PDA

View Full Version : AirPlay and Thunderbolt May Be Limited to High-End Devices to Start




MacRumors
Jun 24, 2011, 03:32 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/airplay-and-thunderbolt-may-be-limited-to-high-end-devices-to-start/)


Earlier today, we noted (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/hands-on-video-of-lacie-little-big-disk-ssd-with-thunderbolt/) that LaCie is preparing to roll out its first Thunderbolt-enabled Little Big Disk external hard drives, although the initial models will be limited to higher-end SSD-based devices.

iLounge now reports (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/high-airplay-thunderbolt-costs-limiting-ios-options/) that slow roll-out of Thunderbolt and the lack of consumer-based options may be due to high pricing for incorporating the technology, an issue that appears to also be affecting third-party peripherals compatible with Apple's AirPlay streaming technology. According to the report, the inclusion of Thunderbolt or AirPlay compatibility can add as much as $100 to the price of these devices, limiting their ability to address mainstream consumer markets.Our sources have described the AirPlay technologies as considerably more expensive to incorporate than Apple's standard docking Made for iPod/iPhone/iPad Dock Connectors, and noted that Apple is very heavily pushing developers to adopt the wireless technologies despite the costs involved.

We similarly have learned that the price of the components required to add a Thunderbolt port to an external hard drive is roughly equal to the cost of a low-end hard drive itself, a high cost that one developer has suggested will limit Thunderbolt's near-term use to products aimed at the professional market.For the time being, announced Thunderbolt products do seem to be coming in at price points above those typically within range of mainstream consumers, as evidenced by Promise's 8 TB Pegasus RAID R4, which briefly appeared (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iy-PVXGpWbMJ:store.apple.com/us/product/H5185VC/A+site:apple.com+Pegasus+Promise+R4&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari&source=www.google.com) on Apple's store priced at $1399.95 before being pulled. That price is only $100 more than for Promise's current 8 TB RAID offering (http://store.apple.com/us/product/H1106VC/A), but it remains to be seen just how quickly Thunderbolt will be able to make its way into more mainstream products.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/promise_thunderbolt_raid-500x232.jpg

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/promise_thunderbolt_raid.jpg)
iLounge suggests that there may at least be some hope for price drops for AirPlay devices in the relatively near future, noting that Philips earlier this week debuted AirPlay-compatible speaker systems with price tags as low as $229, a new floor in what has until now seen the feature primarily limited to higher-end receivers.

Article Link: AirPlay and Thunderbolt May Be Limited to High-End Devices to Start (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/airplay-and-thunderbolt-may-be-limited-to-high-end-devices-to-start/)



theheadguy
Jun 24, 2011, 03:35 PM
This is part of the reason I don't understand why people were *so* excited over this. How could anyone expect anything different? I wouldn't expect this to be mainstream for a couple years.

portishead
Jun 24, 2011, 03:38 PM
I wouldn't mind a $100 premium on a nice 3.5" dual bay thunderbolt enclosure.

herocero
Jun 24, 2011, 03:40 PM
The comparison made here is silly. The Pegasus model without Thunderbolt is a mere $100 less. The fastest connection speed it supports is eSATA 3Gbps (not even 6Gbps). For an extra $100 you have access to Thunderbolt speeds, and this is going to slow adoption among this market segment? Give me a break. Probably not for consumers at the start, but to think a Thunderbolt device with this price increase for the extra performance wouldn't take off in this prosumer/enterprise environment is a silly conclusion.

thejadedmonkey
Jun 24, 2011, 03:42 PM
If Apple was really serious about pushing technology forward instead of proprietary lock-in, they'd be using DLNA and just re-branding it as AirPlay.

Piggie
Jun 24, 2011, 03:46 PM
It's going to be interesting to see how this goes.

Let's face it, unless the PC market starts using Thunderbolt and it gets into mass market consumer products, it's a dead duck.

When I say dead duck, I don't mean it's not impressive and fast and Pro's won't want it, I mean as far as the mainstream views it.

I'm afraid people will use Thunderbolt as an excuse to price things, high, and actually there will be some who don't want to see Thunderbolt go to the lower price points. Yes, I know it's mad, but there are people who actually enjoy things being special and not owned by the mass market.

It's going to be a great shame in Thunderbolt dies at birth as far as normal consumer "Best Buy" items go. And we see the whole world embrace USB3 as the new default standard.

Why not have Thunderbolt as the new mass consumer standard and move on from USB3 before it takes over?

moose.boy
Jun 24, 2011, 03:49 PM
Is this really news ? I mean, seriously ?

You've got an interface that appears to be the extension of the bus on the motherboard - we're not talking 8bit ISA cards here, that has only just come out, and that is only available on new computers. Look at USB peripherals when they first came out !

Secondly for airplay - it's more expensive to build a 802.1x device with appropriate protocols on board than it is to put a dock - really ? are you sure ? really sure ? I'm assuming based on this the next headline will be 'rain gets you wet' .

The quality of mac news reporting is rapidly hitting lowest common denominator level with big scary headlines, glib, technically inaccurate statements and general lack of common sense and/or thought within articles.

JonB3Z
Jun 24, 2011, 03:52 PM
Let's face it, unless the PC market starts using Thunderbolt and it gets into mass market consumer products, it's a dead duck.

When I say dead duck, I don't mean it's not impressive and fast and Pro's won't want it, I mean as far as the mainstream views it.


OK, but what the mainstream market wants is not that important to me. The mainstream never wanted FW800; USB2 was good enough. I'm sure USB3 will be good enough for the mainstream market, too.

As long as there is enough of a market to support a reasonable range of Thunderbolt peripherals, I'll be satisfied.

Don't forget, too, that TB is an Intel technology. It should become available in Windows PCs in the next year or so, and that will put it at least on a par with eSATA in terms of serving the upper part of the market.

KaneBaker
Jun 24, 2011, 03:52 PM
It's going to be interesting to see how this goes.

Let's face it, unless the PC market starts using Thunderbolt and it gets into mass market consumer products, it's a dead duck.

When I say dead duck, I don't mean it's not impressive and fast and Pro's won't want it, I mean as far as the mainstream views it.

I'm afraid people will use Thunderbolt as an excuse to price things, high, and actually there will be some who don't want to see Thunderbolt go to the lower price points. Yes, I know it's mad, but there are people who actually enjoy things being special and not owned by the mass market.

It's going to be a great shame in Thunderbolt dies at birth as far as normal consumer "Best Buy" items go. And we see the whole world embrace USB3 as the new default standard.

Why not have Thunderbolt as the new mass consumer standard and move on from USB3 before it takes over?

Because USB 3 already took over and thunderbolt doesn't seem optimal for consumer devices. My local computer shops have tons of USB3 raid enclosures, sadly I am stuck with USB2 and firewire. My work MacPro runs raid through Sata.

I want since I use raid drives for video editing. But I also want USB3. The two can co-exist the way SUB2 and Firefire did. There is really no reason for Thunderbolt Mice and keyboards. USB serves that segment well.

PorterRocks
Jun 24, 2011, 03:52 PM
Why not have Thunderbolt as the new mass consumer standard and move on from USB3 before it takes over?

This.

I just can't help but think that thunderbolt is either going to become a dead standard or is going to be really slow at being adopted. It just seems usb 3.0 will take over in that time.

steadysignal
Jun 24, 2011, 03:55 PM
Is this really news ? I mean, seriously ?

The quality of mac news reporting is rapidly hitting lowest common denominator level with big scary headlines, glib, technically inaccurate statements and general lack of common sense and/or thought within articles.

did you have an alternate expectation at this stage of the game?

0815
Jun 24, 2011, 03:55 PM
only $100 more for using a much faster interface? Fine by me. I need fast disk access more than any other machine upgrade - given that, the 'premium' isn't too bad, you get a good value for that. This one is not SSD, but I am looking forward to a selection of SSD Thunderbold drives, that will show the true advantage of Thunderbold.

WildCowboy
Jun 24, 2011, 03:58 PM
The comparison made here is silly. The Pegasus model without Thunderbolt is a mere $100 less. The fastest connection speed it supports is eSATA 3Gbps (not even 6Gbps). For an extra $100 you have access to Thunderbolt speeds, and this is going to slow adoption among this market segment? Give me a break. Probably not for consumers at the start, but to think a Thunderbolt device with this price increase for the extra performance wouldn't take off in this prosumer/enterprise environment is a silly conclusion.

It's merely an example of the $1000+ hardware Thunderbolt is going into at first. It's not showing up in the $200-$300 consumer externals.

skitzogreg
Jun 24, 2011, 03:58 PM
Though I love that Apple has put into use this technology somewhat exclusively, it's going to take a release of Thunderbolt into PC territory before costs can be lowered. We need a larger market.

baleensavage
Jun 24, 2011, 04:01 PM
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

Piggie
Jun 24, 2011, 04:04 PM
If we put the snob issue to one side, and the idiots who like expensive things just because they are expensive and they can feel special as they have things which they feel other can't afford.

Sad little people!

Is there a REAL reason why we can't just adopt Thunderbolt as a new "connect everything" standard?

Thunderbolt mice, Keyboards, Printers, Graphics tablets, Scanners, as well as the more obvious things like external hard drives and monitors.

Would it not just make everyone's life easier to just ramp up the scale and down the cost of thunderbolt and stick a load of thunderbolt ports on the back of Macs and PC's and just have everything using the same connection.

I'd happily spend the few extra dollars that a fully mass market thunderbolt system SHOULD cost.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid there are some people who will deliberately want to keep it priced high and seen to be something special to justify the high price.

TMay
Jun 24, 2011, 04:06 PM
This.

I just can't help but think that thunderbolt is either going to become a dead standard or is going to be really slow at being adopted. It just seems usb 3.0 will take over in that time.

Pro's will pick TB for audio and video capture as TB has very low latency and has capabilities of syncing data streams. Think of TB as a superset of USB 3.0 capabilites, just as Intel does.

The two standards are complementary, but everyone wants to make a horse race out of it. Apple will support USB 3.0 when Intel supports in on the chipsets for Ivy Bridge late this year.

Mike Oxard
Jun 24, 2011, 04:07 PM
A $100 premium is a lot to pay for AirPlay, especially as in my experience it is far from being perfect at the moment.

cppguy
Jun 24, 2011, 04:10 PM
Is there a REAL reason why we can't just adopt Thunderbolt as a new "connect everything" standard?

Thunderbolt mice, Keyboards, Printers, Graphics tablets, Scanners, as well as the more obvious things like external hard drives and monitors.

You daisy chain Thunderbolt devices, you don't connect them to a central hub. Would you really like to connect a mouse to a keyboard to a hard drive to a printer to a tablet to a monitor? So if you want to take the printer out then you need to rewire your entire room?

hayesk
Jun 24, 2011, 04:15 PM
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

Firewire isn't a debacle. They weren't trying to kill USB and firewire, and licensing was not expensive. Not only that, you are mistaken if you think the "big bag of hurt" was about price.

hayesk
Jun 24, 2011, 04:16 PM
Of course Airplay is going to be more expensive. You need a specialized chip running a server and a WiFi interface. Until someone invents an Airplay/WiFi system-on-a-chip, it's going to be expensive.

Piggie
Jun 24, 2011, 04:16 PM
You daisy chain Thunderbolt devices, you don't connect them to a central hub. Would you really like to connect a mouse to a keyboard to a hard drive to a printer to a tablet to a monitor? So if you want to take the printer out then you need to rewire your entire room?

