The future of Thunderbolt

[cbn]

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.

I couldn't find Thunderbolt III prices, but Thunderbolt II listed for below $10:

http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/60141/Falcon-Ridge

(Not sure how expensive Thunderbolt II was to actually integrate)

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Thunderbolt 3 is using usb type C connector, so a common cable/interface will be used:

http://www.cnet.com/news/usb-type-c-one-cable-to-connect-them-all/

It's still a proprietary interface that must be licensed. They are never going to match the lower cost / wider availability of USB.

If it weren't for Apple, it would already be a dead standard:
http://9to5mac.com/2013/09/30/opinion-is-thunderbolt-doomed-to-be-the-new-firewire/

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

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.

Let me tell you how ridiculously versatile USB has become. Modified USB SDCard readers are being manufactured that connect to the ancient Commodore 64's serial bus -- the entire game library fits on a single 2gb SDCard. That's a 1982 computer that bolts up perfectly to the thing. Any modern standard that adaptable, forget about competing against it..... Thunderbolt is dead in the water. They will have a tiny niche for 3 or 4 years and then probably vanish.

 

[cbn]

It's still a proprietary interface that must be licensed. They are never going to match the lower cost / wider availability of USB.

It might be wrong, but I am having a hard time believing the problem with Thunderbolt II was controller cost.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

eSATA gets heavy use in DVRs.
Firewire is THE go-to interface for serious video editing.

You clearly haven't done a lot of video editing lately. Firewire has been dead for at least 2 years. High end cameras run SSD or Compact Flash -- and simply dock them to the editing suites now. Firewire cables are dead and buried.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I don't think the problem with Thunderbolt II was controller cost.

The irony about Thunderbolt -- it is wonderful for using with displays..... Yet most consumers will probably prefer Intel wireless display instead -- thus, one Intel technology cannibalizing the other in laptops where space is limited.

 

[cbn]

The irony about Thunderbolt -- it is wonderful for using with displays..... Yet most consumers will probably prefer Intel wireless display instead -- thus, one Intel technology cannibalizing the other in laptops where space is limited.

So MiddleofTheRoad, assuming Thunderbolt III makes it onto a good number of mainstream laptops what do you think it will take for it to be desirable enough for use with external graphics?

Does the external graphics card need to be bus powered?

#1 Maybe a cheap enclosure surrounding a cheap desktop card with power through bus?

#2 Or maybe a mobile graphics dock with a mobile GPU (with better performance per watt) powered through bus?

#3 Or maybe this doesn't matter and the card can have its own enclosure and power supply.

Personally I would want #1. And I would hope laptop manufacturers using T-bolt III would include at least a 90W AC adapter for 15W laptops rather than 45W AC adapter for this purpose. (This so the laptop can draw enough power through the wall to power both laptop and external GPU through bus)

 

[cbn]

For a cheap Thunderbolt III laptop, I would probably want Pentium 3825U (15W 1.9 Ghz Broadwell dual core with four threads) or Pentium 4405U (15W 2.1 Ghz Skylake dual core with four threads). This coupled to a bus powered GT 730 GDDR5* (38W TDP) via usb-C cable (20 Gbps bandwidth with T-bolt III).

*or whatever Maxwell/Pascal GPU takes it place.

 

[cbn]

For a Thunderbolt III implementation limited to passive cabling, does the processor need to support PCIe 3.0?

I noticed on this Skylake U I/O plan below Pentium 4405U (15W 2.1Ghz 2C/4T) doesn't have PCIe 3.0, but a Celeron SKU below it, 3955U (15W 2.0 Ghz 2C/2T) actually does.

If PCIe 3.0 is required (even for passive cabling applications) that would limit choices to 3955U and the processors at level of i3-6100U (2.3 Ghz 2C/4T) and above.

 

[zir_blazer]

To be honest I'm rather interesed in TB 3, even if its a niche product. Since it shares some degree of compatibility with USB Type-C, you could say that it is a "premium" superset of it instead of a totally standalone and incompatible standard.
What annoys me is that there is too much integration needed to make use out of all the Thunderbolt features. Basically, you need to route a lot of things to Alpine Ridge.

The main question is, what are the killer use cases for TB 3 besides the possibily of external Video Cards, which are only useful for Notebooks? What about Desktop users?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

So MiddleofTheRoad, assuming Thunderbolt III makes it onto a good number of mainstream laptops what do you think it will take for it to be desirable enough for use with external graphics?

Does the external graphics card need to be bus powered?

#1 Maybe a cheap enclosure surrounding a cheap desktop card with power through bus?

#2 Or maybe a mobile graphics dock with a mobile GPU (with better performance per watt) powered through bus?

#3 Or maybe this doesn't matter and the card can have its own enclosure and power supply.

Personally I would want #1. And I would hope laptop manufacturers using T-bolt III would include at least a 90W AC adapter for 15W laptops rather than 45W AC adapter for this purpose. (This so the laptop can draw enough power through the wall to power both laptop and external GPU through bus)

I think #1 would definitely be a cool idea. #2 would be helpful to the real power users.

 

[Essence_of_War]

So MiddleofTheRoad, assuming Thunderbolt III makes it onto a good number of mainstream laptops what do you think it will take for it to be desirable enough for use with external graphics?

Does the external graphics card need to be bus powered?

#1 Maybe a cheap enclosure surrounding a cheap desktop card with power through bus?

#2 Or maybe a mobile graphics dock with a mobile GPU (with better performance per watt) powered through bus?

