PDA

View Full Version : Intel Shares Additional Details on 20Gbps 'Thunderbolt 2'




MacRumors
Jun 4, 2013, 08:56 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/04/intel-shares-additional-details-on-20gbps-thunderbolt-2/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/12/thunderbolt.jpgIntel announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/08/intel-announces-next-version-of-thunderbolt-with-20gbps-throughput-coming-in-2014/) the next generation of Thunderbolt, codenamed "Falcon Ridge," back in April, but today the company shared (http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2013/06/video-creation-bolts-ahead---intel's-thunderbolt(TM)-2-doubles-bandwidth-enabling-4k-video-transfer-display-2/) some a few additional details about the upcoming release.

As previously announced, Falcon Ridge, now officially dubbed Thunderbolt 2, supports up to 20Gbps bi-directionally, doubling the bandwidth of the original Thunderbolt. The new version of Thunderbolt will support both DisplayPort 1.2 and 4K video.Named "Thunderbolt(TM) 2", this next generation of the technology enables 4K video file transfer and display simultaneously - that's a lot of eye-popping video and data capability. It is achieved by combining the two previously independent 10Gbs channels into one 20Gbs bi-directional channel that supports data and/or display.

Current versions of Thunderbolt, although faster than other PC I/O technologies on the market today, are limited to an individual 10Gbs channel each for both data and display, less than the required bandwidth for 4K video transfer. Also, the addition of DisplayPort 1.2 support in Thunderbolt 2 enables video streaming to a single 4K video monitor or dual QHD monitors.Thunderbolt 2 is backwards compatible with current generation cables and connectors, so existing hardware will continue to function with the updated controller. Intel expects Thunderbolt 2 to begin production before the end of the year, ramping up into 2014.

Article Link: Intel Shares Additional Details on 20Gbps 'Thunderbolt 2' (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/04/intel-shares-additional-details-on-20gbps-thunderbolt-2/)



Eidorian
Jun 4, 2013, 08:58 PM
And now we wait for this even though we are never going to use it. My desktop might have a pair of these next year on Z97 alongside SATA Express.

cclloyd
Jun 4, 2013, 09:00 PM
Hope it's in the next gen lineup at WWDC.

B...
Jun 4, 2013, 09:01 PM
2x the speed, 2x the fun, 2x the price.

lolkthxbai
Jun 4, 2013, 09:04 PM
Hope it's in the next gen lineup at WWDC.

Doubtful but we'll see. Could be included in a refresh for holiday season or early next year.

Millah
Jun 4, 2013, 09:10 PM
Hmm, they even dropped the gloss from the lightning logo ;)

KingofGotham1
Jun 4, 2013, 09:13 PM
Hmm, they even dropped the gloss from the lightning logo ;)

I had to log on for the first time in months just to applaud this! Lol

Icaras
Jun 4, 2013, 09:18 PM
Hmm, they even dropped the gloss from the lightning logo ;)

Flat design! :eek:

demodave
Jun 4, 2013, 09:24 PM
And now we wait for this even though we are never going to use it. My desktop might have a pair of these next year on Z97 alongside SATA Express.

This is seriously what's killing me, though: sitting here in this "wait till the next announced update, because the rumors sounds too cool to be true, but I believe that Apple might could do it, because Apple does things that are way too cool to be true" mode. (And it may not even be worth it. [Looks left, looks right, hopes the Cabal Thuggies aren't hiding in a dark corner.])

I think I may just give up after WWDC 2013 and buy a new laptop. This one is starting to feel kind of schleppy (heavy). I think an MBA is in my near future. (The hardware is correct, but the software is 10.8.3, probably going to 10.8.4. I upgrade. McCain just doesn't get it.)

Tankmaze
Jun 4, 2013, 09:25 PM
Intel expects Thunderbolt 2 to begin production before the end of the year, ramping up into 2014.

There goes any hope the new rmbp would be able to use those 31" 4k Asus screen :(

Moonjumper
Jun 4, 2013, 09:25 PM
A sign of 4K support on Macs?

EDIT: no, apparently

Nbapapa
Jun 4, 2013, 09:26 PM
Hope it's in the next gen lineup at WWDC.
This

Intel expects Thunderbolt 2 to begin production before the end of the year, ramping up into 2014



Hmm, they even dropped the gloss from the lightning logo ;)

Very good observation! A definite sign of things to come

iMikeT
Jun 4, 2013, 09:28 PM
How about better support for and making Thunderbolt 1 more widespread before announcing Thunderbolt 2 Intel?

hlfway2anywhere
Jun 4, 2013, 09:29 PM
cool, now there can hardly be any Thunderbolt 2 accessories instead of their hardly being any Thunderbolt 1 accessories! And they'll be non-existent even faster on Thunderbolt 2!

ShiroiShimaTora
Jun 4, 2013, 09:35 PM
Even though DisplayPort 1.2 still doesn't provide enough bandwidth for a Retina 27" Thunderbolt display (5120x2880 required, 3840x2160 provided), they could utilize a dual-link Thunderbolt connection to provide the appropriate bandwidth (kinda like how the 30" Cinema Display used a dual-link DVI connector).
So a 21.5" Retina ThunderBolt display requiring a single-link ThunderBolt 2.0 connection and a 27" model requiring a dual-link connection is very possible (if they can get a good enough yield from manufacturing). Though, they would need new Macs to drive them (iMac refresh, long awaited Mac Pro, maybe Mac Mini).

charlituna
Jun 4, 2013, 09:47 PM
A sign of 4K support on Macs?

