Thunderbolt Will Become Key Motherboard Spec in 2H 2012

[exfileme]

Insiders predict the obvious: Thunderbolt will be a key competitive spec for motherboard manufacturers in 2H 2012.

Thunderbolt Will Become Key Motherboard Spec in 2H 2012 : Read more

 

[jasonpwns]

Not terribly shocking.

 

[stingstang]

Wouldn't the actual competitive spec be related to the cpu?

 

[JOSHSKORN]

*rolls eyes*

Oh my, what higher education can accomplish these days...the obvious.

 

[elcentral]

hell yeah it will be, think of all the 1 beta product for the next 2 years you will miss out on. its still scars for the usb 3.0 options out there.

 

[bison88]

Meh, can it supersede USB in the market or will it go the route of FireWire with only a niche market. That's the ultimate question. Either way for a long time it'll be nothing more than a complimentary technology to USB until it has full market saturation.

 

[segio526]

Meh. I barely use USB 3.0. I use it for my 2TB backup drive. I don't use it for anything else. That drive isn't saturating the 3.0 bus, so doubling it does nothing for me and won't for many years. Also, the cables will ALWAYS be more expensive than USB until they can (?) move the cable circuits into the device/controller. This may be short sighted of me, but I see no benefit for 90% (or more) of consumers.

 

[shloader]

Exactly. USB3 covers what we need in the desktop segment for now. Thunderbolt is more niche than necessary. bison88 is right. FireWire was relevant in PC space ten years ago because of Sony's early adoption on Digital 8 and DV devices. I think I had FireWire before I ever had USB2.0. Because of Mac popularity with Video Editing back then it was essential on that platform. FireWire costs a little more but that's something Apple and its customer base could hardly care about.

Here we are in a similar situation. Apple is getting the jump on it and they don't care about a $25 chip considering their markup margins. It also makes more sense on their platform; it gives them more flexibility for aesthetic design aspects.

However FireWire made immediate sense for Video transfer on PC and Mac at its introduction. Here's Thunderbolt. I've heard everything about how great it is and what it would be nice for. Now just what is Intel stressing that we need this for? Not a few years from now... I mean right now.

 

[Guest]

Thunderbolt will be a niche at best if it can convince audio/video interface makers to support it. Then it wili be as (un)succesful as Firewire was.

If it can't do that, then there won't be many Thunderbolt devices, and it will pretty much be one of those things like SPDIF and 1394 that are on every motherboard, but nobody ever uses them.

 

[andromeda]

I like the potential of TB but until it can power devices that they flaunt like LED monitors then I don't really care. USB is far superior in this segment.

I want TB devices that power media devices 1 plug for data and power until then I stick with what works

 

[jackbling]

the only thing that interest me about thunderbolt, is getting an external graphics card for laptops. aside form that, it seems like a waste of money on desktop systems.

 

[oj88]

How can the 10-Gbps even be named Thunderbolt? USB 3.0 is 5-Gbps already, and its speed hasn't been fully exploited yet. I would rather wait for USB 4.0. Intel's move simply tries to make current PC systems obsolete soon so we will be forced to upgrade to the new platform. Does Rambus ring a bell here?

 

[Guest]

Sorry guys but USB3 is S-L-O-W. While it is rated high, in actual performance, it is pretty slow. Heck, you'll get better performance out of your eSATA 3Gbps than USB3 in the real world. The question is whether ThunderBolt is better than eSATA 6Gbps. Tests on Anand seem to indicate that it is, but at the price you pay, probably not worth it just yet. In a few years, it may be the defacto standard as it encapsulates all of the above technologies.

 

[icrf]

File another "meh" vote for me. For years I've had a file server/NAS over gigabit ethernet, and I haven't had any desire to use eSATA, USB3, or TB. I'd much rather someone put a gigabit ethernet port on a laptop than a thunderbolt port.

 

[TeraMedia]

I think @jackbling has the right idea. TB is too powerful for single devices. For a monitor, you can use VGA, DVI, HDMI or DP instead. For an input device, you can use USB 2.0. For a storage device or external GPU, you can use USB 3.0.

Where TB will be able to shine is in its ability to replace the typical docking station for a laptop. Rather than either (a) a proprietary connector to a large desktop cartridge-like device, or (b) a lot of individual connections for Kbd / Mouse / Video / Network / (storage?) / power, the TB spec can facilitate the use of just one or two connectors for everything (the second being for power - too bad they didn't put a PoTB into the spec!). It might eventually plug straight into your monitor, which would actually be a desktop expansion device including USB 2.0 ports for Kbd / Mouse, a GbE network port, an external GPU (on the more expensive version...), and either an internal HDD or a USB 3.0 connection for an external drive.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of docking stations. If there were something simple, small, light, PnP, hot-connectable, and cost-effective that I could use instead, I'd be much happier with the concept.

