• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The future of Thunderbolt

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Another issue of ThunderBolt is that currently, on mainstream platforms you're limited by the total amount of PCIe Lanes. Both AMD and Intel have 16 PCIe 3.0 Lanes coming from their mainstream Processors and if I recall correctly, both of their Chipsets just have 8 2.0 PCIe Lanes. For an ATX sized Motherboard, you can get 2 or 3 Slots doing an 8x/8x or 8x/4x/4x with just the Processor, which is adequate for two Video Cards, but then the Chipset has to feed everything else, including the other 4 slots, integrated NICs, the extra USB and SATA Controllers, etc. Everything takes up lanes, and there aren't a lot of those. With SATA Express and ThunderBolt eating them, now they're at a premium since you're hooking everything directly from PCIe. Even a full-featured mainstream Motherboard can't really get it all without sacrificing functionality somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
As far as cost goes....

Does anyone know the die size of the Alpine Ridge controller? And what lithography Intel uses for it?
 
Last edited:
Two nice side effects I thought for using External GPU (via Thunderbolt III) for laptops:

1. iGPU no longer has to be used for graphics. On a Core i5 or Core i7 laptop, this means we will get the full CPU turbo instead of the CPU throttle condition that happens when the iGPU is under full load. This should make Core i5/Core i7 laptop + external GPU higher performance (for more than one reason) compared to using iGPU.

2. Less laptops will need internal dGPU. (This means the laptop battery can be larger and/or the laptop can be smaller/slimmer)
 
stuff_me_good said:
Yeah, why no thunderbolt when it's much more appealing than USB? Does not compute.
Click to expand...

Probably because there are billions more devices that use USB, USB 3.0 is "good enough" for most people -- and USB is way cheaper.

Thunderbolt is just another dead end technology at this point, IMO. Much like Firewire or the Apple Display Connector before it (both were great, too -- but no one really bought them). I give it 3 years before it disappears completely.
 
Apple don't have the market share in the computing space to dictate standards. It was up to Intel but they don't really seem interested. USB 3.1/Type C will kill thunderbolt and Firewire for good.
 
MiddleOfTheRoad said:
Probably because there are billions more devices that use USB, USB 3.0 is "good enough" for most people -- and USB is way cheaper.

Thunderbolt is just another dead end technology at this point, IMO. Much like Firewire or the Apple Display Connector before it (both were great, too -- but no one really bought them). I give it 3 years before it disappears completely.
Click to expand...

The main competition for Thunderbolt 3 will be usb type C (that Thunderbolt III now shares cables with).

In fact, on the smallest Apple Mac Air (the new 12") having Type C connector even simplifies the chassis design to the point that there are only two external ports (1.) A type C connector which the laptop also uses as DC-in jack for its AC adapter and 2.) Microphone jack). That's it, nothing else.

profilel-r-copy1.png


More on this here--> http://9to5mac.com/2015/01/06/macbook-air-12-inch-redesign/
 
Last edited:
cbn said:
USB 3.1/type C lacks the bandwidth of Thunderbolt III though.

(Thunderbolt III has 40 Gbps bandwith vs. 10 Gbps on usb 3.1/type C)
Click to expand...

A type c thunderbolt port will carry a USB 3.1 signal inside it, so USB will use 10 Gbit/s of thunderbolt's 40 Gbit/s.
 
avAT said:
A type c thunderbolt port will carry a USB 3.1 signal inside it, so USB will use 10 Gbit/s of thunderbolt's 40 Gbit/s.
Click to expand...

PCIe 3.0 x 4 (which Thunderbolt III also has) yields 3.94 GB/s or 31.52 Gbps.

So does that mean when we hook up our External video cards we get 31.52 Gbps bandwidth or 40 Gbps bandwidth? (ie, Can the Video card use both PCIe 3.0 x 4 and usb 3.1 contained within Thunderbolt III for communicating with the CPU)
 
Thunderbolt is dead.

The only reason for Thunderbolt is so that Apple can screw people for money.

Apple sells inferior hardware at overinflated prices in pretty packages.

The thing that looks like the illegitimate offspring of Darth Vader having sex with a garbage can cannot be run at its full potential because:

A) The PSU cannot supply the power
B) The cooling system cannot dissipate the heat.

I have not seen one single honest review of the Mac Pro where they have just installed Windows on it and run a benchmark.

The reason is that it would fail miserably.

Of course Intel is going to upgrade Thunderbolt because Apple has a captive audience that they can sell this intrinsically useless subsystem to.
 
With Thunderbolt moving to the USB Type-C connector along with 3.1, I'd expect to see its adoption increased, especially if Intel integrates it more (expect all motherboards to have Type-C connectors now).

On a side note, I'm surprised Thunderbolt was never utilized as an INTERNAL connector. Seeing as it utilizes PCIe, can be daisy-chained and carry power, it would have made a great successor to SATA...and is much more elegant than SATA Express and U.2. Plus then, any internal drive could also be an external drive.

Nec_V20 said:
The only reason for Thunderbolt is so that Apple can screw people for money. Apple sells inferior hardware at overinflated prices in pretty packages.
Click to expand...
Just saying that alone makes your whole argument (as if you had one anyway) null.