EDIT: no, apparently

Or maybe it is. Why wouldn't Apple make the switch in at least the iMacs, display, etc. then when the content is there, the hardware will be ready for it.

Nicky G
Jun 4, 2013, 09:51 PM
This is nice I guess, but I was hoping it was TWO channels 20Gbps each, in each direction. It's probably a better arrangement than Thunderbolt 1.0, but not greater overall throughput.

thekev
Jun 4, 2013, 09:52 PM
Even though DisplayPort 1.2 still doesn't provide enough bandwidth for a Retina 27" Thunderbolt display (5120x2880 required, 3840x2160 provided), they could utilize a dual-link Thunderbolt connection to provide the appropriate bandwidth (kinda like how the 30" Cinema Display used a dual-link DVI connector).
So a 21.5" Retina ThunderBolt display requiring a single-link ThunderBolt 2.0 connection and a 27" model requiring a dual-link connection is very possible (if they can get a good enough yield from manufacturing). Though, they would need new Macs to drive them (iMac refresh, long awaited Mac Pro, maybe Mac Mini).

That assumes they maintain the same desktop scale with doubled pixels. They don't have to do that. There is no dual-link spec for thunderbolt or displayport. DVI had one. It wouldn't be unheard of either. Some 27" displays use 1080. 1080 doubled is 4k. The term retina is just an Apple marketing trademark combined with a bit of faux science (leaves out too much math).

macs4nw
Jun 4, 2013, 09:53 PM
.....Thunderbolt 2 is backwards compatible with current generation cables and connectors, so existing hardware will continue to function with the updated controller. Intel expects Thunderbolt 2 to begin production before the end of the year, ramping up into 2014.

Article Link: Intel Shares Additional Details on 20Gbps 'Thunderbolt 2' (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/04/intel-shares-additional-details-on-20gbps-thunderbolt-2/)

So if I understand this correctly, there is no bandwidth increase, but rather just a combining of two bi-directional channels @ 10Gbs each, into one bi-directional channel @ 20Gbs, in order to support DisplayPort 1.2 and 4k video. Good to know this is backward compatible!

Chuck-Norris
Jun 4, 2013, 10:09 PM
have thunderbolt on my 2011 macbook pro for the past 2 and a half years

never used it

devilcm3
Jun 4, 2013, 10:19 PM
just another i-won't-use-it-anytime port other than for display.

thunderbolt peripherals are horribly overpriced for the benefits the brought, $200 for a hub? :confused:

unless intel willing to step down to mainstream market instead of all the high end exclusivity ************ i don't see how this interface would survive the market in after 5 years.

iphone X
Jun 4, 2013, 10:21 PM
Hope it's in the next gen lineup at WWDC.

:confused: maybe for WWDC 2014 or for a mac refresh in early 2014.

Nicky G
Jun 4, 2013, 10:26 PM
I feel it's important to mention, in such threads...

Thunderbolt is really mostly oriented at pro users. If you don't use it, big whoop. Most people don't use a fraction of the power their computers offer. For the folks who need it, it's a Good Thing, and not "overpriced," in that Thunderbolt peripherals are actually pretty reasonably priced, compared with PCIe alternatives.

Used to be a day, people really liked the fact that Macs were a "Pro" platform. I guess now that Apple is all hip and trendy, people just want to moan about everything. And ironically, the casual users moan about Thunderbolt being there, and the "Pros" moan about the platform not being "Pro" enough.

:rolleyes:

ShiroiShimaTora
Jun 4, 2013, 10:38 PM
That assumes they maintain the same desktop scale with doubled pixels. They don't have to do that. There is no dual-link spec for thunderbolt or displayport. DVI had one. It wouldn't be unheard of either. Some 27" displays use 1080. 1080 doubled is 4k. The term retina is just an Apple marketing trademark combined with a bit of faux science (leaves out too much math).

But in every Retina display to date, it's just pixel-doubled from the non-Retina display of the previous generation. No reason to not follow this trend in the future (especially since they chose an unusual resolution for the 15" Pro, 2880x1800). As for no dual-link, there's no reason why it shouldn't be possible with a little bit of custom silicon. Yes, "Retina" is a marketing term (HiDPI isn't too consumer-friendly), but every Retina Display has exactly 4 times the number of pixels (2x vertical, 2x horizontal resolutions) of the original non-Retina display. That's not psuedoscience, it's basic multiplication.

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 10:43 PM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

Nicky G
Jun 4, 2013, 10:55 PM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?

riverfreak
Jun 4, 2013, 11:04 PM
I feel it's important to mention, in such threads...

Thunderbolt is really mostly oriented at pro users. If you don't use it, big whoop. Most people don't use a fraction of the power their computers offer. For the folks who need it, it's a Good Thing, and not "overpriced," in that Thunderbolt peripherals are actually pretty reasonably priced, compared with PCIe alternatives.

Used to be a day, people really liked the fact that Macs were a "Pro" platform. I guess now that Apple is all hip and trendy, people just want to moan about everything. And ironically, the casual users moan about Thunderbolt being there, and the "Pros" moan about the platform not being "Pro" enough.

:rolleyes:

If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.