Do you have to daisy chain or is this just an option?

Can't they make something like a 8 port Thunderbolt Hub to replace USB then?

milo
Jun 24, 2011, 04:17 PM
This isn't news at all. It's a new standard meaning it will be more expensive at launch, and the benefits it provides are going to first appeal to pros doing high end work. Those pros are going to be HAPPY to pay a little bit extra to get that extra speed.

If this works as well as that tech demo posted earlier, pros are going to go crazy for it. And pros working on PC are going to want the technology as well.

*LTD*
Jun 24, 2011, 04:22 PM
So Apple the Pros a (pretty substantial) bone and they're complaining?

the-oz-man
Jun 24, 2011, 04:22 PM
This article also fails to mention that nearly all of the new line of Denon A/V Receivers carry AirPlay as a feature. Aside for the 2 extreme models, all are very affordable in the consumer electronics category.

iSee
Jun 24, 2011, 04:30 PM
?...Firewire debacle...USB won over Firewire...

FireWire debacle? FireWire lost? What are you talking about?
I use FireWire all the time. It's nowhere near as widespread as USB. But it works well, widely available, and definitely has its uses. There's no debacle and no one lost.

I'd expect USB 3 to take over USB 2, and thunderbolt to replace FireWire.

TSE
Jun 24, 2011, 04:31 PM
Only thing I am excited for with Thunderbolt is the possibility of external graphics cards for laptops.

Sjhonny
Jun 24, 2011, 04:39 PM
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

What had they to learn? There's simply no way that TB will be an el-cheapo technology. TB is superior ... for a price. You also pay more for a a GeForce 580 GTX than for a GeForce 560.
And how could Apple make TB as cheap as USB?
1. it requires an extra controller on both the side of pc as device
2. there's virtually no market for it, besides in the pro(sumer) area, the area where apple is already over presented, and doesn't care about a hundred bucks more or less.
3. It's an all new technology. There're nearly no producers for cables, chipsets, devices so there doesn't exist a mass production of USB magnitude.

0815
Jun 24, 2011, 04:48 PM
You daisy chain Thunderbolt devices, you don't connect them to a central hub. Would you really like to connect a mouse to a keyboard to a hard drive to a printer to a tablet to a monitor? So if you want to take the printer out then you need to rewire your entire room?

A computer can have more than one Thunderbolt port .... even hubs are possible.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 04:53 PM
A computer can have more than one Thunderbolt port ....

I presently have 5 USB devices connected to my MBA, plus 1 monitor, plus speakers...

That's a poor solution you propose there.

even hubs are possible.

Citation needed.

Sjhonny
Jun 24, 2011, 04:55 PM
Only thing I am excited for with Thunderbolt is the possibility of external graphics cards for laptops.

10 Gb/s is not enough for anything better than currently already available in high-end 15"/17". Under four PCI-E 2.0 (16 Gb/s) lanes, there's no way you'll be able to run any GPU in the Mid to High end segment, and even with four lanes, you wouldn't max out the performance of the GPU by a long shot (at least 8 - 32 Gb/s - lanes, preferentially 16 - 64 Gb/s). So maybe when we get optical TB, we'll see decent external GPU's. But the PCI-E standard itself also evolves. PCI-E 3 is making it's way to the industry.

paradox00
Jun 24, 2011, 04:56 PM
It's going to be interesting to see how this goes.

Let's face it, unless the PC market starts using Thunderbolt and it gets into mass market consumer products, it's a dead duck.

When I say dead duck, I don't mean it's not impressive and fast and Pro's won't want it, I mean as far as the mainstream views it.

I'm afraid people will use Thunderbolt as an excuse to price things, high, and actually there will be some who don't want to see Thunderbolt go to the lower price points. Yes, I know it's mad, but there are people who actually enjoy things being special and not owned by the mass market.

It's going to be a great shame in Thunderbolt dies at birth as far as normal consumer "Best Buy" items go. And we see the whole world embrace USB3 as the new default standard.

Why not have Thunderbolt as the new mass consumer standard and move on from USB3 before it takes over?

Thunderbolt isn't supposed to be a USB replacement. Why would we need a new port to plug keyboards and mice into? Thunderbolt is an expansion of PCIe outside of your computer, with DP coming along for the ride. Think of the things you'd normally put in a PCIe slot (i.e., video cards, capture cards, highspeed SSD arrays, etc.), that's what you'd use Thunderbolt for. More mass market examples would be docking stations, external hard drives and monitor docks. You're trying to make a race out of two products with two different goals in mind.

Quite frankly, USB 2.0 is USB 3.0s greatest competition. USB 3.0 is more expensive, the cables are thicker and less flexible, most devices don't need the extra speed it offers, and many of the ones that do would be better served by something like Thunderbolt. If USB 3.0 has so much momentum, why are virtually no smartphones, PMPs, mice, keyboards, printers, or cameras, etc. using it? And why do the few USB 3.0 flash drives available cost so much??? USB could very well become like Bluetooth, where most products are not using the latest standard.

Food for thought:
Apple's coming out with a new MBA. If they wanted to, they could create a docking station for it complete with bigger hard drive, optical drive, external graphics, USB and any other ports, all connected to the Air through a single (universal) Thunderbolt port. That might be pushing the boundaries of the current generation of Thunderbolt a bit (not enough bandwidth for a high end video card), but those are the sort of possibilities you can look forward to with a port of this nature.

PS: Macs will get USB 3.0 and PC's will get Thunderbolt with Intels next generation of chips, since Intel has announced native support for both. The two technologies are complementary.

baryon
Jun 24, 2011, 04:59 PM
Screw that, USB 2.0 is fine for me, don't care if it takes a bit longer to copy a file. This will either be everywhere at no extra cost in 5 years, or it will be unheard of just like like Mini DisplayPort.

ericinboston
Jun 24, 2011, 05:01 PM
Gee....$1400 for the first wave of Thunderbolt drives? <sarcasm>Wow...what a great price </sarcasm>

Seriously though...other than the elite of the elite of the Mac professionals out there, who the heck spends $1400 on a hard drive? That's right...nobody.

Until TB has more offerings (like the hundreds of USB 3.0 drives currently) AS WELL AS PRICING (USB 3.0 drives are about $10 more expensive than their USB 2.0 counterparts by the same manufacturer), TB is going to be for the very select few in the business world. Mom and dad and sis aren't going to own $1400+ Mac computers and $1400+ TB drives.

cav23j
Jun 24, 2011, 05:04 PM
Gee....$1400 for the first wave of Thunderbolt drives? <sarcasm>Wow...what a great price </sarcasm>

Seriously though...other than the elite of the elite of the Mac professionals out there, who the heck spends $1400 on a hard drive? That's right...nobody.

Until TB has more offerings (like the hundreds of USB 3.0 drives currently) AS WELL AS PRICING (USB 3.0 drives are about $10 more expensive than their USB 2.0 counterparts by the same manufacturer), TB is going to be for the very select few in the business world. Mom and dad and sis aren't going to own $1400+ Mac computers and $1400+ TB drives.

the product they are showing is currently $1300 without TB
not every product with TB will be that high or anywhere near it

johneaston
Jun 24, 2011, 05:09 PM
Why do Thunderbolt ports equal an "ultra quiet design"? Are USB and FireWire ports noisy?

cmaier
Jun 24, 2011, 05:10 PM
Citation needed.

I do recall in one of the initial presentations discussions of a hub. From a technical perspective, hubs seem possible, but I can't imagine they can be done in a way that is in any way affordable, at least not for a couple years. I also think there would be severe technical limitations with any hub - for example, I don't know whether displays using displayport-over-thunderbolt would react very well.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 05:10 PM
not every product with TB will be that high or anywhere near it

Except that's all that vendors have been announcing for now. It really does seem TB is not headed to consumer tech soon.

And really, why would it ?

iEvolution
Jun 24, 2011, 05:10 PM
Good night sweet Thunderbolt. Great way to become a standard by using only higher end devices to start.

Anyway I don't care to have yet another interface technology, USB 3 is fine by me and is at least backwards compatible.

tigress666
Jun 24, 2011, 05:31 PM
You daisy chain Thunderbolt devices, you don't connect them to a central hub. Would you really like to connect a mouse to a keyboard to a hard drive to a printer to a tablet to a monitor? So if you want to take the printer out then you need to rewire your entire room?

Conversely, it makes for a real simple docking solution for people like me who use their laptop as a desktop to. I don't change my printer often, I unhook my computer from the monitor/keyboard/mouse/backup hard drive every week.

jayducharme
Jun 24, 2011, 05:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

Exactly. I thought Apple was open-sourcing the AirPlay protocol. That would ensure it's rapid adoption.

As for Thunderbolt, it may simply be the new FireWire, adopted by pros and ignored by the average consumer (who doesn't care if USB3 is slower than Thunderbolt).

LarryC
Jun 24, 2011, 05:47 PM
Everybody knows that Apple products cost more. If I purchase an Apple computer and it has USB technology in it then it should be USB 3.0 by now. People keep saying it will be available with the next generation, but I have seen it (3.0) on current PC laptops? If Apple is going to charge us more, then we should be getting more! I am glad that TB is here. It is an exciting development, but I also want USB 3.0.

Azathoth
Jun 24, 2011, 05:52 PM
As long as there is enough of a market to support a reasonable range of Thunderbolt peripherals, I'll be satisfied.

Don't forget, too, that TB is an Intel technology. It should become available in Windows PCs in the next year or so, and that will put it at least on a par with eSATA in terms of serving the upper part of the market.

For laughs I checked out intel's business (HW dev) site to see if there were any TB datasheets. Nope, zip, nada. Just a placeholder for Light Peak, but nothing about TB (see for yourself at ark.intel.com)

The Apple implementation of the Thunderbolt chipset is *invisible* in google.
This does not bode well for the standard if developers can't get access to the datasheets.

http://communities.intel.com/thread/19890?wapkw=%28thunderbolt%29

Dev kit available end of Q2 2011.

I wonder what the real deal is behind Thunderbolt. Intel don't seem keen on it.

Did Intel develop Light Peak and Apple force them to make an electrical version of it with a view to basically making an iMac/MBP "iPhone connector"?

Apple must have become bullish after years of making proprietary connectors (ACD, NuBus), that the iPhone connector finally took off and is almost a de facto standard. Perhaps they imagine that peripheral makers will similarly flock around TB.

Heck I'm holding off on a MBA because TB might be incorporated, along with the aspiration that maybe a TB to FW might emerge at an affordable price - because the superior-in-every-way-except-market-presence lack of FW is limiting when considering and MBA as a sole computer.

Following the TB hype, I'm becoming really sceptical - and manufacturers talking about *significant* cost premiums for TB - I'm going to predict white elephant status.

lilo777
Jun 24, 2011, 05:55 PM
I wouldn't mind a $100 premium on a nice 3.5" dual bay thunderbolt enclosure.

Enclosure for what? If it's just a simple HDD then USB 3.0 would suffice (no benefits from Thunderbolt - just higher price). If it's SSD in RAID configuration (the only device that would benefit from Thunderbolt compared to USB 3.0) then it's price would be high anyways. But who will need those SSD/RAID monsters. Professional FCP users? Well, they all are switching to AVID anyways (we all know why).