#3 Or maybe this doesn't matter and the card can have its own enclosure and power supply.

Personally I would want #1. And I would hope laptop manufacturers using T-bolt III would include at least a 90W AC adapter for 15W laptops rather than 45W AC adapter for this purpose. (This so the laptop can draw enough power through the wall to power both laptop and external GPU through bus)

1) and 2) seem absolutely bizarre to me. The point of having an external GPU with my laptop would be so that I could take the laptop for work when I want to be mobile, and leave the gpu at my desk attached to my cinematic hi-res monitor and dock TB into the GPU/monitor when I want to game. If I'm not transporting the external GPU, why would it be important that it's bus-powered?

3) is the only one that makes sense to me.

Did you ever watch Anand's video review of Apple's Thunderbolt Display? That's the scenario that makes the most sense to me. A hi-res monitor with GPU and PSU integrated into it, dock into it, clamshell laptop, work/game/whatever.

 

[cbn]

So MiddleofTheRoad, assuming Thunderbolt III makes it onto a good number of mainstream laptops what do you think it will take for it to be desirable enough for use with external graphics?

Does the external graphics card need to be bus powered?

#1 Maybe a cheap enclosure surrounding a cheap desktop card with power through bus?

#2 Or maybe a mobile graphics dock with a mobile GPU (with better performance per watt) powered through bus?

#3 Or maybe this doesn't matter and the card can have its own enclosure and power supply.

Personally I would want #1. And I would hope laptop manufacturers using T-bolt III would include at least a 90W AC adapter for 15W laptops rather than 45W AC adapter for this purpose. (This so the laptop can draw enough power through the wall to power both laptop and external GPU through bus)

1) and 2) seem absolutely bizarre to me. The point of having an external GPU with my laptop would be so that I could take the laptop for work when I want to be mobile, and leave the gpu at my desk attached to my cinematic hi-res monitor and dock TB into the GPU/monitor when I want to game. If I'm not transporting the external GPU, why would it be important that it's bus-powered?

3) is the only one that makes sense to me.

Having the external GPU being bus powered should lower the cost for using a lower end card (eg, 38W GT 730 GDDR5)

Otherwise the enclosure housing the low end external video card needs its own AC adapter/PSU.

P.S. I'll bet a 90W AC adapter rather than a 45W adapter for a ULV laptop doesn't add much cost. Maybe 90W AC adapter is even the same price as the 45W, just a little bigger. (So one AC adapter, rather than two, for powering laptop and external video card)

Did you ever watch Anand's video review of Apple's Thunderbolt Display? That's the scenario that makes the most sense to me. A hi-res monitor with GPU and PSU integrated into it, dock into it, clamshell laptop, work/game/whatever.

That is a good idea as well.

Buy having a separate enclosure is nice if the person wants to use the same card with different monitors. (eg, use the external card connected to Hotel Room TV while traveling).

 

[Phynaz]

You clearly haven't done a lot of video editing lately. Firewire has been dead for at least 2 years. High end cameras run SSD or Compact Flash -- and simply dock them to the editing suites now. Firewire cables are dead and buried.

You clearly have no idea what a professional video editing workflow is. Tell the movie studios their interconnect is "dead".

 

[Essence_of_War]

Having the external GPU being bus powered should lower the cost for using a lower end card (eg, 38W GT 730 GDDR5)

Otherwise the enclosure housing the low end external video card needs its own AC adapter/PSU.

Who is the target audience for this again?

The 730 is not really a gaming card, it's a video playback card. It's significantly less capable than iris pro 6200, and while I know Iris Pro is pricey, I cannot see how it would be economical to purchase an external enclosure and a 730, and not be able to outperform Iris Pro in a lower TDP.

 

[cbn]

Who is the target audience for this again?

For low power and bus powered video card, I would take Skylake Celeron 3955U* laptop with 4GB RAM (single channel), Thunderbolt III, 90W AC adapter, usb-C cable, GT 730 GDDR5 (encased by an inexpensive enclosure, bus powered).

That GT 730 GDDR5 (or a future low power desktop Maxwell/Pascal card) is going to be way faster than Celeron 12EU GT1 (with single channel RAM).

And 3955U CPU (15W Skylake 2C/2T @ 2 Ghz) is no slouch either. It should be around the performance of a stock speed E8400 C2D.

*Assuming I can't get Thunderbolt III with Skylake Pentium 4405U (15W 2.1 Ghz 2C/4T). See post #59.

P.S. Even if I had a 15W Core i3 Skylake with GT2 and dual channel RAM, a GT 730 GDDR5 still wins (and probably by a pretty good margin as well.) And over time, the gap between Skylake ULV GT2 dual channel iGPU and low power external dGPU will only increase as Nvidia and AMD release higher performing cards in the same power envelope on 14nm. (Even a 28nm 40W Maxwell card would be faster than the Kepler GT 730 GDDR5).

The 730 is not really a gaming card, it's a video playback card. It's significantly less capable than iris pro 6200, and while I know Iris Pro is pricey, I cannot see how it would be economical to purchase an external enclosure and a 730, and not be able to outperform Iris Pro in a lower TDP.

Iris Pro 6200 is only found with 47W laptop and greater.

That is going to make for a much larger laptop.

 

[Rakehellion]

If it weren't for Apple, it would already be a dead standard:
http://9to5mac.com/2013/09/30/opinion-is-thunderbolt-doomed-to-be-the-new-firewire/

If it weren't for Apple, it never would have existed in the first place.

But yeah, it would have been a lot more useful before USB 3.1.