I bet I can find plenty of displays that work with my TB port on my Mac. They are surely more expensive than a VGA monitor but they support much higher bandwidths that I contend we need today and will need in the future despite your assertion that there is no environment that exists for video out capabilities beyond what DVI offers.


    Now you are just trying to be difficult. You ask questions about things I never brought up like DP and DVI. You brought those up so I will leave you answer your own questions. I never said there were no peripherals for TB.......


    When DVI was being released as you brought it up you did not have to have a new or expensive PC to plug the video card into. This was BEFORE netbooks were around. Consumers at that time did not buy Netbooks to game on.....they could and some might but not widely done. 


    The highlighted portion? Show me where I said that or even alluded to it? I never brought up DVI or video throughput. You did......my comments were on TB...

  • Reply 55 of 137
    owen35owen35 Posts: 14member


    oops.  ignore this post.

  • Reply 56 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    That's just foolish… The last thing Thunderbolt needs is idiotic, confusing standard changes like USB: the "universal" bus with six different connectors. What, I suppose there will be a "Thunderbolt 2.5" eventually that does 20 both ways simultaneously, and then a Thunderbolt 3 that does 40Gbps one way… 

    Thanks, though.

    It's certainly confusing but it might be only to us. All the consumer will eventually need to know is they have TB2 so they can support their 4K display.
  • Reply 57 of 137
    owen35owen35 Posts: 14member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post



    Because Thunderbolt 1 was such a hit! (Rolls eyes)


    And so affordable too.  Let me dig around my bank account for another $60 to buy a cable that attaches to my $400 500 gig hard drive.

  • Reply 58 of 137
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    geekdad wrote: »
    The highlighted portion? Show me where I said that or even alluded to it? I never brought up DVI or video throughput. You did......my comments were on TB...

    You wrote, "The rapid adoption of DVI was because it filled a need for the gaming community. They wanted a faster video throughput. The same environment does not exist for TB."
  • Reply 59 of 137
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    pmz wrote: »
    Is there anyone besides the manufacturers who believe that Retina Cinema Displays, or Retina TVs, have any real world purpose?

    In what scenario is 1080p not good enough from 10 feet away?

    You use your Cinema Display from 10' away?
  • Reply 60 of 137
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    brunzilla wrote: »
    Ohhh... Apple 4k TV???? I want!

    Where are you going to get 4K content?
Sign In or Register to comment.