Apple's hardware might not be cutting edge. But I have yet to see any other manufacturer offer the same level of quality (both initial and long term) and/or support that Apple does. There is a reason Apple products have insane residual value, and hint, it's not beause "lol only sheep buy Apple!"
 
cbn said:
The main competition for Thunderbolt 3 will be usb type C (that Thunderbolt III now shares cables with).

In fact, on the smallest Apple Mac Air (the new 12") having Type C connector even simplifies the chassis design to the point that there are only two external ports (1.) A type C connector which the laptop also uses as DC-in jack for its AC adapter and 2.) Microphone jack). That's it, nothing else.
Click to expand...

That is still the most retarded thing I ever saw. Forces you to bus some USB type docking station for that thing. Hopefully Apple actually offers something like that. If not you can't even charge the thing and watch a movie from an external HDD. Can't use a mouse and charge it, can't use a mouse and keyboard at the same time and so forth.
 
stuff_me_good said:
Yeah, why no thunderbolt when it's much more appealing than USB? Does not compute.
Click to expand...

In the end, USB will win. It's not hard to see. There have always been standards that were better. But USB is so interchangeably compatible. It's the best thing to happen to PCs since... EVAR! But seriously, I remember a time when inter-connectivity was not standard. As long as USB keeps on moving the specs forward I don't think that a proprietary standard will dethrone it. They've already got a new connector that makes in more appealing (USB 3.1c). Everyone @ CES was using them. Not thunderbolt.

Hey, it's your money, but as USB slowly evolves it will squeeze out Thunderbolt. I'm sure that Intel will come up with a new tech in the future. It's just that we don't want to spend $50+ on our interconnects. Fail.
 
bigboxes said:
They've already got a new connector that makes in more appealing (USB 3.1c). Everyone @ CES was using them. Not thunderbolt.

(snip)

It's just that we don't want to spend $50+ on our interconnects. Fail.
Click to expand...

Yep, I remember hearing that the original Thunderbolt cables were $50.

But now Thunderbolt 3 is using the usb type-C connector and cables.
 
cbn said:
But now Thunderbolt 3 is using the usb type-C connector and cables.
Click to expand...
Yes and No. When used with a passive usb type-c cable will only provide usb speeds.

To handle the new Type-C interface and the increased data rates, Intel is rolling out a new type of active cable for the new Thunderbolt standard. Like previous generation cables, the new cable includes significant active electronics at both ends of the cable, allowing Intel to achieve greater bandwidth than what passive cabling would allow, at the cost of increased cable prices.
Click to expand...
Thunderbolt 3.0 will also introduce support for passive cabling using the now-standard Type-C cable. When using a Type-C cable, Thunderbolt drops down to 20Gbps full duplex – the amount of bandwidth available in a normal Type-C cable today
Click to expand...
 
coercitiv said:
Yes and No. When used with a passive usb type-c cable will only provide usb speeds.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

20 Gbps (with passive cable) via Thunderbolt III is still pretty fast ( and double the 10 Gbps usb type C gets with the same cable).

Provided the host controller doesn't add much to the price of the laptop, I think I would definitely want Thunderbolt III over regular usb type-C even if using passive cable.

Thunderbolt III on cheap laptop + passive cable.....I wonder how much external video card I could get away with before being bottlenecked by bandwidth?

P.S. I have noticed the Type-C cables (passive) are still rather expensive. I have to imagine this will change as the technology matures.
 
Provided the host controller doesn't add much to the price of the laptop, I think I would definitely want Thunderbolt III over regular usb type-C even if using passive cable.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that this is the case? I mean, I'm not an OEM and I don't play one on tv, but I have no idea how much a TB controller costs to integrate onto a logic board. I'd imagine that it's non-trivial, and that it costs power/TDP as well as dollars.

Thunderbolt III on cheap laptop + passive cable.....I wonder how much external video card I could get away with before being bottlenecked by bandwidth?
Click to expand...

If you can do 40 Gbps at full duplex that is basically 4 pcie 3.0 lanes (4 GB/s ~ 3.94 GB/s). I've seen benchmarks that indicate no difference between 8 and 16 pcie 3.0 lanes for a single GPU, but I can't remember if they also tested 4.
 
The speed argument is pretty silly. Other than a display, what are people plugging in which reached 10 Gbps+ of bandwidth? For 99.5% of the population, this is nothing. USB 3.0 is fast enough that none of my peripherals and storage devices can saturate it. It is cheap enough for a motherboard to have 6-10 of them onboard. Thunderbolt is expensive enough that you can only get one or two of them and I cannot figure out what people are using that needs that speed (external SSD RAID cabinets? That has to represent about 0.01% of users).
 
Wall Street said:
The speed argument is pretty silly. Other than a display, what are people plugging in which reached 10 Gbps+ of bandwidth? For 99.5% of the population, this is nothing. USB 3.0 is fast enough that none of my peripherals and storage devices can saturate it. It is cheap enough for a motherboard to have 6-10 of them onboard. Thunderbolt is expensive enough that you can only get one or two of them and I cannot figure out what people are using that needs that speed (external SSD RAID cabinets? That has to represent about 0.01% of users).
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's like nobody over at Intel got the memo about the fate of eSATA and Firewire. If a new standard doesn't appear on the cheapest of cheap hardware like SATA3, USB3, PCI-E...Prepare to see it fade into irrelevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top