I do wish they'd thought about power, though. They didn't think through what I consider to be the most likely application of this technology.

 

[slicedtoad]

I like the idea of an external GPU. Imagine a 17" laptop running with say intel 3000 integrated graphics that is fairly light. You can bring it to school or the office and to whatever work you need. Then you go home and plug it into a $300 GPU with it's own power and cooling and actually be able to play games on a laptop without spending a freaking fortune on a "mobile gpu".

 

[TeraMedia]

@slicedtoad: The external GPU capabilities might be somewhat limited by the TB connection BW and latency. The schematic I saw shows a PCIe-x4 connection to the TB peripheral chip. If it's 2.0 or higher (not clear whether it's PCIe 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0), and all of that BW is available to the GPU, you might get acceptable BW but still suffer from latency effects. If it's 1.0, a higher-end GPU such as 7800 series and up would be adversely impacted by a BW bottleneck.

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]Meh, can it supersede USB in the market or will it go the route of FireWire with only a niche market. That's the ultimate question. Either way for a long time it'll be nothing more than a complimentary technology to USB until it has full market saturation.[/citation]

its up to the companies to keep the products with this interface cheap like their USB products to make it viable. one example is only the value brand external HDD have USB interfaces while the pricier ones have either fire wire, eSATA or both.

i have had 2 PC's so far that had firewire ports but never have had any products that used those ports

 

[slicedtoad]

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]@slicedtoad: The external GPU capabilities might be somewhat limited by the TB connection BW and latency. The schematic I saw shows a PCIe-x4 connection to the TB peripheral chip. If it's 2.0 or higher (not clear whether it's PCIe 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0), and all of that BW is available to the GPU, you might get acceptable BW but still suffer from latency effects. If it's 1.0, a higher-end GPU such as 7800 series and up would be adversely impacted by a BW bottleneck.[/citation]
You're likely right, but at least it's a step in the right direction. If it was fully optical, that would potentially reduce latency, right? The x4 limitation isn't huge for gaming. PCI 2.0 at x4 speed only limits the 78xx cards by at most 20%. The 680 and 670 suffer a bit more though.
When you consider the prices of high end mobile GPUs though, even loosing a full 20% isn't horrible. The 580m costs around $700 and performs like a 6870. That's ridiculous.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]I think @jackbling has the right idea. TB is too powerful for single devices. For a monitor, you can use VGA, DVI, HDMI or DP instead. For an input device, you can use USB 2.0. For a storage device or external GPU, you can use USB 3.0.Where TB will be able to shine is in its ability to replace the typical docking station for a laptop. Rather than either (a) a proprietary connector to a large desktop cartridge-like device, or (b) a lot of individual connections for Kbd / Mouse / Video / Network / (storage?) / power, the TB spec can facilitate the use of just one or two connectors for everything (the second being for power - too bad they didn't put a PoTB into the spec!). It might eventually plug straight into your monitor, which would actually be a desktop expansion device including USB 2.0 ports for Kbd / Mouse, a GbE network port, an external GPU (on the more expensive version...), and either an internal HDD or a USB 3.0 connection for an external drive.Personally, I've never been a big fan of docking stations. If there were something simple, small, light, PnP, hot-connectable, and cost-effective that I could use instead, I'd be much happier with the concept.I do wish they'd thought about power, though. They didn't think through what I consider to be the most likely application of this technology.[/citation]

Look at the size of your power cord powering your monitor. Look at the size of a USB cable. Any thoughts come to mind?

 

[SteelCity1981]

that's great and all but it doesn't have the long rep USB does in compatibility and that's where the market is your avg consumor want devices that are compatible with one another thunderbolt doesn't have that rep or the 100's of thousands of devices that support it.

 

[K2N hater]

Thunderbolt is just another attempt to tie the consumer a limited number of possibilities. I'd much rather spend a few more bucks for Wi-Fi Direct capable devices and WHDI for displays.

 

[sonofliberty08]

thunderbolt...... it comes quick and it go quick, may it be like the rd ram ?

 

[x64ghost]

Thanks to apple i've had thunderbolt for a year now. I can honestly say I would rather have USB3 ports. Those two ports on the back of this thing are occupied by monitors so I can't even use it.

 

[sundragon]

LOL

1. more bandwidth than USB3 and you all still b*tch?!?

2. It's not gonna replace USB3 it's going to be sitting next to USB3 for more options... Yet we still have eye rolls and b*tching... LMAO Cuz God knows more options are horrible, oh the horrors...

3. Apple had it first... Okay, I'm being a total sarcastic b*tch but it's nice to see somethings come full circle...

haters gonna hate