No really interested in Intel's proprietary thunderbolt interconnect. Even though USB3 is not as fast as thunderbolt, It has enough bandwidth to hold me over for a few years plus it's backwards compatible with older USB peripherals.
Hopefully this new external PCI-e connect that the PCI-sig is working on will be better.
There're USB2 video adapters, although they're limited to mostly static contend due to bandwidth limits. USB3 has the bandwidth to run monitors reasonably well, being midway between a single and dual link connection. Looser QoS constraints might be a problem, but that's not answerable until the first adapters become available.
Not really. Thunderbolt is meant to replace ANY kind of cable since it is protocol agnostic. It can even carry USB, thus supplanting it. The whole point of Thunderbolt is that you don't need to care what kind of devices you're connecting or for what purposes; The devices figure out the details, you just plug them in.
Are you that ignorant and clueless? There are many other technologies that Intel has created as well (by themselves or with others) that are used widely today. Just because some new technology is made by Intel, doesn't make it proprietary. Have you even read what Intel's intentions for Light Peak/Thunderbolt are? You must not have.
Also the way you compare it to USB3 is also another show of your ignorance. Thunderbolt is not meant to be an alternative to USB3, it's meant to be much more since it's an external PCIe bus. Just because all you might want to use something like Thunderbolt or USB for is external storage doesn't mean that's all everyone else does.
The very DEFINITION of proprietary is something that is developed/owned by a single company. And Intel isn't Google, they never give anything away just to 'improve the market'.
His post seemed pretty clear. The added features/bandwidth of Thunderbolt isn't needed BY HIM yet. And he is right. How many computer users actually need to manipulate 4 uncompressed video streams at the same time? Not many. This isn't a new interconnect on a server - this is being slapped onto every Apple computer.
People buying Apples are already paying a premium, if that means that money goes into the pockets of innovation instead of "ooh shiny" I'm all for it. I wish every Apple came with an SSD, so the prices on those would drop faster.
I agree that this isn't for everyone, and that it's not just a replacement for USB. Apples bill themselves as premium products, I'm sure the Thunderbolt controller is not significantly contributing to the cost (a few bucks), as these are higher margin machines, not slim margin Dell/HP entry level computers.
"Are you that ignorant and clueless?" Neither, but lets point out how ignorant you are shall we.
"There are many other technologies that Intel has created as well (by themselves or with others) that are used widely today. Just because some new technology is made by Intel, doesn't make it proprietary." The fact that Intel developed Thunderbolt does not make this technology proprietary, it's the fact that Intel has not released the spec to other companies so that they came make competing Thunderbolt controllers is what makes Thunderbolt proprietary.
Yes I do know that the original USB spec was created at Intel but unlike Thunderbolt, Intel opened the USB spec to other companies and thus USB is not consider proprietary.
"Have you even read what Intel's intentions for Light Peak/Thunderbolt are? You must not have." It's obviously you that have no idea what you are talking about.
"Also the way you compare it to USB3 is also another show of your ignorance. Thunderbolt is not meant to be an alternative to USB3" Regardless of how you see or use Thunderbolt or if Thunderbolt has more capabilities than USB3, the fact of the matter is that Thunderbolt _IS_ an alternative to USB3 and if Thunderbolt were to ever gain wide scale acceptance you would notice that USB3 usage would go down as Thunderbolt usage goes up.
"it's meant to be much more since it's an external PCIe bus." That in no way changes the fact that it is a competitor to the USB standard. In fact many review sites (google if you don't believe me) have compared the Thunderbolt standard to USB in their reviews of Thunderbolt. So it's not just me who thinks Thunderbolt is a competitor to USB3.
Even Anandtech's own articles compare Thunderbolt to USB3. Here is a direct quote from an article posted on Anandtech about Thunderbolt a few months ago.
"Thunderbolt already faces competition from 4.8 Gbps USB 3.0 which has already seen a lot of adoption on the PC side. The parallels between USB 2.0 / FireWire and USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt are difficult to ignore, and ultimately peripheral availability and noticeable speed differences will sell one over the other in the long run." http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4194?cPage=4&a...
"Just because all you might want to use something like Thunderbolt or USB for is external storage doesn't mean that's all everyone else does." See last statement
Thank you for saying what we were all thinking. USB3.0 will suffice until they develop USB4.0. I understand the need to develop new technologies. I also understand the need to be practical. I like the fact that USB3.0 is backwards compatible. I dislike the fact that Intel hasn't backed USB3.0 as a native standard in their chipsets. That would have sped up it's adoption rate. We now see why they didn't.
It isn't an external PCIe bus. The bandwidth is similar, but calling it a PCIe would imply a certain protocol. Thunderbolt is protocol agnostic. It can carry PCIe, USB2/3, DisplayPort, etc. and that's the big deal about it. You don't need to care what kind of devices you're connecting. Just plug them in and the devices figure out the protocol automagically. So it DOES replace USB -cables- but not the USB -protocol- because Thunderbolt doesn't have a default protocol.
