So those TB chipset have been available for a while. Just received a Lenovo X1 Extreme that comes with the Titan-Ridge. But where do you find those USB-C DisplayPort 1.4 cable/adapter?
So far I'm yet to find one. There's a few other manufacturer that have released DP 1.4 connection using a USB-C connector (like the new Gigabyte Aero 15 W9/Y9), same deal, impossible to find.
Well It would be interesting to know which monitors support DP 1.4 so my guess for higher end monitors like 5K and 8K this chips is needed.
I am a little confused on USB-C part - is this only for fall back to DP ports over USB-C
For me the best way I used Thunderbolt on my Dell XPS 2in1 is used a Dell HUB that support Display Port and HDMI and other ports.
The biggest problem I notice with USB-C ( not just Thunderbolt ) is that different HUB work different between brands - for example my Samsung TabPro S must used different one then Dell USB-C port.
But the good news for this is future, it does not look like a huge expensive for manufactures and since it royalty fee it should catch on. Of course there are some out there that don't like Intel products and refused to use it. Of course that does not matter much, there are big players that like especially with companies like Dell and Apple.
> I am a little confused on USB-C part - is this only for fall back to DP ports over USB-C
Intel is selling chips for both the computer side and the peripheral side. The computer side can already fall back from TB3 to USB-C (including DP), but current-gen TB3 peripherals (monitors, docks, etc.) can't. With the new Intel chip in TB3 monitor/docks/etc, they can work at reduced speed with USB-C (non-TB3) computers instead of not working at all.
To give a more concrete example, the current LG Ultrafine 5k Monitor only supportsTB3, not USB-C. And, on without special drivers and two DP 1.2 streams, it only supports 4k. There's no reason that 4k couldn't be run over USB-C + DP, but the current gen doesn't support falling back to USB-C. With this chip, it could, and could therefore have much wider compatibility (at 4k).
(It could also use DP 1.4 for a single 5k video stream with this chip, instead of combining two DP 1.2 streams...)
Reading this article and your discussion makes me wish for the days when you had VGA or DVI and you were good to go. Our conference room has to have a bunch of adapters for people coming in and using the display. DP, mini DP, HDMI, mini HDMI, VGA, DVI it's all very annoying.
You could use chrome casts and big TVs instead. No more dongle hell, but instead you'll need to deal with general lagginess; not too bad unless your wifi is horrible - but enough that trying to look at the TV while using your mouse/touchpad/etc is going to be painful.
So this could explain why my Dell DP-15 TB3 dock only supports Thunderbolt - does this mean in theory with this new chip, a similar dock could be made to also support USB-C computers.
yes, but in USB-C mode it won't be able to do everything all at once.
Doesn't make much sense for a full up TB3 dock because they run so much more than a basic USB3 one that if you're not using TB3 they're stupidly overpriced. Where it does make sense would be a monitor that's 2.5k/4k+4k passthough+USB3 dock in TB mode being a 2.5/4k monitor with a USB3 (USB2?) dock over USB; or a DAS with an SSD cache that goes from fast to ludicrously fast switching from USB-C to TB3.
Well I have been in a situation where a client comes in to the studio with the computer but can not use my gear because everything is attached via a Thunderbolt 3 Dock to my computer. Their laptop doesn't have enough USB ports so I can't even unplug stuff from the dock and connect them directly to the clients computer. My expensive dock became useless at that point.
I am not sure I understand why the bandwidth was not affected by the switch from DP 1.2 to DP 1.4, while the two streams were retained. Does this mean that the two DP 1.4 streams are nominal rather than full, because they are bandwidth limited by what the four PCIe 3.0 lanes can feed them? And the sole benefit is protocol-specific, due to the support of single stream-5K and HDR?
By the way, is it me or has DP's 8b/10b encoding been too long in the tooth already? A waste of 6.5 Gbps per stream, or 13 Gbps per pair of streams due to overhead is insane! It's even more insane if you take into account that your PCIe 3.0 x4 links underneath *do* support 128b/130b.
The Titan Ridge Thunderbolt controller has a PCIe 3.0 x4 link to the host for data, and two DP 1.4 sinks. Each of the Thunderbolt ports when operating in Thunderbolt 3 signaling mode provides 2 full-duplex channels at 20.625 Gbit/s with 64b/66b encoding that are bonded, providing 40 Gbit/s to the upper layers. Protocol converters take the PCIe and DP packets and route them over the Thunderbolt links using a series of crossbar switches.
A 4-lane DisplayPort HBR3 main link bonds 4 simplex channels at 8.1 Gbit/s with 8b/10b encoding for a total of 25.92 Gbit/s, but only in one direction. Also, the link rate is scaled to accomodate the bandwidth required by the display device, and the rest is bit-stuffed. The Thunderbolt protocol converters ditch the stuffing and only put the actual display data packets on the Thunderbolt link. So a Thunderbolt link can carry any number of display streams so long as the aggregate bandwidth required doesn’t exceed 40 Gbit/s, and whatever bandwidth isn’t used for DisplayPort packets can be used for PCIe data.