And if you're solely using thunderbolt for secondary or tertiary displays, who cares? This problem was already solved decades ago. So what, you only one cable, who CARES?

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:07 PM
You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?

Yup, I do. They could announce new systems with availability down the road. Intel has not made any official statement on the next Xeon based chips, could be the Fall, sooner or later. Perhaps Apple may offer more BTO options/processors (doubtful). Until official releases and announcements are made, it's anyone's guess. :)

Wild-Bill
Jun 4, 2013, 11:10 PM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

It should be even more embarrassing that the Mac Pros don't even have USB 3.0 !!!! Quite pathetic.

fpsBeaTt
Jun 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
Hmm, they even dropped the gloss from the lightning logo ;)

Flatter!!!

Analog Kid
Jun 4, 2013, 11:13 PM
If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.

And if you're solely using thunderbolt for secondary or tertiary displays, who cares?
I do.
This problem was already solved decades ago. So what, you only one cable, who CARES?
I do.

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:20 PM
If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.

And if you're solely using thunderbolt for secondary or tertiary displays, who cares? This problem was already solved decades ago. So what, you only one cable, who CARES?

Not necessarily true. As a film editor, I need quite a bit of space. My current gen 12-Core pro is maxed out, 2x8 TB's internal SATA II drives and a 256GB SSD drive under my LG Blu-Ray optical. Thunderbolt would allow:

- a smaller form factor
- daisy chaining external drives/drives
- faster, bi-directional transfers for HD/4K video
- Placing the system in a ventilated closet or a few in another room, with a single Thunderbolt cable leading to (a) workstation(s) for HID's, displays, etc.

Apple chose to implement Thunderbolt in less expensive portables as a replacement for FireWire for many reasons. Showcasing it in consumer systems introduces a generally unknown tech to a larger demographic while pushing third party device manufacturers towards Thunderbolts external devices. Consumer awareness is crucial. As a bi-directional system, it carries a myriad of signals (video, audio, data, you name it), thus eliminating the need for FireWire, eSATA, even USB, allowing for slimmer and more efficient systems.

----------

It should be even more embarrassing that the Mac Pros don't even have USB 3.0 !!!! Quite pathetic.

Yup. Thankfully CalDigit has had a PCIe USB 3.0 card, I've had one running in my Mac Pro for a while. Still doesn't excuse USB 2.0, SATA II, Bluetooth 2.1+ as "current" hardware in a $2499+ system, along with no HDMI, Thunderbolt and/or eSATA connections.

adeedew
Jun 4, 2013, 11:23 PM
Besides connecting a Thunderbolt Display to say a Mac mini, who the hell uses this? Ugh

toaster64
Jun 4, 2013, 11:26 PM
Great, will a cable actually come with the computer this time?!

----------

Besides connecting a Thunderbolt Display to say a Mac mini, who the hell uses this? Ugh

Target Disk Mode, if you have a cable and another computer with TB. You could also use it to make a really fast ad-hoc wired network between computers. Other than that, there are ripoff hubs and external storage arrays for the few who need them. It needs expansion, like cheap hubs.

----------

If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.

You get 4 eSATA hard drive slots on a Mac Pro. Pros with a need for a lot of storage will need an external storage array, and eSATA isn't fast enough to connect the array to the computer.

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:27 PM
Besides connecting a Thunderbolt Display to say a Mac mini, who the hell uses this? Ugh

See my post #32

lannisters4life
Jun 4, 2013, 11:27 PM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

i'm intrigued to see what they do here...

in order to get thunderbolt into the mac pro, they'll need to either a) use consumer haswell CPUs like the new i7 4770k that have integrated video which will piss a lot of people off because they're not workstation hardware or b) use xeon or sandy bridge-e CPUs and build something crafty to reroute thunderbolt video to the video card which will piss people off just as much because they're yet again using old hardware.

there's also a fantasy c) scenario, where they've made a deal with intel to make new ivy bridge-e CPUs with integrated video for Apple's exclusive use, in which case the whole thing would be absurdly expensive

they're basically screwed every which way, i'm surprised they just didn't axe it altogether

toaster64
Jun 4, 2013, 11:30 PM
It should be even more embarrassing that the Mac Pros don't even have USB 3.0 !!!! Quite pathetic.

It's more embarrassing that there is no TB since it's marketed as a pro feature, and the pro Mac doesn't have it! It should also have USB 3.0. I still haven't run into anything that uses either USB 3.0 or TB besides the Apple TB display.

----------

i'm intrigued to see what they do here...

in order to get thunderbolt into the mac pro, they'll need to either a) use consumer haswell CPUs like the new i7 4770k that have integrated video which will piss a lot of people off because they're not workstation hardware or b) use xeon or sandy bridge-e CPUs and build something crafty to reroute thunderbolt video to the video card which will piss people off just as much because they're yet again using old hardware.

there's also a fantasy c) scenario, where they've made a deal with intel to make new ivy bridge-e CPUs with integrated video for Apple's exclusive use, in which case the whole thing would be absurdly expensive

they're basically screwed every which way, i'm surprised they just didn't axe it altogether

Can't they go with choice b? There are new Xeon processors available.

aunaste
Jun 4, 2013, 11:31 PM
I built almost Mac Pro myself and have now 2 Thunderbolt ports working on GA-Z77X-UP5 TH mobo. One for Blackmagic Ultrastudio and second for HD.

subsonix
Jun 4, 2013, 11:35 PM
b) use xeon or sandy bridge-e CPUs and build something crafty to reroute thunderbolt video to the video card which will piss people off just as much because they're yet again using old hardware.