Azathoth
Jun 24, 2011, 05:58 PM
People keep saying it will be available with the next generation, but I have seen it (3.0) on current PC laptops? If Apple is going to charge us more, then we should be getting more! I am glad that TB is here. It is an exciting development, but I also want USB 3.0.

www.notebookreview.com

About half of the last 10 reviewed laptops have USB3, the of the remaining 4 have eSata/USB2 ports.

All technology that you can buy peripherals for.

A high speed interface in the hand is worth two in the bush...

ljocampo
Jun 24, 2011, 06:00 PM
Originally Posted by 0815

even hubs are possible.

Citation needed.

I see no reason a citation is needed. Every device that can be daisy-chained will come with a HUB onboard, just as Firewire devices do now. A daisy-chain TB device will do the same. In fact, all the manufacturers have stated they will offer pass-through TB ports (2 TB ports). HUBs are implied to daisy-chaining. Powered HUBs, like all Firewire and USB HUBs before, will quickly join the TB party.

The chain might need to be terminated at the display, but I doubt it, since laptops were the first to get these TB ports. And I'll bet the new Apple Cinema displays will have a TB HUB built into it.

kiljoy616
Jun 24, 2011, 06:01 PM
It's going to be interesting to see how this goes.

Let's face it, unless the PC market starts using Thunderbolt and it gets into mass market consumer products, it's a dead duck.

When I say dead duck, I don't mean it's not impressive and fast and Pro's won't want it, I mean as far as the mainstream views it.

I'm afraid people will use Thunderbolt as an excuse to price things, high, and actually there will be some who don't want to see Thunderbolt go to the lower price points. Yes, I know it's mad, but there are people who actually enjoy things being special and not owned by the mass market.

It's going to be a great shame in Thunderbolt dies at birth as far as normal consumer "Best Buy" items go. And we see the whole world embrace USB3 as the new default standard.

Why not have Thunderbolt as the new mass consumer standard and move on from USB3 before it takes over?

Wrong because Intel is behind this or should I say both technologies, personally you can't beat USB 3 for cheap, really cheap mass comsumption, where thunderbolt is only in its first of many upgrades. Also Apple is not the same company of the past, and in the PC world things can be so slow to change just look how those old ports are still around even in high end build your self motherboards.

Talking about you PS/2 mouse port. :rolleyes:

PC of course will drool over how low can we go, so USB 3 should be fine for them. No one cares about better tech when their laptop cost 500 dollars. My iPad cost more than that. :p

But really do you think thunderbolt is really needed in a Mac mini?
Or do you think the iPad/iPhone needs it when we all really want to just get rid of even syncing anything with wires, I don't but that just for me.

High end or not if you need it I see no issue with Mac users which tend to have much more expendable capital getting it. I for one like Thunderbolt speed but Airplay is my LOVE. I want it everywhere, I want it in my car I want it in my Pacemaker ;) when I am 100 :D I even want it with my 400 dollar coffee maker. Nothing says F you PC world than coffee made to perfection in 45 second as I type this in my ipad 2 white as I listen to Genesis on Airplay. :cool:

or for us special people, you know who I am talking about ;) I give you perfection http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23coff.html because Mac people are worth it!:p

lilo777
Jun 24, 2011, 06:07 PM
Wrong because Intel is behind this or should I say both technologies, personally you can't beat USB 3 for cheap, really cheap mass comsumption, where thunderbolt is only in its first of many upgrades. Also Apple is not the same company of the past, and in the PC world things can be so slow to change just look how those old ports are still around even in high end build your self motherboards.

Talking about you PS/2 mouse port. :rolleyes:

PC of course will drool over how low can we go, so USB 3 should be fine for them. No one cares about better tech when their laptop cost 500 dollars. My iPad cost more than that. :p

But really do you think thunderbolt is really needed in a Mac mini?
Or do you think the iPad/iPhone needs it when we all really want to just get rid of even syncing anything with wires, I don't but that just for me.

High end or not if you need it I see no issue with Mac users which tend to have much more expendable capital getting it. I for one like Thunderbolt speed but Airplay is my LOVE. I want it everywhere, I want it in my car I want it in my Pacemaker ;) when I am 100 :D I even want it with my 400 dollar coffee maker. Nothing says F you PC world than coffee made to perfection in 45 second as I type this in my ipad 2 white as I listen to Genesis on Airplay. :cool:

or for us special people, you know who I am talking about ;) I give you perfection http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/dining/23coff.html because Mac people are worth it!:p

The problem is not Thunderbolt. The problem is that Apple does not do USB 3.0. You may dream as much as you want about your Mac-size wealth. In reality with Thunderbolt and without USB 3.0 it's the Mac users who deserve a pity from PC side.

kiljoy616
Jun 24, 2011, 06:07 PM
Enclosure for what? If it's just a simple HDD then USB 3.0 would suffice (no benefits from Thunderbolt - just higher price). If it's SSD in RAID configuration (the only device that would benefit from Thunderbolt compared to USB 3.0) then it's price would be high anyways. But who will need those SSD/RAID monsters. Professional FCP users? Well, they all are switching to AVID anyways (we all know why).

http://www.avidid.com/

Really they are all tagging them selves with these, dude they are so cool no more need to worry about getting lost.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 06:10 PM
I see no reason a citation is needed. Every device that can be daisy-chained will come with a HUB onboard, just as Firewire devices do now. A daisy-chain TB device will do the same. In fact, all the manufacturers have stated they will offer pass-through TB ports (2 TB ports). HUBs are implied to daisy-chaining. Powered HUBs, like all Firewire and USB HUBs before, will quickly join the TB party.

Hum... Hubs are not daisy chains. Hubs are part of a star topology, daisy chaining is a bus topology. Having 2 TB ports on a device is not having a hub.

So yes, Citation is needed to know if TB hubs can be produced to connect devices in a star topology instead of a bus topology. I have not seen it. Maybe it's out there, who knows, and that's why I asked for a citation before saying it's a fact that TB hubs and will exist.

portishead
Jun 24, 2011, 06:19 PM
Enclosure for what? If it's just a simple HDD then USB 3.0 would suffice (no benefits from Thunderbolt - just higher price). If it's SSD in RAID configuration (the only device that would benefit from Thunderbolt compared to USB 3.0) then it's price would be high anyways. But who will need those SSD/RAID monsters. Professional FCP users? Well, they all are switching to AVID anyways (we all know why).

Nobody that I've heard of has switched anything. FCP7 works fine until FCPX can fill the void.

Macs don't have USB 3.0 if you didn't notice.

kiljoy616
Jun 24, 2011, 06:25 PM
The problem is not Thunderbolt. The problem is that Apple does not do USB 3.0. You may dream as much as you want about your Mac-size wealth. In reality with Thunderbolt and without USB 3.0 it's the Mac users who deserve a pity from PC side.

I build PC a Few motherboard now have USB 3, two ports only, no one cares. Just like TB USB 3 is new and for most users no one cares. Non of my customers care at all about it. They are more interested in SSD which makes a difference.

USB 3 a lot faster than USB 2 but let me know what right now and for say the next 24 months you would do with it?

Drop the Hard Drive off the list and its not that big a deal for anyone that is not a tech head. I am one of those but not my customers.

But I can give some places where they could be worth it but people can still live without.

1. High end professional cameras still no one is jumping over hoops for this
2. Professional Video cameras (could be important place for TB)
3. Very high end system for professional movie making
4. Servers (but not a must for now)

Places where no one except again tech head care.

1. Cheap computers
2. low level home use backup hardware and small business
3. Tablets
4. Gaming platforms
5. High end sound systems (Airplay I think will be the future here)

This thread is about AirPlay and Thunderbolt limited to High End devices.

Which makes sense, just like SSD for the most part is still on high end system though it has been coming down enough that the 128GB most people can afford, but take that to 200+ or even 500+ and how much of the consumer population will even touch it?

I will bet that 1 in 100 people will get any benefit out of TB, and maybe just maybe 10 out 100 for USB 3. That having TB and USB 3 everywhere would make older tech go away is just not possible, human psychology tells us people need to die off for real change. As I said before go online and check out how many bran new high end motherboards have still PS/2 port.

But if I am wrong I am open to been told so with explanation. :D

lilo777
Jun 24, 2011, 06:28 PM
I build PC a Few motherboard now have USB 3, two ports only, no one cares. Just like TB USB 3 is new and for most users no one cares. Non of my customers care at all about it. They are more interested in SSD which makes a difference.

USB 3 a lot faster than USB 2 but let me know what right now and for say the next 24 months you would do with it?

Drop the Hard Drive off the list and its not that big a deal for anyone that is not a tech head. I am one of those but not my customers.

But I can give some places where they could be worth it but people can still live without.

1. High end professional cameras still no one is jumping over hoops for this
2. Professional Video cameras (could be important place for TB)
3. Very high end system for professional movie making
4. Servers (but not a must for now)

Places where no one except again tech head care.

1. Cheap computers
2. low level home use backup hardware and small business
3. Tablets
4. Gaming platforms
5. High end sound systems (Airplay I think will be the future here)

This thread is about AirPlay and Thunderbolt limited to High End devices.

Which makes sense, just like SSD for the most part is still on high end system though it has been coming down enough that the 128GB most people can afford, but take that to 200+ or even 500+ and how much of the consumer population will even touch it?

I will bet that 1 in 100 people will get any benefit out of TB, and maybe just maybe 10 out 100 for USB 3. That having TB and USB 3 everywhere would make older tech go away is just not possible, human psychology tells us people need to die off for real change. As I said before go online and check out how many bran new high end motherboards have still PS/2 port.

But if I am wrong I am open to been told so with explanation. :D

I can tell you what would do. In fact I am actually doing it. I have USB3.0 enabled external WD hard drive that I use for backup. Obviously it works much faster than anything else available on the market right now (for consumers).

kiljoy616
Jun 24, 2011, 06:39 PM
You daisy chain Thunderbolt devices, you don't connect them to a central hub. Would you really like to connect a mouse to a keyboard to a hard drive to a printer to a tablet to a monitor? So if you want to take the printer out then you need to rewire your entire room?

Why would you not wifi a printer?

Why would you not bluetooth a mouse and keyboard?

2 printer wifi with static IP never had to worry about them, always work perfectly.

Mouse and key all bluetooth except the gaming machine which uses a USB 2 for that but that one machine of 5 at home. :D

Refrigerator is even WiFi. :) No I did not buy it because of it.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-RSG309AARS-Refrigerator-External-Dispenser/dp/B004XQHASW

portishead
Jun 24, 2011, 06:42 PM
I can tell you what would do. In fact I am actually doing it. I have USB3.0 enabled external WD hard drive that I use for backup. Obviously it works much faster than anything else available on the market right now (for consumers).

Thunderbolt > USB 3.0. You can't connect a fibre channel card via USB 3.0. Thunderbolt can already do this, even though the products haven't arrived to the market yet.

RedTomato
Jun 24, 2011, 06:43 PM
Citation is needed to know if TB hubs can be produced to connect devices in a star topology instead of a bus topology. I have not seen it. Maybe it's out there, who knows, and that's why I asked for a citation before saying it's a fact that TB hubs and will exist.

I see little reason why you couldn't have a thunderbolt connected breakout box with multiple ports on it. Could be USB or (e)SATA or ethernet or whatever. Would need some logic in the box to administer and aggregate the signals, that's all.

Thunderbolt is a PCIe interface, and multiport PCIe / USB adaptors are already widely available - they're called 'USB expansion cards for desktops'.