The PCIe 3.0 x4 back end is entirely separate from the DisplayPort sink / source connections. It provides 4 full-duplex lanes at a nominal 8 Gbit/s with 128b/130b encoding for 31.5 Gbit/s total. When channel-bonding was introduced with Thunderbolt 2, either the PCIe protocol overhead doubled or the maximum TLP payload size was halved. The net result being that a single Thunderbolt 3 link tops out just shy of 2,750 MB/s for real-world PCIe throughput. That’s limited by the back-end though, not the Thunderbolt link.
While I know TB 3 is awesome tech, i could never understand,
1. Why are the controller so expensive, $8? There are low end Android Phone SoC selling for $5! Which makes the Apple Lightening cable $1.5 chips looks cheap.
2. Why isn't the USB Multiplexer built in ?
As a matter of fact why isn't USB 3.1 and TB3, built into same controller?
The tray prices for Thunderbolt controllers are actually extraordinarily inexpensive, and I don’t believe they accurately reflect the total cost of incorporating the solution. Show me any other 4-channel I/O transceiver with 20.625 GT/s lane rates that can be had for less than $150. Thunderbolt is bonkers. Lightning cables are just USB 2.0 cables with a proprietary connector on one end. So you’re comparing a chip capable of 1x 480 Mbit/s to one that can do 4x 20.625 Gbit/s.
Thunderbolt 3 controllers do include the USB 3.1 xHCI on die. The external multiplexer / PMIC is required to support USB PD 2.x and by extension USB Type-C Alternate Modes. This is not a one-size-fits-all solution, requires IP Intel may not care to license, and is generally produced on a different process. So it makes more sense to keep it separate.
does this mean i can install a controller card like this in a Threadripper system and pre-existing X399 motherboard w/o TB3 header and get instant TB3 support?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
masimilianzo - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
So using dual DP1.4 what is the maximum resolution/frame rate before going over TB3 bandwidth (with no DSC)? 5K120?repoman27 - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
By my math, over a single cable using both DP 1.4 links but no DSC:3840 x 2160, 10 bpc, 144 Hz
4096 x 2304, 8 bpc, 144 Hz
4096 x 2304, 10 bpc, 120 Hz
5120 x 2880, 8 bpc, 100 Hz
5120 x 2880, 10 bpc, 85 Hz
7680 x 4320, 8 or 10 bpc, 30 Hz
jyavenard - Wednesday, March 13, 2019 - link
So those TB chipset have been available for a while. Just received a Lenovo X1 Extreme that comes with the Titan-Ridge.But where do you find those USB-C DisplayPort 1.4 cable/adapter?
So far I'm yet to find one.
There's a few other manufacturer that have released DP 1.4 connection using a USB-C connector (like the new Gigabyte Aero 15 W9/Y9), same deal, impossible to find.
HStewart - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Well It would be interesting to know which monitors support DP 1.4 so my guess for higher end monitors like 5K and 8K this chips is needed.I am a little confused on USB-C part - is this only for fall back to DP ports over USB-C
For me the best way I used Thunderbolt on my Dell XPS 2in1 is used a Dell HUB that support Display Port and HDMI and other ports.
The biggest problem I notice with USB-C ( not just Thunderbolt ) is that different HUB work different between brands - for example my Samsung TabPro S must used different one then Dell USB-C port.
But the good news for this is future, it does not look like a huge expensive for manufactures and since it royalty fee it should catch on. Of course there are some out there that don't like Intel products and refused to use it. Of course that does not matter much, there are big players that like especially with companies like Dell and Apple.
nfriedly - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
> I am a little confused on USB-C part - is this only for fall back to DP ports over USB-CIntel is selling chips for both the computer side and the peripheral side. The computer side can already fall back from TB3 to USB-C (including DP), but current-gen TB3 peripherals (monitors, docks, etc.) can't. With the new Intel chip in TB3 monitor/docks/etc, they can work at reduced speed with USB-C (non-TB3) computers instead of not working at all.
To give a more concrete example, the current LG Ultrafine 5k Monitor only supportsTB3, not USB-C. And, on without special drivers and two DP 1.2 streams, it only supports 4k. There's no reason that 4k couldn't be run over USB-C + DP, but the current gen doesn't support falling back to USB-C. With this chip, it could, and could therefore have much wider compatibility (at 4k).
(It could also use DP 1.4 for a single 5k video stream with this chip, instead of combining two DP 1.2 streams...)
Crucial - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
Reading this article and your discussion makes me wish for the days when you had VGA or DVI and you were good to go. Our conference room has to have a bunch of adapters for people coming in and using the display. DP, mini DP, HDMI, mini HDMI, VGA, DVI it's all very annoying.DanNeely - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
You could use chrome casts and big TVs instead. No more dongle hell, but instead you'll need to deal with general lagginess; not too bad unless your wifi is horrible - but enough that trying to look at the TV while using your mouse/touchpad/etc is going to be painful.HStewart - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
I serious doubt Chrome cast could handle the bandwidth of 4K, 5K and 8K monitors.mr_tawan - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
do we really need 4K and above in the conference room?HStewart - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
So this could explain why my Dell DP-15 TB3 dock only supports Thunderbolt - does this mean in theory with this new chip, a similar dock could be made to also support USB-C computers.DanNeely - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
yes, but in USB-C mode it won't be able to do everything all at once.Doesn't make much sense for a full up TB3 dock because they run so much more than a basic USB3 one that if you're not using TB3 they're stupidly overpriced. Where it does make sense would be a monitor that's 2.5k/4k+4k passthough+USB3 dock in TB mode being a 2.5/4k monitor with a USB3 (USB2?) dock over USB; or a DAS with an SSD cache that goes from fast to ludicrously fast switching from USB-C to TB3.