Thunderbolt is diplayport and pcie, why would the re-route need to be more crafty than to a regular display port socket?

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:37 PM
I built almost Mac Pro myself and have now 2 Thunderbolt ports working on GA-Z77X-UP5 TH mobo. One for Blackmagic Ultrastudio and second for HD.

I'm so tempted as I've built many systems running OS X. If Apple drops the ball on a revamped Mac Pro, I'm either selling my 12-Core or gutting the components and replacing them with current/power system tech.

cmanderson
Jun 4, 2013, 11:37 PM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

Why on earth would you think Apple would introduce a new Mac Pro *without* Thunderbolt? It simply will not happen. Either they replace the Mac Pro with an entirely new line, or they refresh it, but it's going to have Thunderbolt, and possibly in spades. Count on that. But don't count on a new line until Fall at the earliest. I don't expect you'll see anything until Ivy Bridge-E ships.

toaster64
Jun 4, 2013, 11:37 PM
You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?

Why doesn't Intel make any? Thunderbolt is their project, too, and Xeon is their professional CPU.

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:39 PM
Why on earth would you think Apple would introduce a new Mac Pro *without* Thunderbolt? It simply will not happen. Either they replace the Mac Pro with an entirely new line, or they refresh it, but it's going to have Thunderbolt, and possibly in spades. Count on that.

God I hope you're right. Sadly, many of us have been discussing the lack of a Xeon based Thunderbolt processor(s). We don't know when or if Intel will release them. If they do, it won't be until next year. Since the Mac Pro uses server grade Xeon processors, only Ivy Bridge-E would be possible at the moment and that lacks Thunderbolt.

ufwa
Jun 4, 2013, 11:40 PM
Thunderbolt was developed with Intel (Sony as well I believe), and Apple in desktop systems, initially targeting power systems. Apple chose to implement Thunderbolt in less expensive portables as a replacement for FireWire for many obvious reasons. Hoping in time that third party manufacturers would produce Thunderbolt devices, pushing quick adoption rates and implementing it across their Mac product line. Developed as a bi-directional system that carries a myriad of signals (video, audio, data, you name it), it's not unreasonable to imagine systems mainly equipped with Thunderbolt as the technology becomes more common and fully implemented with full transfer rates.

Lightpeak was not targeted for power systems/users. Intel vision was essentially 1 cable/connection to rule them all over optical with support for multiple protocols. They wanted it in consumer devices, pro devices, everything you name it.

They even demoed it using a pcie add on card. You can find it on youtube.

Somewhere along the line things changed. We'll probably never find out the reasons. one of them was that the USB forum didn't like intel messing with the specs, but that's just the connector portion.

Optical became copper(though they claim they're still working on optical) and pcie addon card was dropped requiring whole new systems for everyone.

cmanderson
Jun 4, 2013, 11:40 PM
If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.

Don't be ridiculous.

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
Why doesn't Intel make any? Thunderbolt is their project, too, and Xeon is their professional CPU.

No one knows. Perhaps due to more consumer demand in less expensive systems, or some other factor making it difficult for Intel to produce the processors. Until official news/press releases, it's a guessing game.

----------

Lightpeak was not targeted for power systems/users. Intel vision was essentially 1 cable/connection to rule them all over optical with support for multiple protocols. They wanted it in consumer devices, pro devices, everything you name it.

They even demoed it using a pcie add on card. You can find it on youtube.


It was developed using Mac Pro's with the PCIe cards coming later, with fiber optic cables being replaced with copper as fiber optic cables were prohibitively expensive (this also produced sub-optimal "LightPeak" transfer rates).

subsonix
Jun 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
God I hope you're right. Sadly, many of us have been discussing the lack of a Xeon based Thunderbolt processor(s). We don't know when or if Intel will release them. If they do, it won't be until next year. Since the Mac Pro uses server grade Xeon processors, only Ivy Bridge-E would be possible at the moment and that lacks Thunderbolt.

Can someone explain why this is the case? A thunderbolt controller is a separate chip from the CPU, why would it be tied to specific CPUs?

thekev
Jun 4, 2013, 11:44 PM
But in every Retina display to date, it's just pixel-doubled from the non-Retina display of the previous generation. No reason to not follow this trend in the future (especially since they chose an unusual resolution for the 15" Pro, 2880x1800). As for no dual-link, there's no reason why it shouldn't be possible with a little bit of custom silicon. Yes, "Retina" is a marketing term (HiDPI isn't too consumer-friendly), but every Retina Display has exactly 4 times the number of pixels (2x vertical, 2x horizontal resolutions) of the original non-Retina display. That's not psuedoscience, it's basic multiplication.

I called Apple's retina math faux science, not the pixel doubling. They simplified something for marketing purposes and passed it off as science. Then of course many people on here parroted Apple's distance equation.