Personally I'd probably use mine for plugging in a really fast SSD drive. Already two fast SSD drives in RAID1 can theoretically overwhelm Thunderbolt :eek:

[but an enclosure that can process 1GB/sec of RAID 1 *might* be expensive]

mrr
Jun 24, 2011, 06:44 PM
I don't get it !

What is the hold up?

If an external drive enclosure now costs say $50 and a 1TB drive costs $100, and it costs another $100 to add Thunderbolt, why can't we see Thunderbolt drives for $250???

I would pay $250 for a fast Thunderbolt drive.

Am I missing something?

lilo777
Jun 24, 2011, 06:50 PM
Thunderbolt > USB 3.0. You can't connect a fibre channel card via USB 3.0. Thunderbolt can already do this, even though the products haven't arrived to the market yet.

Exactly. Right now you can not connect anything to Thunderbolt. And now we are told that even if there will be any products, they will be more expensive than the ones for USB 3.0 (with no speed benefits compared to USB 3.0 for most typical applications).

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 06:50 PM
2. Professional Video cameras (could be important place for TB)

TBolt is not a network or peripheral protocol. It is a PCIe expansion port that routes a small number of PCIe lanes out of the system chassis.

There are *no* TBolt devices available or proposed. Every proposed device has a TBolt to PCIe bridge, and a PCIe controller to connect to the actual device protocol.

The LaCie disk has
TBolt -> PCIe -> SATA controller -> SATA drives
inside of it. Is it any wonder that they're afraid to announce the price? (Note that you also have to include the second TBolt port for daisy-chaining.)

I really don't see camera manufacturers adding all that hardware inside a camera, plus two mid-sized port connectors - when USB 3.0 is probably far faster than the flash drive embedded in the camera. Lots of pain ($$) for no gain.

And, USB 3.0 is compatible with far, far, far more systems that TBolt ever will be.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 06:52 PM
I see little reason why you couldn't have a thunderbolt connected breakout box with multiple ports on it. Could be USB or (e)SATA or ethernet or whatever. Would need some logic in the box to administer and aggregate the signals, that's all.

Because a BUS topology technology does not work the same as a Star topology technology.

Again, if it is possible, please provide some documentation showing it is. Otherwise, qualify any statements of "TB hubs are coming" by stating that this is your opinion based on your own speculation. Don't state it as fact.


I don't get it !

What is the hold up?

If an external drive enclosure now costs say $50 and a 1TB drive costs $100, and it costs another $100 to add Thunderbolt, why can't we see Thunderbolt drives for $250???

I would pay $250 for a fast Thunderbolt drive.

Am I missing something?

Not big enough of an installed base to justify the design of the thing. The volume would be pityful right now for any vendors, so low cost, low-end solutions aren't worth designing and bringing to market. Chicken and egg problem.

USB3 gets around that with backwards compatibility.

iSayuSay
Jun 24, 2011, 06:53 PM
This phenomenon is just so much like Apple. You can only get Mac computer at approximately $1000 for the lowest end

Or a MacPro for minimum $2500. If u think it all over again, it's not that Mac being overpriced, they just don't make the cheap version of their Mac.

And so does thunderbolt, being $100 more than the competition without thunderbolt, but offer great improvements??! It's not exactly overpriced, see? But available only at $1000++ device while a simple $60 1Tb external hdd could implement thunderbolt too, if they just allow it :p

kiljoy616
Jun 24, 2011, 07:02 PM
I can tell you what would do. In fact I am actually doing it. I have USB3.0 enabled external WD hard drive that I use for backup. Obviously it works much faster than anything else available on the market right now (for consumers).

Yes I understand that, but we are talking about consumers not a limited demographics. For most consumers their backup HD does not even exist, so putting TB or USB 3 on cheap equipment just to say it has it is is not a priority.

Give it another 12 months and I see way more things coming out.

Personally I want TB flash drive :rolleyes: but that just me or a select limited customer. So having TB and USB 3 limited to high end for the next year or two probably not going to impact anyone.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 07:07 PM
Personally I want TB flash drive :rolleyes:

That would be a humongous flash drive, what with the stand-along TB controller, the 2nd port for a daisy chain and all the added chips to enable a PCIe bus and a device controller on top of the flash memory itself. :eek:

I'd rather have a USB 3 one myself for half the price, with twice the storage at half the size... ;)

JTVPRO
Jun 24, 2011, 07:33 PM
Source Lacie website:

Thunderbolt 4TB: ~$1,400 = .35/MB up to (10,000 MB/s)

eSATA 2TB: ~ $250 = .13/MB up to (480 MB/s)

USB 3.0 1 TB: ~ $210 = .21/MB up to (110 MB/s)

Clearly the choice is what best fits your needs. Thunderbolt technology is the future.

USB 2 and 3 will continue be a slow low, end and cost solution for the average throughput and user.

Why have a short sighted view point. Demands of software and the average user is only going to increase as it always has.

I will take the speed Please.

jkichline
Jun 24, 2011, 07:40 PM
Screw that, USB 2.0 is fine for me, don't care if it takes a bit longer to copy a file. This will either be everywhere at no extra cost in 5 years, or it will be unheard of just like like Mini DisplayPort.
One file isn't a problem. It's when you are copying gigabytes of raw video footage where the speed counts. Think of copying data to an external hard drive faster than your internal hard drive.... this is also designed to allow one-cable connection from a laptop to a workstation (drives, hub, monitor, sound, recording equipment).

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 07:44 PM
One file isn't a problem. It's when you are copying gigabytes of raw video footage where the speed counts. Think of copying data to an external hard drive faster than your internal hard drive....

Wait, faster to an external HD than an internal one ? :rolleyes:

You do understand there's 0 difference between a Thunderbolt connected external drive and a SATA 3.0 connected internal drive right ? There's no magical pixie dust.

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 07:50 PM
I see little reason why you couldn't have a thunderbolt connected breakout box with multiple ports on it. Could be USB or (e)SATA or ethernet or whatever. Would need some logic in the box to administer and aggregate the signals, that's all.

Thunderbolt is a PCIe interface, and multiport PCIe / USB adaptors are already widely available - they're called 'USB expansion cards for desktops'.

Personally I'd probably use mine for plugging in a really fast SSD drive. Already two fast SSD drives in RAID1 can theoretically overwhelm Thunderbolt :eek:

[but an enclosure that can process 1GB/sec of RAID 1 *might* be expensive]

Do you mean "RAID-0" instead of "RAID-1". A RAID-1 drive will be slower than a single SSD at writing. If the controller is smart and you have lots of concurrent reads, RAID-1 can be faster than a single drive. RAID-0, however, is often close to twice as fast as a single drive for large reads and writes, and often significantly faster for small reads and writes.


Because a BUS topology technology does not work the same as a Star topology technology.

I may be confused about the total thread context, but the post that you replied to doesn't involve star vs. bus technologies.

A TBolt device that had multiple outputs (eSATA ports, USB 3.0 ports, GbE ports, 1394 ports) could be implemented with a simple PCIe->PCIe bridge (in essence a PCIe hub), with multiple PCIe controllers inside the "docking station". To the TBolt controller, this would look like a single PCIe device - but to the host it would look like four separate PCIe devices. (There's an assumption here that a TBolt device could have a PCIe->PCIe bridge in it. We have no idea if that is permitted.)

I agree completely with you, however, that we've seen nothing to suggest that TBolt will support tree topologies. (We've seen darn little technical info on TBolt, actually.) Can you put a 4-way PCIe-to-PCIe bridge on a TBolt controller, and run four TBolt chains from that device? No idea, I want to see the citations too.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 08:02 PM
I may be confused about the total thread context, but the post that you replied to doesn't involve star vs. bus technologies.

The sub thread started about TB hubs, ie, 1 TB output to a computer, multiple TB inputs from devices, not TB -> SATA/GbE/1394 ports. Basically, allowing you to connect devices without first unplugging the rest of the chain or the external monitor that is run off DP.

As you say, I've seen and heard nothing of the sort as a possibility for TB. It's all been "daisy chaining" and "2 ports per device, 1 input, 1 output".

ljocampo
Jun 24, 2011, 08:08 PM
Hum... Hubs are not daisy chains. Hubs are part of a star topology, daisy chaining is a bus topology. Having 2 TB ports on a device is not having a hub.

So yes, Citation is needed to know if TB hubs can be produced to connect devices in a star topology instead of a bus topology. I have not seen it. Maybe it's out there, who knows, and that's why I asked for a citation before saying it's a fact that TB hubs and will exist.

Firewire and USB are not sequential bus protocols. They poll their bus just as a Star topology polls its network. And two pass-thru ports, wether FW, USB, or TB are HUBs. They are basically dumb HUBs. The controller does the polling not the ports. In my Firewire chain of HHDs I could access the last in line even with the the one before completely off.

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 08:09 PM
The sub thread started about TB hubs, ie, 1 TB output to a computer, multiple TB inputs from devices, not TB -> SATA/GbE/1394 ports. Basically, allowing you to connect devices without first unplugging the rest of the chain or the external monitor that is run off DP.

As you say, I've seen and heard nothing of the sort as a possibility for TB. It's all been "daisy chaining" and "2 ports per device, 1 input, 1 output".

Can we please agree to say "TBolt" for "Thunderbolt" - and keep "TB" to mean TeraByte as it has for years?

When one is talking about TeraByte Thunderbolt disks - it gets confusing!

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 08:13 PM
Can we please agree to say "TBolt" for "Thunderbolt" - and keep "TB" to mean TeraByte as it has for years?

When one is talking about TeraByte Thunderbolt disks - it gets confusing!

What's wrong with a 2 TB TB disk ? :D

Firewire and USB are not sequential bus protocols.

Good, we're talking Thunderbolt here though. Got any links to documentation about the possibility for Thunderbolt ?

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 08:14 PM
Firewire and USB are not sequential bus protocols. They poll their bus just as a Star topology polls its network. And two pass-thru ports, wether FW, USB, or TB are HUBs. They are basically dumb HUBs. The controller does the polling not the ports. In my Firewire chain of HHDs I could access the last in line even with the the one before completely off.

But not if the one before is unplugged!

:p

Seriously, though, "bus power" was included in the 1394 spec to make this possible. It isn't there to power the device itself, it's there so that a 1394 controller has enough power available to pass through signals if the main device is off.

And your other statements may not be wrong, but until we see some official announcements of TBolt hubs we should not assume that they are on the way.


What's wrong with a 2 TB TB disk ? :D

Wouldn't it be a 2TB≤ disk?

fattire357
Jun 24, 2011, 08:20 PM
I still fail to understand why Apple didn't include USB 3.0 on the 2011 MBP.

As a regular consumer, I'll never see the performance increase from 5Gb/s to 10Gb/s. However, I sure do see not having any reasonably priced peripherals.


For all practical purposes, Apple might as well not be including thunderbolt in their new computers. Thunderbolt is utterly worthless today, and at least for immediate future. Maybe in 2012 or 2013 thunderbolt may be worthwhile. It sure as heck isn't worth anything today though...