Actually, Thunderbolt only carries two protocols natively -- PCIe and DisplayPort. USB, Firewire, SATA, Ethernet and others are carried over Thunderbolt by using bridge chips between them and the PCIe lanes. That's the big advantage of using PCIe in Thunderbolt -- they can appear to be protocol agnostic because of existing PCIe devices.
I can only remember some of the great technologies that Intel introduced:
- BTX - RDRAM - NetBurst - Larrabee (oh wait they realized it failed just in time)
The problem is that many times Intel tries to impose a standard on the market. They should find other manufacturers that want to work with them. It's far easier that way. But of course less money to be made, and that's what's it all about.
RDRAM was made by a company named RAMBUS, it was simply supported by Intel and included in a few of their chipsets.
BTX was a good idea at the time, (Netburst/Presshot) but the cooler Conroes paved the way to lower CPU thermals and rendered BTX to expensive to solve a no longer exsisting problem.
Larrabee, Much like the the raytracing graphics that were promised back in the early '90s. is not ready for the consumer market. Raytracing is incredibly computationally intensive,nd AMD and nVidia require too much silicon just to make current golaith GPU's.
Also they didn't rule out the concept totally just for the near future, I expect that part will be integrated into the Magny Cours design.
So which chip does the 13' MBP have? I know its limited to one monitor, but as far as I knew it used the same chip as the bigger Pro's so 4x10bi (yeah I invented a new notation).
Anywho, we all knew the HD3000 wouldn't have much fun with two big honking displays plus the internal display anyways, and 2x10bi is still more bandwidth than home users will need for quite some time, so I'll give this a "no biggie".
• Thunderbolt supports U S B, FireWire & every popular video connection. Which means that there is no need for these ports on a computer, only an adapter • Future upgrades to Thunderbolt will offer connections @ light speed, literally, as the actual concept is based on using fiber optics • The MacBook Air cannot drive more than 1 display, therefore Apple's standard chip doesn't offer any additional benefits • Each channel offers 10Gbps, but this cannot be aggregated, so the present limit is 10Gbps
Oh so instead of carrying just a laptop around you will have to carry a laptop and 2-3 adapters depending on what devices you'll want to plug in. That sounds totally awesome!
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
17 Comments
Back to Article
phatboye - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
No really interested in Intel's proprietary thunderbolt interconnect. Even though USB3 is not as fast as thunderbolt, It has enough bandwidth to hold me over for a few years plus it's backwards compatible with older USB peripherals.Hopefully this new external PCI-e connect that the PCI-sig is working on will be better.
medys - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
Can you connect a monitor via USB3??Thunderbolt is meant to replace docking stations, not USB.
DanNeely - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
There're USB2 video adapters, although they're limited to mostly static contend due to bandwidth limits. USB3 has the bandwidth to run monitors reasonably well, being midway between a single and dual link connection. Looser QoS constraints might be a problem, but that's not answerable until the first adapters become available.jordanclock - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
Not really. Thunderbolt is meant to replace ANY kind of cable since it is protocol agnostic. It can even carry USB, thus supplanting it. The whole point of Thunderbolt is that you don't need to care what kind of devices you're connecting or for what purposes; The devices figure out the details, you just plug them in.TypeS - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
Are you that ignorant and clueless? There are many other technologies that Intel has created as well (by themselves or with others) that are used widely today. Just because some new technology is made by Intel, doesn't make it proprietary. Have you even read what Intel's intentions for Light Peak/Thunderbolt are? You must not have.Also the way you compare it to USB3 is also another show of your ignorance. Thunderbolt is not meant to be an alternative to USB3, it's meant to be much more since it's an external PCIe bus. Just because all you might want to use something like Thunderbolt or USB for is external storage doesn't mean that's all everyone else does.
Learn and think before you post.
mcnabney - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
The very DEFINITION of proprietary is something that is developed/owned by a single company. And Intel isn't Google, they never give anything away just to 'improve the market'.His post seemed pretty clear. The added features/bandwidth of Thunderbolt isn't needed BY HIM yet. And he is right. How many computer users actually need to manipulate 4 uncompressed video streams at the same time? Not many. This isn't a new interconnect on a server - this is being slapped onto every Apple computer.
GuinnessKMF - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
People buying Apples are already paying a premium, if that means that money goes into the pockets of innovation instead of "ooh shiny" I'm all for it. I wish every Apple came with an SSD, so the prices on those would drop faster.I agree that this isn't for everyone, and that it's not just a replacement for USB. Apples bill themselves as premium products, I'm sure the Thunderbolt controller is not significantly contributing to the cost (a few bucks), as these are higher margin machines, not slim margin Dell/HP entry level computers.
fnord123 - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
USB was co-developed by Intel and the first USB controllers were shipped by Intel.
EHCI (that standardized USB2 controller interfaces) was driven in large part by Intel.
PCI was started at Intel.
Intel was a major contributor for the contribution of PCIe.
phatboye - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
"Are you that ignorant and clueless?"Neither, but lets point out how ignorant you are shall we.
"There are many other technologies that Intel has created as well (by themselves or with others) that are used widely today. Just because some new technology is made by Intel, doesn't make it proprietary."