Displayport standards aren't exactly set by Apple. Deviating from that means custom chip fabrication, custom cables, whatever R&D testing, custom panel resolution, and gpu drivers that support the resolution. I don't see all of that happening for an imac. If desktop panels beyond 4k started to trickle out, that would make more sense to me. I could see something other than 27", unscaled at 4k, as the smaller icons wouldn't be too bad on the imac. What I suggested before was that 1080 doubled is probably a possibility. That would make things larger, but one way or the other might be within a scale Apple would accept. I can't see them employing a crazy amount of work just to stick to pixel doubling. They have changed sizes and aspect ratios in the past, so it wouldn't be anything new.

subsonix
Jun 4, 2013, 11:47 PM
I called Apple's retina math faux science, not the pixel doubling. They simplified something for marketing purposes and passed it off as science.

I don't think they ever passed it off as science, no faux papers where published etc.

Gamoe
Jun 4, 2013, 11:48 PM
You gotta love it- They announce the second version of their connector when there's barely any support out there for the first.

TouchMint.com
Jun 4, 2013, 11:53 PM
Insert comment about how much it will cost. Insert picture of dr evil.

For real tho maybe the prices of the first gen cable will drop?

bedifferent
Jun 4, 2013, 11:57 PM
Can someone explain why this is the case? A thunderbolt controller is a separate chip from the CPU, why would it be tied to specific CPUs?

Thunderbolt™ Technology for Developers (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/thunderbolt/thunderbolt-technology-developer.html)

subsonix
Jun 5, 2013, 12:04 AM
Thunderbolt™ Technology for Developers (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/thunderbolt/thunderbolt-technology-developer.html)

Doesn't seem to support you statement. Something specific you had in mind?

Eidorian
Jun 5, 2013, 12:14 AM
This is seriously what's killing me, though: sitting here in this "wait till the next announced update, because the rumors sounds too cool to be true, but I believe that Apple might could do it, because Apple does things that are way too cool to be true" mode. (And it may not even be worth it. [Looks left, looks right, hopes the Cabal Thuggies aren't hiding in a dark corner.])

I think I may just give up after WWDC 2013 and buy a new laptop. This one is starting to feel kind of schleppy (heavy). I think an MBA is in my near future. (The hardware is correct, but the software is 10.8.3, probably going to 10.8.4. I upgrade. McCain just doesn't get it.)Oh I have been going on for years about Apple's current direction but my laptop is almost 6 years old and it does not have a battery. I am typing on it right now. At this point, I just want a new laptop. My desktop is still just fine until next year and the Haswell refresh.

Solomani
Jun 5, 2013, 12:27 AM
Thunderbolt 2 is backwards compatible with current generation cables and connectors, so existing hardware will continue to function with the updated controller.

This is all I wanted to know from this entire article. Backwards compatibility is always good news. :)

MattInOz
Jun 5, 2013, 12:33 AM
Doesn't seem to support you statement. Something specific you had in mind?

Does TB2 even use the same diagram?
If TB2 can channel a full 20Gpbs for PCIe or video does it even have the GFx link in the diagram?

New controllers could just have PCIe interface (and get feed video over PCIe) so they could be anywhere on the PCIe network, even on video cards. That sort of design change would sure help adoption.

ScottishCaptain
Jun 5, 2013, 12:35 AM
Apple chose to implement Thunderbolt in less expensive portables as a replacement for FireWire for many reasons. Showcasing it in consumer systems introduces a generally unknown tech to a larger demographic while pushing third party device manufacturers towards Thunderbolts external devices. Consumer awareness is crucial. As a bi-directional system, it carries a myriad of signals (video, audio, data, you name it), thus eliminating the need for FireWire, eSATA, even USB, allowing for slimmer and more efficient systems

This is incorrect.

Thunderbolt is a multiplexed DisplayPort & PCI-e bus. Your external "Thunderbolt" disk drive is an external eSATA controller hooked up to a Thunderbolt endpoint controller over PCI-e. Therefore, while you're not actually using eSATA ports anymore- internally, the disk drive is presented to and accessed as an eSATA device.

The only difference is that instead of installing an eSATA adapter in a PCI-e slot inside your computer, that functionality is built into the PCB off inside the external drive chassis. The same goes for USB, Ethernet, Firewire, etc adapters. They are ALL PCI-e compliant chipsets, hooked up to a Thunderbolt controller which provides a PCI-e bus.

Thunderbolt doesn't replace any of your examples. It just covers them up so you can't see them anymore. They're still there, and always will be. Thunderbolt itself doesn't replace anything, it's just a peripheral bus and you still need a PCI-e compliant controller sitting on the other end to do anything.

-SC

bedifferent
Jun 5, 2013, 12:55 AM
Doesn't seem to support you statement. Something specific you had in mind?

More importantly, without processor graphics there's no clean way to route DisplayPort through Thunderbolt on a Xeon platform just yet. At some point processor graphics will come to the Xeon however. There will never be a Thunderbolt PCIe card. TB is integrated into the system, it ties directly into the CPU and on-cpu GPU.

there's no good Thunderbolt strategy for the Xeon platform just yet. Apple's stance on USB 3 points to a corporate desire to maintain simplicity and uniformity across all product lines. Without processor graphics there's no clean way to route DisplayPort through Thunderbolt on a Xeon platform just yet.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6001/apple-confirms-email-to-mac-pro-users-about-something-really-great-in-2013

----------



Thunderbolt doesn't replace any of your examples. It just covers them up so you can't see them anymore. They're still there, and always will be. Thunderbolt itself doesn't replace anything, it's just a peripheral bus and you still need a PCI-e compliant controller sitting on the other end to do anything.