What's kind of frustrating for this whole scenario is that classically Apple is really good at making a good consumer experience, and cares less about technical specifications. You can find a Dell laptop that is technically faster than a MBP but just isn't as fun to use. When Apple chose Thunderbolt over USB 3.0, it acted like a PC.

subsonix
Jun 24, 2011, 08:30 PM
Enclosure for what? If it's just a simple HDD then USB 3.0 would suffice (no benefits from Thunderbolt - just higher price). If it's SSD in RAID configuration (the only device that would benefit from Thunderbolt compared to USB 3.0) then it's price would be high anyways. But who will need those SSD/RAID monsters. Professional FCP users? Well, they all are switching to AVID anyways (we all know why).

For PCI and PCIe expansion chassis perhaps, running a Pro Tools HD rig on a laptop? Why not. From intel product description:


"We are very excited by the capabilities of Thunderbolt technology. To have two 10Gbps, bi-directional, multi-protocol channels in a single cable is a great step forward for high performance audio and video solutions."
– Max Gutnik, Sr. Director, Product Management, Avid Technology



Or, how about connecting computers as nodes in a cluster? Yeah, access to the PCIe bus is pretty cool. Or how about daisy chaining multiple high resolution monitors with one cable?

What's funny is that re FCP X, comments arise that Apple don't care about pro users, it's all consumers nonsense. Then at the same time they adopt a truly professional format that has great potential for high bandwidth data transfers at low latency. It's a great successor to the ExpressCard, which pro users cried about when it disapeard from the 15" macbook pro.

One interesting point about usb3 is that intel themselves have not yet made a chipset for it, it's all 3rd party implementations so far.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 24, 2011, 08:58 PM
I would gladly pay $100 to have airplay built in to my TV (along with FrontRow)

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 09:03 PM
I still fail to understand why Apple didn't include USB 3.0 on the 2011 MBP.

Look up "pig-headed" in a dictionary. ;)

ljocampo
Jun 24, 2011, 09:06 PM
But not if the one before is unplugged!

:p

Seriously, though, "bus power" was included in the 1394 spec to make this possible. It isn't there to power the device itself, it's there so that a 1394 controller has enough power available to pass through signals if the main device is off.

And your other statements may not be wrong, but until we see some official announcements of TBolt hubs we should not assume that they are on the way.

Wouldn't it be a 2TB≤ disk?

Well actually it can be unplugged because the ports are daisy-chained, meaning pass-thru ports on the device side, and its the computer's interface that rules the chain. I do this all the time. This is why I said no citation is needed. The official announcement stated the Thunderbolt (TB) interface is a daisy-chain interface just like Firewire.

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 09:11 PM
Well actually it can be unplugged because the ports are daisy-chained, meaning pass-thru ports on the device side, and its the computer's interface that rules the chain. I do this all the time. This is why I said no citation is needed. The official announcement stated the Thunderbolt (TB) interface is a daisy-chain interface just like Firewire.

But that does not mean hub based topologies are supported. Again, a citation is needed.

It doesn't even mean what you says it means. Daisy chaining TB devices could require all devices to be turned on and processing information through their TB controllers.

That is why I would like a citation before I accept it as fact that hubs are possible and not just daisy chains.

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 09:17 PM
Well actually it can be unplugged because the ports are daisy-chained, meaning pass-thru ports on the device side, and its the computer's interface that rules the chain. I do this all the time. This is why I said no citation is needed. The official announcement stated the Thunderbolt (TB) interface is a daisy-chain interface just like Firewire.

You "do this all the time" with 1394, right?

Why do you so adamantly claim that TBolt works the same as 1394, without any information whatsoever to support that claim?

*NOBODY* is using openly purchased TBolt devices yet.

I could claim that disconnecting a TBolt cable with an openly available TBolt device causes a kernel panic every time - *AND YOU COULD NOT PROVE ME WRONG*.

I wouldn't make that claim, of course, since there are no available TBolt devices for sale today.

ps: Do you remember the Apple OSX upgrade where the installer decided to reformat any attached external drives? Stuff happens, and until Apple announces that "something new" is supported and customer feedback is that "something new" works - I won't bet my time and money on it working.

winston1236
Jun 24, 2011, 09:21 PM
One file isn't a problem. It's when you are copying gigabytes of raw video footage where the speed counts. Think of copying data to an external hard drive faster than your internal hard drive.... this is also designed to allow one-cable connection from a laptop to a workstation (drives, hub, monitor, sound, recording equipment).

Agreed, I have spent hours transferring via usb 2.0 a complete loss in terms of productivity

subsonix
Jun 24, 2011, 09:21 PM
I dont think ThunderBolt should be contrasted with usb3, any more than FW and usb2. The socket is already there, for the display port but with added features. One day we will have usb3, (probably when intel makes a chipset). :)

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2011, 09:25 PM
Agreed, I have spent hours transferring via usb 2.0 a complete loss in terms of productivity

Why would you copy "a complete loss in terms of productivity" - why not delete it and start over?

Would it be better if TBolt could copy your "complete loss" ten times faster?


I dont think ThunderBolt should be contrasted with usb3, any more than FW and usb2. The socket is already there, for the display port but with added features. One day we will have usb3, (probably when intel makes a chipset). :)

Many Windows/Linux users have USB 3.0 already, even those using Sandy Bridge motherboards from Intel with USB 3.0 on the mobo. Yes, Intel motherboards have USB 3.0 but not TBolt.

Cheerwino
Jun 24, 2011, 09:26 PM
Unfortunately, sounds like Thunderbolt is DOA. Makes refurbs much more enticing. I fear Apple is slipping.

Why no Blu-Ray or USB 3?

P.S. I would vote down my comments too. I hate to make them, but fear they are true.

frankly
Jun 24, 2011, 09:30 PM
This is such BS. How can it possibly cost $100 to add AirPlay ability to a device when Apple sells the Apple TV with AirPlay as just one of its many features for less than $100?

Now, before anyone points this out I know that Apple has the economies of scale and can get parts cheaper than most. But even that would not allow them to sell an entire device for less money than you are saying it would cost any other manufacturer to add this one feature.

And let's look at the iSuppli Apple TV breakdown (http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals-Apple-TV-Inner-iPad.aspx)

subsonix
Jun 24, 2011, 09:34 PM
Many Windows/Linux users have USB 3.0 already, even those using Sandy Bridge motherboards from Intel with USB 3.0 on the mobo. Yes, Intel motherboards have USB 3.0 but not TBolt.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/superspeed-usb-usb3-panther-point,12061.html

Eidorian
Jun 24, 2011, 09:42 PM
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/superspeed-usb-usb3-panther-point,12061.htmlIbex Peak (5 Series) and Cougar Point (6 Series) have USB 3.0 via external controllers that are not onboard the PCH hardware itself. What are you trying to prove? ThunderBolt will not be on the Panther Point PCH so that means a much higher BOM getting the controller onboard compared to USB 3.0 or eSATA. Not to mention the PCI SIG's own external PCIe connector for 2013.

AMD is the first vendor out with USB 3.0 support on the Hudson FCH. That is 4 USB 3.0 ports without paying a dime beyond the FCH on your board.

subsonix
Jun 24, 2011, 09:48 PM
Ibex Peak (5 Series) and Cougar Point (6 Series) have USB 3.0 via external controllers that are not onboard the PCH hardware itself. What are you trying to prove?


That intel doesn't have their own usb3 chipset yet?

Eidorian
Jun 24, 2011, 09:51 PM
That intel doesn't have their own usb3 chipset yet?It still did not prevent Intel's much delayed second wave of X58 from including USB 3.0. The same with the Intel 6 Series boards as well.

Intel is paying others to implement USB 3.0 on their own boards.

subsonix
Jun 24, 2011, 09:53 PM
It still did not prevent Intel's much delayed second wave of X58 from including USB 3.0. The same with the Intel 6 Series boards as well.

Look, all this was, was a reply to this: "Yes, Intel motherboards have USB 3.0" and your question what I was trying to prove.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/sandybridge/review/chipsets.jpg

Eidorian
Jun 24, 2011, 09:57 PM
Look, all this was, was a reply to this: "Yes, Intel motherboards have USB 3.0" and your question what I was trying to prove.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/sandybridge/review/chipsets.jpgIntel has USB 3.0. They are not providing the external controllers nor is it built into the PCH at this time.

Prallethrin
Jun 24, 2011, 10:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

So many flames here. LOL.

But I wonder if most of these flamers realize that Thunderbolt is an Intel technology.

Apple has nothing to do with it other than being one of the first to include them in their products.

The Thunderbolt trademark is held exclusively by Intel, Apple just registered it for them in a few countries and will be transferring them to Intel when it's all said and done.

T-Bone
Jun 24, 2011, 10:22 PM
If I can get an eSATA -> TBolt adapter, I'd be pretty psyched at just having that. I have a 10tb enclosure that is eSATA and no plans to get rid of it, let alone spend 8 million dollars to replace with some overpriced TBolt-only option. Now that I have a new iMac with two TBolt ports, those adapters can't come soon enough.

RealSkyDiver
Jun 24, 2011, 10:35 PM
Oh just release a thunderbolt adapter with 2 usb 3 ports and we're all happy.

AaronEdwards
Jun 24, 2011, 10:49 PM
Source Lacie website:

Thunderbolt 4TB: ~$1,400 = .35/MB up to (10,000 MB/s)

eSATA 2TB: ~ $250 = .13/MB up to (480 MB/s)

USB 3.0 1 TB: ~ $210 = .21/MB up to (110 MB/s)

Clearly the choice is what best fits your needs. Thunderbolt technology is the future.

USB 2 and 3 will continue be a slow low, end and cost solution for the average throughput and user.

Why have a short sighted view point. Demands of software and the average user is only going to increase as it always has.

I will take the speed Please.

You really should have checked your numbers before posting.

ljocampo
Jun 24, 2011, 10:50 PM
But that does not mean hub based topologies are supported. Again, a citation is needed.

It doesn't even mean what you says it means. Daisy chaining TB devices could require all devices to be turned on and processing information through their TB controllers.

That is why I would like a citation before I accept it as fact that hubs are possible and not just daisy chains.

I doubt you will be convinced even if I decided to dig up the specs. I won't of course because I don't need to convince you. You can do your own research.

Again, like I said it is a bus based technology that is polled to any device on the chain wether direct or through a HUB, and that's how daisy-chained devices work. If you don't believe it check for yourself or not. I don't care.

I can put a dumb HUB in bus sequence anywhere on the chain with other devices (on or off) and that is a fact. I have my setup this way. TB is a daisy-chained bus protocol that works just like FW or USB. Period. Even the video shows it daisy-chained and he mentions it that way. I bet if he thought he needed to prove it, he could have turned the disk off and the second would have continued to work. Of course he didn't because OSX would thrown a disk ejection error that could corrupt data. Even Lacie says the ports are past-thru. How much more does one need to know that TB functions as a regular daisy-chain.

CQd44
Jun 24, 2011, 10:53 PM
Why would you copy "a complete loss in terms of productivity" - why not delete it and start over?

Would it be better if TBolt could copy your "complete loss" ten times faster?




Oh my god I lol'd for like ten minutes. dammit aiden!

res1233
Jun 24, 2011, 11:42 PM
The ideal world: One port to rule them all. That's what thunderbolt is. There is literally no device that it can't support, and I see this as someday being the only port out there because of that, and with Intel's stated goal of 100GBit TB in the future, its capabilities will only increase. I think the majority of you are a bit short sighted on this. Many people couldn't see the value of an iPod when it first came out, but nothing like the iPod had ever been done before. Same can be said for TB. Give it time. I think it'll surprise you all.