The fact that Intel developed Thunderbolt does not make this technology proprietary, it's the fact that Intel has not released the spec to other companies so that they came make competing Thunderbolt controllers is what makes Thunderbolt proprietary.
Yes I do know that the original USB spec was created at Intel but unlike Thunderbolt, Intel opened the USB spec to other companies and thus USB is not consider proprietary.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4213501/Te...
"Have you even read what Intel's intentions for Light Peak/Thunderbolt are? You must not have."
It's obviously you that have no idea what you are talking about.
"Also the way you compare it to USB3 is also another show of your ignorance. Thunderbolt is not meant to be an alternative to USB3"
Regardless of how you see or use Thunderbolt or if Thunderbolt has more capabilities than USB3, the fact of the matter is that Thunderbolt _IS_ an alternative to USB3 and if Thunderbolt were to ever gain wide scale acceptance you would notice that USB3 usage would go down as Thunderbolt usage goes up.
"it's meant to be much more since it's an external PCIe bus."
That in no way changes the fact that it is a competitor to the USB standard. In fact many review sites (google if you don't believe me) have compared the Thunderbolt standard to USB in their reviews of Thunderbolt. So it's not just me who thinks Thunderbolt is a competitor to USB3.
Even Anandtech's own articles compare Thunderbolt to USB3. Here is a direct quote from an article posted on Anandtech about Thunderbolt a few months ago.
"Thunderbolt already faces competition from 4.8 Gbps USB 3.0 which has already seen a lot of adoption on the PC side. The parallels between USB 2.0 / FireWire and USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt are difficult to ignore, and ultimately peripheral availability and noticeable speed differences will sell one over the other in the long run."
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4194?cPage=4&a...
"Just because all you might want to use something like Thunderbolt or USB for is external storage doesn't mean that's all everyone else does."
See last statement
"Learn and think before you post"
No comment.
bigboxes - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
Thank you for saying what we were all thinking. USB3.0 will suffice until they develop USB4.0. I understand the need to develop new technologies. I also understand the need to be practical. I like the fact that USB3.0 is backwards compatible. I dislike the fact that Intel hasn't backed USB3.0 as a native standard in their chipsets. That would have sped up it's adoption rate. We now see why they didn't.jordanclock - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
It isn't an external PCIe bus. The bandwidth is similar, but calling it a PCIe would imply a certain protocol. Thunderbolt is protocol agnostic. It can carry PCIe, USB2/3, DisplayPort, etc. and that's the big deal about it. You don't need to care what kind of devices you're connecting. Just plug them in and the devices figure out the protocol automagically. So it DOES replace USB -cables- but not the USB -protocol- because Thunderbolt doesn't have a default protocol.SmileyDude - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
Actually, Thunderbolt only carries two protocols natively -- PCIe and DisplayPort. USB, Firewire, SATA, Ethernet and others are carried over Thunderbolt by using bridge chips between them and the PCIe lanes. That's the big advantage of using PCIe in Thunderbolt -- they can appear to be protocol agnostic because of existing PCIe devices.Shuriken - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
I can only remember some of the great technologies that Intel introduced:- BTX
- RDRAM
- NetBurst
- Larrabee (oh wait they realized it failed just in time)
The problem is that many times Intel tries to impose a standard on the market. They should find other manufacturers that want to work with them. It's far easier that way. But of course less money to be made, and that's what's it all about.
Black1969ta - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
RDRAM was made by a company named RAMBUS, it was simply supported by Intel and included in a few of their chipsets.BTX was a good idea at the time, (Netburst/Presshot) but the cooler Conroes paved the way to lower CPU thermals and rendered BTX to expensive to solve a no longer exsisting problem.
Larrabee, Much like the the raytracing graphics that were promised back in the early '90s. is not ready for the consumer market. Raytracing is incredibly computationally intensive,nd AMD and nVidia require too much silicon just to make current golaith GPU's.
Also they didn't rule out the concept totally just for the near future, I expect that part will be integrated into the Magny Cours design.
tipoo - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
So which chip does the 13' MBP have? I know its limited to one monitor, but as far as I knew it used the same chip as the bigger Pro's so 4x10bi (yeah I invented a new notation).Anywho, we all knew the HD3000 wouldn't have much fun with two big honking displays plus the internal display anyways, and 2x10bi is still more bandwidth than home users will need for quite some time, so I'll give this a "no biggie".
Sandman619 - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
• Thunderbolt supports U S B, FireWire & every popular video connection. Which means that there is no need for these ports on a computer, only an adapter
• Future upgrades to Thunderbolt will offer connections @ light speed, literally, as the actual concept is based on using fiber optics
• The MacBook Air cannot drive more than 1 display, therefore Apple's standard chip doesn't offer any additional benefits
• Each channel offers 10Gbps, but this cannot be aggregated, so the present limit is 10Gbps
Cheers !
fghddj - Saturday, July 30, 2011 - link
Oh so instead of carrying just a laptop around you will have to carry a laptop and 2-3 adapters depending on what devices you'll want to plug in. That sounds totally awesome!