-SC

That is essentially what I meant. Replacing FireWire with Thunderbolt doesn't mean it's not capable, of course it is for the points you mentioned. Apple decided against providing external connections/use in order to push Thunderbolt while producing a slimmer notebook as well as the redundancy of having FireWire with Thunderbolt systems.

MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac mini now give you access to a world of high-speed peripherals and high-resolution displays with one compact port. That’s because Thunderbolt is based on two fundamental technologies: PCI Express and DisplayPort.

PCI Express is the technology that links all the high-performance components in a Mac. And it’s built into Thunderbolt. Which means you can connect external devices like RAID arrays and video capture solutions directly to your Mac — and get PCI Express performance. That’s a first for any computer. Thunderbolt also provides 10 watts of power to peripherals, so you can tackle workstation-class projects. With PCI Express technology, you can use existing USB and FireWire peripherals — even connect to Gigabit Ethernet and Fibre Channel networks — using simple adapters.

Thunderbolt is just PCIe over a cable - you still need the SATA/SAS/Fiber or whatever chipset at the other end along with a Thunderbolt bridge chip. It will cost more since you are also adding those fancy new Thunderbolt chips at both ends. And the only thing you accomplish is you put the SATA/SAS/RAID chipset inside the enclosure instead of inside your MacPro in a PCIe slot.

WhiteIphone5
Jun 5, 2013, 01:04 AM
there are two thunderbolts ports on my rMBP that remain unused, and they're already announcing thunderbolt 2?.. oh my.

macs4nw
Jun 5, 2013, 01:06 AM
have thunderbolt on my 2011 macbook pro for the past 2 and a half years.....never used it

just another i-won't-use-it-anytime port other than for display.....

It will become more useful for some people, when 4k video streams become more mainstream.

.....i don't see how this interface would survive the market in after 5 years.

I believe it will be there, maybe catering to a niche market of users, but it will be around, and will become more useful as the file sizes that people manipulate, back-up and store, become larger and larger.

And for those users it will be, (and already is), a godsend.

iSayuSay
Jun 5, 2013, 01:19 AM
2x the speed, 2x the fun, 2x the price.

And 2x less users ;)

addisonm
Jun 5, 2013, 01:25 AM
How about better support for and making Thunderbolt 1 more widespread before announcing Thunderbolt 2 Intel?

Ditto. Thunderbolt 1 technology is still highly priced and has low market penetration. It's terrific that they're improving the technology (for the pro users), but they need to make it much more accessible if they want it to compete with USB 3.0 in the mainstream market.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 5, 2013, 01:44 AM
Why doesn't Intel make any? Thunderbolt is their project, too, and Xeon is their professional CPU.
iThink 99 percent of the Xeon-based computers worldwide, do not need the Thunderbolt-option.

ikir
Jun 5, 2013, 01:44 AM
And now we wait for this even though we are never going to use it. My desktop might have a pair of these next year on Z97 alongside SATA Express.

I'm using thunderbolt everyday...

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 5, 2013, 02:02 AM
Can someone explain why this is the case? A thunderbolt controller is a separate chip from the CPU, why would it be tied to specific CPUs?
One reason is probably the necessary DMA (Direct Memory Access). Thunderbolt needs the DMA, and modern Intel CPUs have an integrated memory controller, which allows the DMA for certain interfaces (SATA & others?).

Kate4u
Jun 5, 2013, 02:03 AM
And 2x less users ;)

nice point !

upthetoffees
Jun 5, 2013, 02:09 AM
there are two thunderbolts ports on my rMBP that remain unused, and they're already announcing thunderbolt 2?.. oh my.

That is your choice though, it's not as if there will be a *magic* invention that will require them.

bushido
Jun 5, 2013, 02:31 AM
yet both of my thunderbolt 1s on my rmbp are still virgins never to be used ... id rather have another usb 3 port on my mac

That is your choice though, it's not as if there will be a *magic* invention that will require them.

of course id use it if the prices were reasonable but so far ...

1TB Thunderbolt external drive: 180€
1TB USB 3 external drive: 60€

macchiato2009
Jun 5, 2013, 04:01 AM
TB then TB2 or how Intel & Apple are scre.wing people twice... :mad:


hopefully usb3 exists

Zeov
Jun 5, 2013, 04:03 AM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

they havent updated it in several years, it's pretty logical that theres no thunderbolt ports on it.. if they updated it with the same lousy specs and added thunderbolt, people would be even more pissed.

The next Mac pro will have thunderbolt.

toke lahti
Jun 5, 2013, 04:26 AM
One reason is probably the necessary DMA (Direct Memory Access). Thunderbolt needs the DMA, and modern Intel CPUs have an integrated memory controller, which allows the DMA for certain interfaces (SATA & others?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access#PCI

ValSalva
Jun 5, 2013, 04:44 AM
And 2x less users ;)

Sad, but unless third party manufacturers are enticed into making tons of TB accessories it's true.

gto55
Jun 5, 2013, 04:49 AM
even if TB technology reaches 1Tbps which would make it undeniably superior to USB, for what reasons apple continues to integrate it while the devices are not accessible?

subsonix
Jun 5, 2013, 04:57 AM
More importantly, without processor graphics there's no clean way to route DisplayPort through Thunderbolt on a Xeon platform just yet. At some point processor graphics will come to the Xeon however. There will never be a Thunderbolt PCIe card. TB is integrated into the system, it ties directly into the CPU and on-cpu GPU.