Prallethrin
Jun 24, 2011, 11:58 PM
But that does not mean hub based topologies are supported. Again, a citation is needed.

It doesn't even mean what you says it means. Daisy chaining TB devices could require all devices to be turned on and processing information through their TB controllers.

That is why I would like a citation before I accept it as fact that hubs are possible and not just daisy chains.

From - http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_secured.pdf :

• A symmetric architecture that supports flexible topologies
(star, tree, daisy chaining, etc.) and enables peer-to-peer
communication (via software) between devices.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "star" and "tree" equal "hub". No?

HMFIC03
Jun 24, 2011, 11:59 PM
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

I agrre but but least it can be used as a display port.

cmaier
Jun 25, 2011, 12:02 AM
From - http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_secured.pdf :


Correct me if I'm wrong, but "star" and "tree" equal "hub". No?

yep.

KnightWRX
Jun 25, 2011, 12:03 AM
I doubt you will be convinced even if I decided to dig up the specs. I won't of course because I don't need to convince you. You can do your own research.

Again, like I said it is a bus based technology that is polled to any device on the chain wether direct or through a HUB, and that's how daisy-chained devices work. If you don't believe it check for yourself or not. I don't care.

Not all bus type topologies work the same way, nor can they all work through a hub. Some really are dependant on the daisy chain of devices (having the actual controller on each device forward each packet) and being physically and not just logically connected in a bus type topology.

Yes, I will be convinced if you do find something on this, and yes I have done my own research and found nothing of the sort, hence why I said "Citation Needed". I have yet to find the actual citation for or against this.

There is just nothing out there that proves or disproves Thunderbolt's ability of working with hubs.

I can put a dumb HUB in bus sequence anywhere on the chain with other devices (on or off) and that is a fact.

Citation needed.

From - http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_secured.pdf :


Correct me if I'm wrong, but "star" and "tree" equal "hub". No?

Thank you, yes it does. At least someone here knows how to back up assertions. Now to wait for Thunderbolt hubs. This at least solves 1 problem with "daisy chaining" and "monitor" being last.

ARobinson
Jun 25, 2011, 12:29 AM
I am excited, not because I can't utilize thunderbolt on my NEW 12-core, but because this should shrink the prices of alternative storage solutions. Throughput of the lacie is terrible for thunderbolt...I expected more. Pegasus im sure is faster, but I don't use promise.

bergert
Jun 25, 2011, 01:11 AM
Hum... Hubs are not daisy chains. Hubs are part of a star topology, daisy chaining is a bus topology. Having 2 TB ports on a device is not having a hub.

So yes, Citation is needed to know if TB hubs can be produced to connect devices in a star topology instead of a bus topology. I have not seen it. Maybe it's out there, who knows, and that's why I asked for a citation before saying it's a fact that TB hubs and will exist.

Take a look at the PCI bus design. A bridge chip has 4 ports, and if you have on-board dual ethernet - you find that one port is daisy-chained into a second bridge chip to a) replace the original port, and b) give 3 additional ports.

Look at a dual or quad fiber-channel interface. Technically, they are all single-FC cards, with the PCI bridge added onto the PCI card.

Lets not forget: I am talking internal PCI here, for external, you need additional line drivers and some-voltage protection, and hot-plug capability. This kind of chips don't exist at this time. In high-end servers you find hot-plug PCIe slots, so the building blocks do exist - just not as TB implementation. This is why it takes time...

(Disclaimer: I used to design hardware for Apple][, ][gs, IBM-PC/PCI; but have not done any actual work on PCIe).

MacNico
Jun 25, 2011, 06:24 AM
At this moment a lot of users with an iMac or MBP with a TB port complain about having problems like black outs and flickering when on an external monitor connected to their displayport with TB.
So let them fix that problem first before continuing with combining DP with TB.

brainzilla
Jun 25, 2011, 06:41 AM
If Apple was really serious about pushing technology forward instead of proprietary lock-in, they'd be using DLNA and just re-branding it as AirPlay.

Yeah right... about that...
DLNA is one of the most horrible formats/standards ever made.
It's obscure implementations and very limited file-formats make practical implementations a living hell.

My Samsung TV (series C) for example can play almost any file from USB - and via LAN aswell. But then there's only DLNA - and no SMB or whatsoever - so streaming fils like MKV r other stuff becomes virtually impossible.
And once you see a picture you find out that neither fast-forward nor pause (!!) work on this particular server/client connection.

DLNA ist just plain crap.

Bubba Satori
Jun 25, 2011, 07:10 AM
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

Nailed it.

jmcrutch
Jun 25, 2011, 08:43 AM
How did we get from a $4 license fee for audio AirPlay to $100 for video. Something is off here. I'm pouring salt on this.

No way they charge 24x more for the ability to include video in AirPlay.

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2011, 11:13 AM
From - http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_secured.pdf :


Correct me if I'm wrong, but "star" and "tree" equal "hub". No?

Thank you for finding that link.

Now all we have to do is wait for a TBolt hub or switch to appear on the market to understand its real capabilities.

(For example, the PDF file doesn't mention the significant restriction that only a handful of devices can be daisy-chained. We don't have any idea what the limits of star and tree configurations will be.)

pdjudd
Jun 25, 2011, 11:27 AM
We should also point out (again) that TB is not Apple technology. It is Intel Technology. That alone makes the ball game different. I also propose that we drop the comparison with USB. Thunderbolt and USB are apples and oranges different things and one is not designed to replace the other. Heck, comparing it to firewire is pretty specious too. USB 3.0 is only designed to replace USB 2.0 - a technology that is still with us. Nobody honestly is expecting people to use peripherals like mice and keyboards with Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt is designed to replace other tech. Who is to say that they will not co-exist peacefully.

Bottom line, if Thunderbolt fails, it will be because of Intel. Apple might be the only game in town supporting it, but that isnít going to last forever. It isnít much of a gamble for Apple to support it since they were already using MDP.

I simply think that we should try to avoid decrying certain technologies as DOA or anything based on the technology that is out right now. Itís just not very fair to make predictions on stuff like Thunderbolt that has only been out there for a few months (commercially that is). Heck, Intel hasnít released a board with native support yet (that I am aware of at least). You canít call something dead or predict much about it when the only guys in town that released a computer with the ports did so by basically acting early.

All I ask is that we give Thunderbolt the time to gain some ground. We are essentially pairing them in a Marathon that neither of them are actually participating against and calling a victor 30 seconds after firing the gun in a marathon.

jamisonbaines
Jun 25, 2011, 11:41 AM
one thing i would like to know is what is the data read/write access speed of a typical 5400/7200 rpm hard drive and how does it compare to various interfaces (usb2, firewire400, firewire 800, esata, usb3 and thunderbolt)

what is the bottleneck in different scenarios and what configurations ie raids best complement the standard in terms of maximizing capacity. it's nice seeing these $1000+ peripherals with ssd raids but i'm interested in knowing what will be available at more attainable price points.

i like the idea of thunderbolt in that a heap of data should be utilizing a more sophisticated pathway than a mouse or keyboard.

it is absurd though to suggest that thunderbolt connectivity demands a $100 premium. it's simply a port. we didn't see monitor prices rise $100 with the addition of a mini display port. i suspect the reality is that it's nearer to $5 worth of parts, a $5 licensing fee and a $90 premium.

PigsOnTheWing
Jun 25, 2011, 11:53 AM
The quality of mac news reporting is rapidly hitting lowest common denominator level with big scary headlines, glib, technically inaccurate statements and general lack of common sense and/or thought within articles.
It would appear that way (e.g., the Lion clean install story). :(

Seagate has announced (http://forums.seagate.com/t5/GoFlex-Cables-Modules-Memeo/Plans-to-support-Thunderbolt-port-via-GoFlex-add-on-modules/m-p/90434#M156) that a Thunderbolt Upgrade Cable will be available for their external FreeAgent GoFlex (http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/external/external-hard-drive/portable-hard-drive) drives later this year. I can't imagine that they plan to set the cable's MSRP at $124.99. :rolleyes:

barmann
Jun 25, 2011, 01:32 PM
What really frustrates me, is how FW 800 is still the only connection that is fast, reliable and versatile at the same time .

USB never meant to go serious, and didn't, eSATA is just some akward mainboard extension, and now TB is here, only it will take at least 2-3 years until there are enough peripheral devices - if it catches on at all, and doesn't do a mini display port.
Wifi isn't even worth mentioning.

Looks to me like there is some huge development gap for peripheral connections.

Giuly
Jun 25, 2011, 02:00 PM
Low-End hard drive = 500GB Seagate Barracuda for $40 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148701&cm_re=500GB-_-22-148-701-_-Product)? If you saw the price of what they charged for a 3TB GoFlex on release, or any MyBook for that matter, this shouldn't be a problem at all. :rolleyes:

A 5400RPM external hard drive obviously doesn't need anything else than USB2.0 anyways, Thunderbolt is for something like SSDs or the MyBook Studio (even that one is probably fine with FW800, unless you have more than one), which is are so expensive that a raise of $20 should cover the cost of a $40 Thunderbolt chip.

wesleyh
Jun 25, 2011, 02:19 PM
So, can we boot from TB?

kiljoy616
Jun 25, 2011, 02:59 PM
Nobody that I've heard of has switched anything. FCP7 works fine until FCPX can fill the void.

Macs don't have USB 3.0 if you didn't notice.

For now it does not, because there is no need so yes you are correct USB 3 is lacking from Mac. But like TB in the next 12 months it should become standard all over.

kiljoy616
Jun 25, 2011, 03:01 PM
Low-End hard drive = 500GB Seagate Barracuda for $40 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148701&cm_re=500GB-_-22-148-701-_-Product)? If you saw the price of what they charged for a 3TB GoFlex on release, or any MyBook for that matter, this shouldn't be a problem at all. :rolleyes:

A 5400RPM external hard drive obviously doesn't need anything else than USB2.0 anyways, Thunderbolt is for something like SSDs or the MyBook Studio (even that one is probably fine with FW800, unless you have more than one), which is are so expensive that a raise of $20 should cover the cost of a $40 Thunderbolt chip.

Even USB 3 will be way faster than a conventional HD can write to, so your right in that all this speed is only for a limited crowed but people do tend to miss the point.

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2011, 03:31 PM
Even USB 3 will be way faster than a conventional HD can write to, so your right in that all this speed is only for a limited crowed but people do tend to miss the point.

USB 3.0 should be faster than a *single* spinning hard drive, but it can be a bottleneck if you have many devices or if some of them are RAID-0 or SSD.

You also have an issue of increased latency with cache reads - with single drives showing up with 64 MiB caches, reads that hit in the cache will be slowed by USB 3.0, even with a single drive.

TBolt should be fast enough for single drive cache reads, but if you have a number of drives it could become noticeable. People who say that "you need an SSD to really use TBolt" aren't thinking about running multiple drives at once.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 25, 2011, 03:52 PM
This.

I just can't help but think that thunderbolt is either going to become a dead standard or is going to be really slow at being adopted. It just seems usb 3.0 will take over in that time.