KimGitz - Thursday, December 13, 2018 - link
Well I have been in a situation where a client comes in to the studio with the computer but can not use my gear because everything is attached via a Thunderbolt 3 Dock to my computer. Their laptop doesn't have enough USB ports so I can't even unplug stuff from the dock and connect them directly to the clients computer. My expensive dock became useless at that point.Santoval - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
I am not sure I understand why the bandwidth was not affected by the switch from DP 1.2 to DP 1.4, while the two streams were retained. Does this mean that the two DP 1.4 streams are nominal rather than full, because they are bandwidth limited by what the four PCIe 3.0 lanes can feed them? And the sole benefit is protocol-specific, due to the support of single stream-5K and HDR?By the way, is it me or has DP's 8b/10b encoding been too long in the tooth already? A waste of 6.5 Gbps per stream, or 13 Gbps per pair of streams due to overhead is insane! It's even more insane if you take into account that your PCIe 3.0 x4 links underneath *do* support 128b/130b.
repoman27 - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
The Titan Ridge Thunderbolt controller has a PCIe 3.0 x4 link to the host for data, and two DP 1.4 sinks. Each of the Thunderbolt ports when operating in Thunderbolt 3 signaling mode provides 2 full-duplex channels at 20.625 Gbit/s with 64b/66b encoding that are bonded, providing 40 Gbit/s to the upper layers. Protocol converters take the PCIe and DP packets and route them over the Thunderbolt links using a series of crossbar switches.A 4-lane DisplayPort HBR3 main link bonds 4 simplex channels at 8.1 Gbit/s with 8b/10b encoding for a total of 25.92 Gbit/s, but only in one direction. Also, the link rate is scaled to accomodate the bandwidth required by the display device, and the rest is bit-stuffed. The Thunderbolt protocol converters ditch the stuffing and only put the actual display data packets on the Thunderbolt link. So a Thunderbolt link can carry any number of display streams so long as the aggregate bandwidth required doesn’t exceed 40 Gbit/s, and whatever bandwidth isn’t used for DisplayPort packets can be used for PCIe data.
The PCIe 3.0 x4 back end is entirely separate from the DisplayPort sink / source connections. It provides 4 full-duplex lanes at a nominal 8 Gbit/s with 128b/130b encoding for 31.5 Gbit/s total. When channel-bonding was introduced with Thunderbolt 2, either the PCIe protocol overhead doubled or the maximum TLP payload size was halved. The net result being that a single Thunderbolt 3 link tops out just shy of 2,750 MB/s for real-world PCIe throughput. That’s limited by the back-end though, not the Thunderbolt link.
BillBear - Monday, January 8, 2018 - link
I will be interested in seeing if target display mode will finally appear for 5K iMacs when these controllers come into use.Poik - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
Any news on some upcoming AMD boards adopting some TB3 action? Threadripper certainly has enough lanes to do so.Vidmo - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
It's too bad that Intel won't support Windows server with its Thunderbolt drivers.iwod - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
While I know TB 3 is awesome tech, i could never understand,1. Why are the controller so expensive, $8? There are low end Android Phone SoC selling for $5!
Which makes the Apple Lightening cable $1.5 chips looks cheap.
2. Why isn't the USB Multiplexer built in ?
As a matter of fact why isn't USB 3.1 and TB3, built into same controller?
repoman27 - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link
The tray prices for Thunderbolt controllers are actually extraordinarily inexpensive, and I don’t believe they accurately reflect the total cost of incorporating the solution. Show me any other 4-channel I/O transceiver with 20.625 GT/s lane rates that can be had for less than $150. Thunderbolt is bonkers. Lightning cables are just USB 2.0 cables with a proprietary connector on one end. So you’re comparing a chip capable of 1x 480 Mbit/s to one that can do 4x 20.625 Gbit/s.Thunderbolt 3 controllers do include the USB 3.1 xHCI on die. The external multiplexer / PMIC is required to support USB PD 2.x and by extension USB Type-C Alternate Modes. This is not a one-size-fits-all solution, requires IP Intel may not care to license, and is generally produced on a different process. So it makes more sense to keep it separate.
acana79 - Friday, January 26, 2018 - link
Why not just add two TB3 controllers to get around the bandwidth issue if we need two monitors for 8K?corinthos - Monday, February 19, 2018 - link
does this mean i can install a controller card like this in a Threadripper system and pre-existing X399 motherboard w/o TB3 header and get instant TB3 support?James5mith - Friday, August 16, 2019 - link
Still hoping to see external NVMe enclosures using this before the end of the year. I would love a single unit solution for TB3+USB3 connectivity.