With reservations for not knowing anything about Thunderbolt2, I can agree with the "no clean way" part. But I don't think Xeon will ever see an integrated GPU, because either they sit in a server and then graphics don't matter, or they sit in a workstation and if that workstation is used for graphics, you would want a (much more capable) graphics card.

As far as I can tell from the linked article, and the intel doc the problem seems to be that a dedicated graphics card has its own displayport. This port then needs to be re-routed with a cable back to the motherboard just to come out of the Thunderbolt connector. The intel doc shows two scenarios, one with solid arrow where displayport is taken from the pch and the other directly from a discrete GPU. A scenario where the GPU re-routes it's screen output back to pcie to be taken from the pch is not supported by any graphics cards (according to ars technica).

Perhaps a Thunderbolt port on a Mac Pro only carries PCIe, and no Displayport. Or, Thunderbolt just like express card is only intended for portable computers and will never show up on a workstation (which makes some sense actually since a workstation has proper PCIe slots).

subsonix
Jun 5, 2013, 05:10 AM
Does TB2 even use the same diagram?
If TB2 can channel a full 20Gpbs for PCIe or video does it even have the GFx link in the diagram?

New controllers could just have PCIe interface (and get feed video over PCIe) so they could be anywhere on the PCIe network, even on video cards. That sort of design change would sure help adoption.

That is another possibility, the information about TB2 so far is limited to a few paragraphs on an intel blog post.

rmwebs
Jun 5, 2013, 05:31 AM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

What annoys me is that they could have very easily just released an expansion card for the current lineup. They better not just give the pro a speed bump and an expansion card now though, especially since the pro cant be sold in Europe anymore. It's going to need a complete redesign (preferably without the razor sharp handles this time!)

----------

This is all I wanted to know from this entire article. Backwards compatibility is always good news. :)

Especially when the Thunderbolt cables and peripherals are stupidly priced. Would be rather annoying for people who've invested a lot in TB equipment to find it no longer works!

toke lahti
Jun 5, 2013, 05:42 AM
Thunderbolt would allow:

1- a smaller form factor
2- daisy chaining external drives/drives
3- faster, bi-directional transfers for HD/4K video
4- Placing the system in a ventilated closet or a few in another room, with a single Thunderbolt cable leading to (a) workstation(s) for HID's, displays, etc.
1. What's the use?
2. Daisy chaining is PITA.
3. Something like 6G-sdi, hdmi, dp and esata can't do?
4. Probably the worst price-performance ratio for KVM on the planet. The whole 3 meters!

TB in macs is looking more and more like infiniband in consumer device. What's the situation in 2014?
1. TB market penetration something like 0.0001% ?
2. 10 million macs out per year and almost nobody needs TB to other than dp.
3. After few years more of existence and only 1 TB display on market.
4. Usb4, hdmi2.0 and new dp out, TB is once again one generation behind and 10x more expensive alternative.

itsamacthing
Jun 5, 2013, 05:54 AM
Yea, ummm... I got thunderbolt on almost all my devices and still waiting for all the devices?! lol what a joke

alFR
Jun 5, 2013, 06:04 AM
2. 10 million macs out per year and almost nobody needs TB to other than dp.


Apart from all the pro users using it for video import and fast external storage, of course... Sure it'd be nice if there were more/cheaper consumer-oriented TB devices, but that doesn't mean it's useless: it just isn't useful for you.

Jjaro
Jun 5, 2013, 06:12 AM
Great news! Maybe somebody already said this, but here's hoping for someone to FINALLY release a dual-thunderbolt splitter so we can use two monitors natively through the port and without having to rely on a USB display adapter! (For those of us without a Retina Macbook of course.)

foobarbaz
Jun 5, 2013, 06:33 AM
How about better support for and making Thunderbolt 1 more widespread before announcing Thunderbolt 2 Intel?

Yeah, because nothing helps proliferate a standard more than letting it stagnate... Seriously, I don't know why people are complaining here. There is literally no downside to continuous, backwards compatible updates to TB.

And we absolutely need an update to Thunderbolt, if only for DisplayPort 1.2 and the ability to drive HiDPI screens. Without that, it would be holding Apple back.

Rocketman
Jun 5, 2013, 07:02 AM
So I take it the new MacPro and MacMini will have USB3, TB2, Ethernet, with the pro having 2+ of each.

vmachiel
Jun 5, 2013, 07:03 AM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

If their is indeed and update, which i of course cannot guarantee, i will guarantee that thunderbolt will be included in that hypothetical update:)

toke lahti
Jun 5, 2013, 07:14 AM
Apart from all the pro users using it for video import and fast external storage, of course... Sure it'd be nice if there were more/cheaper consumer-oriented TB devices, but that doesn't mean it's useless: it just isn't useful for you.
I'm a video professional, but I don't use laptops in my work.
And actually in one edit room I work I do use TB. Since there hasn't been reasonable MP's in years, they bought an iMac to it and the 10G-ethernetcard lies in TB-box.
But putting pro tech to consumer devices isn't what Apple normally has done in recent years. More over they have cut all other "pro" stuff away from their products. I think upper levels in Infinite Loop now thinks that TB was a mistesp and just wait for replacement. They could save many dollars per mac by not using TB. At the same time, they could make more money selling TB cables, but I don't think too many buys those cables...