I said the same thing when I first heard about Light Peak. There is simply no way that it could be cost comparable for regularly consumer gear to a USB3 one. FW400/800 drives always cost considerably more than their USB2 counterparts, but unlike them, typical traditional style platter hard drives aren't going to be any faster with Thunderbolt than USB3. Until there's a significant speed advantage (or possibly latency) involved with one product compared to the other, there's no real reason to put out the extra cash for the TB version if you've also got USB3 on your machine. And if you do not, one single device at $100 more will more than pay for buying a USB3 card (assuming you have a computer that can take one...not most Macs, obviously, which is why some of us are peeved that Apple couldn't be bothered to also adopt USB3 at the same time. I've already got a 3TB USB3 drive sitting here using USB2 speeds on a Mac when it could be going considerably faster under USB3 (double according to the manual).

germinator
Jun 25, 2011, 04:47 PM
I wonder what the real deal is behind Thunderbolt. Intel don't seem keen on it.


Apple has an exclusive agreement with Intel for the use of Thunderbolt/LightPeak until the end of the year. A truly bone-headed move IMHO :mad:

germinator
Jun 25, 2011, 04:50 PM
For now it does not, because there is no need so yes you are correct USB 3 is lacking from Mac. But like TB in the next 12 months it should become standard all over.

What do you mean no need? The "next 12 months" is not good enough. Every new Mac shipping should have USB 3. My impression is that Apple is deliberately not shipping USB 3 in a misguided attempt to promote Thunderbolt. And we, the customer, suffer because of this.

lilo777
Jun 25, 2011, 05:46 PM
What do you mean no need? The "next 12 months" is not good enough. Every new Mac shipping should have USB 3. My impression is that Apple is deliberately not shipping USB 3 in a misguided attempt to promote Thunderbolt. And we, the customer, suffer because of this.

You are wrong. Apple is guidde solely by profits. Since USB 3.0 support is not included in current Intel chip sets Apple is bulking at paying $3 extra for additional controller chip to add it to Mac computers.

KnightWRX
Jun 25, 2011, 05:56 PM
Apple has an exclusive agreement with Intel for the use of Thunderbolt/LightPeak until the end of the year. A truly bone-headed move IMHO :mad:

Where have you heard that ? You'll need to provide a citation for this. This is not the case as far as what I have read, anyone is free to implement Thunderbolt right now.

Eidorian
Jun 25, 2011, 10:38 PM
You are wrong. Apple is guidde solely by profits. Since USB 3.0 support is not included in current Intel chip sets Apple is bulking at paying $3 extra for additional controller chip to add it to Mac computers.I remember when it was also the lack of space on the board to place the controller. The Thunderbolt controller is massive compared to a USB 3.0 one.

Apple has to pay Intel for a ThunderBolt controller as well. Intel is giving everyone else free reign, for now, to profit on USB 3.0 controllers.

fattire357
Jun 25, 2011, 11:38 PM
Didn't Apple learn from the Firewire debacle? There's a reason USB won over Firewire and it isn't because it's a better technology. Apple has to stop with these expensive licensing issues if they want their technologies to stick. And they talk about Blu-Ray being a "big bag of hurt..." :rolleyes:

With Firewire and Thunderbolt Apple is trying hard t.o make sure it looks different than its competitors. It might not make any bit of difference in terms of user experience, and yeah the expensive licensing issues makes them even worse despite having better technical specifications, but Apple loves that "we're not a PC" image that they get from making the 2011 MBP thunderbolt-only.

What sucks is that as a consumer now I don't have a USB 3.0 port just cause Apple is being elitist... lame.

grapefruitx
Jun 26, 2011, 02:42 AM
It will be Nikon Sony and Canon who set the fate of USB3 vs TB on Apple products
Does anyone seriously think they will go with TB?

Giuly
Jun 26, 2011, 08:55 AM
USB 3.0 should be faster than a *single* spinning hard drive, but it can be a bottleneck if you have many devices or if some of them are RAID-0 or SSD.

You also have an issue of increased latency with cache reads - with single drives showing up with 64 MiB caches, reads that hit in the cache will be slowed by USB 3.0, even with a single drive.

TBolt should be fast enough for single drive cache reads, but if you have a number of drives it could become noticeable. People who say that "you need an SSD to really use TBolt" aren't thinking about running multiple drives at once.
My 5400RPM 2TB WDC Elements hard drive tops out at 26MB/s, according to the Activity Monitor.
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6231/bildschirmfoto20110626uf.png
This equals 208MBit/s, times two = 416MBit/s. Let's add some overhead and make it 480MBit/s (as it was a little faster when it was empty). So two of those cheap, slow drives saturate USB2.0. A Mac Mini has four of those ports, which equals in a total RAID of 8 of those drives.

AFAIK, a Caviar Black would go more in the direction of 100-110MBit/s. One of them saturates FW800 by itself, without even touching the topic of caches. As most Macs only have one FW800 port, that's the end of the story.

Enter USB3. Let's have a quick quote from the "canonical source of all knowledge", Wikipedia:
A new feature is the "SuperSpeed" bus, which provides a fourth transfer mode at 5.0 Gbit/s. The raw throughput is 4 Gbit/s, and the specification considers it reasonable to achieve 3.2 Gbit/s (0.4 GB/s or 400 MB/s), or more, after protocol overhead.
So, what's to say about USB3 goes more or less for FW3200 as well (as FW is more efficient than USB3), may it or may it not been superseeded by Thunderbolt.
A four-drive RAID0 or little more than half a SATA-III SSD saturates one of those ports. I don't think that the cache on those disks is much faster in terms of transfer speed, but in terms of latency.

Again, AFAIK, if you don't hook up a display to your Thunderbolt port, it features 2x10GBit/s full-duplex. For me, this equals a 25-disk RAID0 of those 7200RPM disks, or 6.66 SATA-III SSDs. For that kind of bandwidth, you need 4 USB3 ports.

From that point of view, I conclude this:
USB2: 5400RPM hard drives and USB sticks.
USB3: 7200RPM hard drives and 2 drive RAIDs like the MyBook II Studio, as well as SandForce-1 SSDs.
ThuBo: SandForce-2 SSDs and RAIDs > 2 drives.

Unless the ThuBo chip costs like $1, it just isn't economically feasible to put it in the other categories I mentioned, because you could go ahead and buy something that is faster by default without RAID0-ing it. Then USB3 and ThuBo make sense.

http://m.UploadEdit.com/b94/74718088.gif

Bubba Satori
Jun 26, 2011, 11:05 AM
A $100 premium on a $50 product sounds great where do I get in line?

Apple store?

AidenShaw
Jun 26, 2011, 12:09 PM
My 5400RPM 2TB WDC Elements hard drive tops out at 26MB/s, according to the Activity Monitor.
Image (http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6231/bildschirmfoto20110626uf.png)

Seriously flawed test - the disk is bottlenecked by USB, so you conclude USB is good enough?

On my Dell Studio XPS mini-tower system (24 GiB, Core i7 940, x58), I have
Cache
Disk ### Status Size Type Maker RPM MiB Rd MB/sec
-------- ------ ------- ------------ ------- ---- ----- -----------
Disk 0 Online 120 GB Vertex 2 OCZ SSD 230
Disk 1 Online 750 GB ST3750630AS Seagate 7200 16 101
Disk 2 Online 750 GB ST3750640AS Seagate 7200 16 80 (older)
Disk 3 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 120
Disk 4 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 92
Disk 5 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 91
Disk 6 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 110
Disk 7 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 115
Disk 8 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 121
Disk 9 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 110
Disk 10 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 106
Disk 11 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 110
Disk 12 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 110


Read speed for spiral outer track raw I/O, 512 KiB buffers, two threads (double-buffered). The 5900 RPM disks are Seagate "Green LP" drives.



From that point of view, I conclude this:
USB2: 5400RPM hard drives and USB sticks.
USB3: 7200RPM hard drives and 2 drive RAIDs like the MyBook II Studio, as well as SandForce-1 SSDs.
TBolt: SandForce-2 SSDs and RAIDs > 2 drives.

Perhaps you should rethink this. Virtually any current 2.5" or 3.5" spinning hard drive will overwhelm USB 2.0.

Anyone using more than one drive at once would want even higher bandwidth. The real advantage of TBolt isn't that it can drive RAID-0 SSD arrays, but that you can have several external hard drives and run a number of them at full speed without slowing down.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 26, 2011, 04:50 PM
You are wrong. Apple is guidde solely by profits. Since USB 3.0 support is not included in current Intel chip sets Apple is bulking at paying $3 extra for additional controller chip to add it to Mac computers.

And hurting their own reputation. This new 16-core Mac Pro is going to look pretty stupid without USB3. Spend $6000+ on a new computer and no USB3 for a lack of a $3 part in bulk? WTF.... :rolleyes:

AidenShaw
Jun 26, 2011, 05:04 PM
And hurting their own reputation. This new 16-core Mac Pro is going to look pretty stupid without USB3. Spend $6000+ on a new computer and no USB3 for a lack of a $3 part in bulk? WTF.... :rolleyes:

You can only buy USB 3.0 chips in "bags of hurt".

Giuly
Jun 26, 2011, 07:51 PM
Seriously flawed test - the disk is bottlenecked by USB, so you conclude USB is good enough?

On my Dell Studio XPS mini-tower system (24 GiB, Core i7 940, x58), I have
Cache
Disk ### Status Size Type Maker RPM MiB Rd MB/sec
-------- ------ ------- ------------ ------- ---- ----- -----------
Disk 0 Online 120 GB Vertex 2 OCZ SSD 230
Disk 1 Online 750 GB ST3750630AS Seagate 7200 16 101
Disk 2 Online 750 GB ST3750640AS Seagate 7200 16 80 (older)
Disk 3 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 120
Disk 4 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 92
Disk 5 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 91
Disk 6 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 110
Disk 7 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 115
Disk 8 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 121
Disk 9 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 110
Disk 10 Online 1500 GB ST31500541AS Seagate 5900 32 106
Disk 11 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 110
Disk 12 Online 2000 GB ST32000542AS Seagate 5900 32 110


Read speed for spiral outer track raw I/O, 512 KiB buffers, two threads (double-buffered). The 5900 RPM disks are Seagate "Green LP" drives.




Perhaps you should rethink this. Virtually any current 2.5" or 3.5" spinning hard drive will overwhelm USB 2.0.

Anyone using more than one drive at once would want even higher bandwidth. The real advantage of TBolt isn't that it can drive RAID-0 SSD arrays, but that you can have several external hard drives and run a number of them at full speed without slowing down.
Yeah, you comparing "Read speed for spiral outer track raw I/O, 512 KiB buffers, two threads (double-buffered)." to my real world data here. As it's the only drive connected to USB, I don't see any bottlenecking in the 37MB/s area.
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/1108/bildschirmfoto20110627u.png
Well, let's call that a read speed of 40MB/s, 320MBit/s. I keep my opinion that USB2.0 is for one of these drives completely sufficient in real life.
If you see numbers above 100MB/s on 7200RPM drives, then you need USB3 - whose 3.2GBit/s will surely power at least 3, if not 4, of those per port.

IMHO, your benchmarks are flawed, as it looks to me like you're not even reading the outer track, but the cache. Your drives don't come with 2000GB of most outer tracks or cache, do they? Mine come with spinning platters, with outer and inner tracks and some two-digit MB of cache (except Momentus XT).
If we go by caches here, my USB2.0 5400RPM drive is capable of delivering over 800MB/s:
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1108/bildschirmfoto20110627u.png
Ramdisk cache (I assume), hard drive cache or read from whichever track wouldn't even matter.
But this image has nothing to do with real life applications, is not informative on this particular topic and actually BS.
All I see in real life are the 40MB/s I stated above, and for those, USB2.0 is sufficient - and conclude the same as before.

http://m.UploadEdit.com/b94/74718088.gif

cmaier
Jun 26, 2011, 07:58 PM
And hurting their own reputation. This new 16-core Mac Pro is going to look pretty stupid without USB3. Spend $6000+ on a new computer and no USB3 for a lack of a $3 part in bulk? WTF.... :rolleyes:

So if you care, go buy a PCIx USB 3.0 card for $30?

lilo777
Jun 26, 2011, 08:24 PM
So if you care, go buy a PCIx USB 3.0 card for $30?

People (the smart ones) will do just that. The real question though is about Apple. How smart are they not providing what's became the best available standard bus port out there? There is still a chance that new Mac Pro will have USB 3.0 ports.

AidenShaw
Jun 26, 2011, 08:24 PM
Yeah, you comparing "Read speed for spiral outer track raw I/O, 512 KiB buffers, two threads (double-buffered)." to my real world data here. As it's the only drive connected to USB, I don't see any bottlenecking in the 37MB/s area.

Do you seriously believe that current SATA drives top out at under 40 MByte/sec?

Eidorian
Jun 26, 2011, 08:28 PM
Do you seriously believe that current SATA drives tip out at under 40 MByte/sec?My WD Green 500 GB runs 60-100 MB/s. :confused:

The peak speed requires a lot of conditions to meet but it is faster than 40 MB/s,

lilo777
Jun 26, 2011, 08:36 PM
My WD Green 500 GB runs 60-100 MB/s. :confused:

The peak speed requires a lot of conditions to meet but it is faster than 40 MB/s,

And the "green" one, while "server grade" (sorry could not pass on this one) obviously is not a very fast drive.

Eidorian
Jun 26, 2011, 08:42 PM
And the "green" one, while "server grade" (sorry could not pass on this one) obviously is not a very fast drive.No, I bought it 3 years ago on a Frys gift card. I still have about 100 GB left on it. It is perfectly fine for storage but I would not use it as a boot drive. (Personal experience.)

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 26, 2011, 08:57 PM
So if you care, go buy a PCIx USB 3.0 card for $30?

Latency is higher and you have to waste a slot. And for $6000, IMO it definitely should be on the motherboard in 2011 (USB3 has been out for some time now).

cmaier
Jun 26, 2011, 09:09 PM
Latency is higher and you have to waste a slot. And for $6000, IMO it definitely should be on the motherboard in 2011 (USB3 has been out for some time now).

Unless I'm missing something my understanding is even USB 3.0 would interface to the south bridge, whereas PCIx is on the north bridge. I would think a pcix usb 3.0 card would run pretty much as fast as a southbridge-connected usb 3.0 chip.

Eidorian
Jun 26, 2011, 09:14 PM
Unless I'm missing something my understanding is even USB 3.0 would interface to the south bridge, whereas PCIx is on the north bridge. I would think a pcix usb 3.0 card would run pretty much as fast as a southbridge-connected usb 3.0 chip.That depends on the board and PCH used. I have seen boards with PCIe x1 slots directly to the processor or IOH. Otherwise they are off of the PCH/FCH/SB.

So many sockets. So many acronyms. At I managed to confirm that X79 is a PCH. Sheesh!

jav6454
Jun 26, 2011, 09:17 PM
That depends on the board and PCH used. I have seen boards with PCIe x1 slots directly to the processor or IOH. Otherwise they are off of the PCH/FCH/SB.

So many sockets. So many acronyms. At I managed to confirm that X79 is a PCH. Sheesh!

Is X79 finally PCIe 3.0 or 2.0? Intel has finally driven me to confusion.

Eidorian
Jun 26, 2011, 09:23 PM
Is X79 finally PCIe 3.0 or 2.0? Intel has finally driven me to confusion.Supposedly the current LGA 1155 based Sandy Bridge processors have PCIe 3.0 support. Intel just decided not to enable it. (There was even a Z68 board with PCIe 3.0 at Computex. Do not ask me how that works.)

LGA 1356/2011 (SB-EN/EP) is going to be the PCIe 3.0 platform until Ivy Bridge ships bring it to the "mainsteam". 24-40 lanes of that goodness for workstations this year. I do know that X79 is a PCH connected over DMI 2.0 + PCIe to the processor.

I am expecting the usual 16 lanes (x8/x8) for PCIe 3.0 under Ivy Bridge mainstream and a possible bump to DMI's bandwidth. Panther Point (Intel 7 Series, except for X79) is bringing native USB 3.0 to the PCH. You might need an external controller for more ports but expect that to be limited to premium boards. LightPeak is still going to require an additional controller.

AidenShaw
Jun 26, 2011, 10:06 PM
LightPeak is still going to require an additional controller.

I thought that "Light Peak" has been cancelled, and that there's a "Copper Peak" that has some of the features of "Light Peak".

I could be wrong though, since no "Light Peak" or "Copper Peak" peripherals are being sold yet....

But I have seen that you need an additional large chip (usually with a heat sink) on the mobo for "Copper Peak".

;)

caribousteaks
Jun 27, 2011, 07:12 AM
I would buy a Pegasus tb drive if one was around. Announced in Feb, wrote Promise in April; they said mid May; June comes; They say mid June; June goes and four months latter there is just one piddly little LaCie tb drive to choose from. How is one supposed to adopt thunderbolt if it doesn't exist on anything? Why the incredibly slow uptake LaCie, and why the no show Promise? Apple must be non too pleased. Wait wait wait...I wish they had only adopted USB3 as well at least we'd be able to hook something up by now.

aliensporebomb
Jun 27, 2011, 08:54 AM
I see a lot of kvetching about the lack of USB3 on the Mac side and the main reason we don't see it is that Intel hasn't really released their own chipset yet - the present USB3 chipsets are non Intel and since Intel are the ones dragging their feet producing a chipset (won't be out until next year) that's why you aren't seeing it. Macs use Intel motherboards so put two and two together.

Maybe there will be a Thunderbolt to USB dongle adapter someday.

And for me Thunderbolt would be important. Why? Because I do lots of audio using lots of disc I/O and bottlenecks are a total buzzkill.

LarryC
Jun 27, 2011, 09:07 AM
I see a lot of kvetching about the lack of USB3 on the Mac side and the main reason we don't see it is that Intel hasn't really released their own chipset yet - the present USB3 chipsets are non Intel and since Intel are the ones dragging their feet producing a chipset (won't be out until next year) that's why you aren't seeing it. Macs use Intel motherboards so put two and two together.

Maybe there will be a Thunderbolt to USB dongle adapter someday.

And for me Thunderbolt would be important. Why? Because I do lots of audio using lots of disc I/O and bottlenecks are a total buzzkill.

Apple has been this way for a long time now when it comes to USB. They resisted adding USB for a long time and when they finally did put USB into Macs, PC's were using 2.0 and Apple only offered 1.1. I'm guessing that maybe USB is something that Steve Jobs isn't personally interested in? If other computer manufacturers can use Intel processors and give their users USB 3.0 then I don't understand why Apple couldn't do the same.

Mal
Jun 27, 2011, 09:51 AM
Apple has been this way for a long time now when it comes to USB. They resisted adding USB for a long time and when they finally did put USB into Macs, PC's were using 2.0 and Apple only offered 1.1. I'm guessing that maybe USB is something that Steve Jobs isn't personally interested in? If other computer manufacturers can use Intel processors and give their users USB 3.0 then I don't understand why Apple couldn't do the same.

What? Apple was the first to offer USB only on the iMacs. At the time that they did, USB 2.0 wasn't out, and while there were a few manufacturers that had started putting one or at best two USB ports on their computers, those ports were rarely used, since even keyboards and mice continued to be PS/2 on the PC. Apple pushed the USB standard to popularity, but they don't feel that adding USB 3.0 is worth adding an extra chip to their board at this time. I don't see the problem, really. Anyone who needs the speed is still going to go FireWire, for a variety of reasons, so the only advantage of USB 3.0 is getting to use certain peripherals for which a FireWire version isn't made at a faster speed than the dog-slow USB 2.0.

jW

LarryC
Jun 27, 2011, 11:20 AM
What? Apple was the first to offer USB only on the iMacs. At the time that they did, USB 2.0 wasn't out, and while there were a few manufacturers that had started putting one or at best two USB ports on their computers, those ports were rarely used, since even keyboards and mice continued to be PS/2 on the PC. Apple pushed the USB standard to popularity, but they don't feel that adding USB 3.0 is worth adding an extra chip to their board at this time. I don't see the problem, really. Anyone who needs the speed is still going to go FireWire, for a variety of reasons, so the only advantage of USB 3.0 is getting to use certain peripherals for which a FireWire version isn't made at a faster speed than the dog-slow USB 2.0.

jW

Bravo Sierra! I had one of those early iMacs. Mine was a blue and white 500MHz G3. It had USB 1.1 when my friends had USB 2.0 on their computers. That G3 was my first Mac and my first computer, period. At that time I used to go to forums like this and read the threads in an effort to learn more about my new computer. And even back then people were complaining that Apple was only giving us crappy USB 1.1 while windows users were using USB 2.0. I will freely admit that my memory isn't as good as it used to be and I might be wrong about this, but I really don't think so. I can remember reading that Apple grudgingly gave Mac users USB, but it was FireWire that they were pushing as their standard. All I'm saying is this, Apple charges a very real premium for their machines and that's fine, but if they are gonna give us USB on our Macs then at least give us the most up to date hardware possible. We pay enough that we DO deserve that. And please don't give me any of that excuse that the only USB peripherals are X, Y, and Z and you only need blah, blah, blah. When I buy a brand new Apple computer I plan on using it for years. I still have and can still use that blue and white G3. I want the most up to date hardware because I can and will keep and use my computer for a long time. When I bought that original G3, I bought it because I was returning to college after being out of school for a long time. One of the friends I met was a woman whose husband was still making a living using a really old Mac with what she described as the first version of Photoshop. That was in ~ 2000 or 2001.

KnightWRX
Jun 27, 2011, 12:02 PM
What? Apple was the first to offer USB only on the iMacs. At the time that they did, USB 2.0 wasn't out, and while there were a few manufacturers that had started putting one or at best two USB ports on their computers, those ports were rarely used, since even keyboards and mice continued to be PS/2 on the PC. Apple pushed the USB standard to popularity, but they don't feel that adding USB 3.0 is worth adding an extra chip to their board at this time. I don't see the problem, really. Anyone who needs the speed is still going to go FireWire, for a variety of reasons, so the only advantage of USB 3.0 is getting to use certain peripherals for which a FireWire version isn't made at a faster speed than the dog-slow USB 2.0.

jW

Apple did nothing of the sort. If you read any of the PC rags back in those days (the iMac early days), you'd know USB was in. I had been reading about USB for close to 2 years, it had been on motherboards for quite some time, and peripherals were already out there when Apple put out the iMac.

Windows 98 is what brought USB into the forefront and made it popular. Before then, you had to have Windows 95 OSR C to have USB support, and then only for HID. Since Windows 95 OSR C was a OEM only release, it meant getting it with a new computer (that had USB).

I wasn't even paying attention to Apple back then, and I knew all about USB and USB stuff and how it was supposed to make my life simpler. Again, Apple had nothing to do with it, except in the eyes of the Apple crowd. But keep believing the dream my friend!

efktd
Jun 4, 2013, 10:13 PM
price drops in the relatively near future? it only took 2 years.