Btw, Decklink used to offer videoI/O with usb3, but since their customers are pretty mac oriented, they had to make tb-versions, because apple put tb first to their products and usb3 only after. After usb4 is on the market there's no need in video equipnment for tb. You can only have small benefit when copying huge amounts of data from storage to storage and those cases are pretty rare if you think how much more that is going to cost. Usb3/4 can easily handle single ssd speeds, so for tb to be beneficial there needs to be petabytes in several multidrive raids. Usually this means SAN and again there's no place for TB.

dugbug
Jun 5, 2013, 07:17 AM
Now that would make a nice addition to any mac. The timing of this announcement is so... suspicious :)

zorinlynx
Jun 5, 2013, 07:21 AM
You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?

Well then they could do what has always been done in the entire history of computing to add a feature to a computer:

Include an add-in expansion card with a thunderbolt port on it.

Not everything HAS to be on the motherboard!

Nightarchaon
Jun 5, 2013, 07:50 AM
All i want is a Thunderbolt device , a small box, that lets me plug the DVI or HDMI output from a PC video card or games console, or cable TV/Satellite TV receiver into a box that then lets me use my Thunderbolt iMac as a display...

I have Zero need for any Thunderbolt peripherals that the iMac can access, as my needs are all dealt with by either USB devices (why would i need a thunderbolt mouse or keyboard ?) or NAS storage .

The thing i used the most on older iMacs, the ability to have ONE screen on my desk and use it as a display for multiple sources, has been killed by Thunderbolt.

Now i can understand the Tbolt "docks" for laptop users, and if i was mobile often enough then that would be a must have purchase, but as it stands, i miss the old iMacs you could use as a display for everything else

Ifti
Jun 5, 2013, 08:14 AM
Most of my external devices are Thunderbolt - my external portable HDD, my Drobo 5D, etc - used for video editing.
I have USB3 drives for storage since they are cheaper.

Cant even saturate the current Thunderbolt connection so have no need for Thunderbolt 2.........yet!

Jynto
Jun 5, 2013, 08:16 AM
No one uses Thunderbolt. It never caught on.

I know that because I am from the future.

guzhogi
Jun 5, 2013, 08:30 AM
Great news! Maybe somebody already said this, but here's hoping for someone to FINALLY release a dual-thunderbolt splitter so we can use two monitors natively through the port and without having to rely on a USB display adapter! (For those of us without a Retina Macbook of course.)

While you can daisy chain 2 of Apple's TB Displays together, I know what you're saying & some people don't want to use Apple's displays.

Can someone clarify something for me? I think I read on AppleInsider or someplace that TB 1 has two channels, each 10 GBps while TB 2 has only one 20 Gbps channel so they basically just combined the 2 channels. Did I read/understand that correctly? Just wondering.

JSenders
Jun 5, 2013, 08:47 AM
It would be great to have Thunderbolt on my Mac Pro. As I have looked at my needs though, I found that there were many alternatives using PCIe cards, and other than using dedicated Thunderbolt accessories (which there are few), I didn't see what the big deal was. In order to keep myself sane, I just see the entire Mac line minus the Mac Pro as having Thunderbolt because it doesn't have any PCIe slots. The Mac Pro doesn't need it for the most part... Most of the professional thunderbolt video hubs that I have seen come with a PCIe alternative that is usually better anyways. That doesn't mean the Mac Pro shouldn't have Thunderbolt, it's just a different way of looking at things. It will get it eventually once the architecture supports it.

----------

Can someone clarify something for me? I think I read on AppleInsider or someplace that TB 1 has two channels, each 10 GBps while TB 2 has only one 20 Gbps channel so they basically just combined the 2 channels. Did I read/understand that correctly? Just wondering.

Yes, they combined the channels and made them bi-directional.

Jacquesass
Jun 5, 2013, 09:08 AM
Want to know why there haven't been more Thunderbolt devices? Because Thunderbolt "1" was a beta-test, embraced by Apple. Thunderbolt "2" is the bug-fix.

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/04/10/thunderbolt-still-broken-but-new-parts-talked-up/

I think TB is a great idea and I hope it becomes a ubiquitous standard ... but it seems like it was rushed to market.

BreuerEditor
Jun 5, 2013, 10:07 AM
Hmm, they even dropped the gloss from the lightning logo ;)

That's actually a Thunderbolt logo...and that is Intel's official logo design. Apple just spiced it up.

Intel's Website: https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/all/themes/tb/images/thunderbolt.png

Apple's Website: http://images.apple.com/imac/performance/images/thunderbolt_icon.jpg

Intarweb
Jun 5, 2013, 10:52 AM
Let's come out with a second technology that was soooooo adopted in it's first incarnation. :rolleyes:

guru77
Jun 5, 2013, 10:54 AM
my guess we will see TB as a center piece of a new mac pro which does away with much of the legacy tech such as PCIe, multiple drive bays, optical media drives and their corresponding motherboard components in a much more modular and slimed down solution. no more huge dedicated boxes that only a small percentage of professionals take advantage of. this would allow for cheaper core machines that can scale up easily to service the needs of more demanding professionals. and TB is what makes this possible. what, you need more storage space? slap a a few 2 terabyte drives onto the TB chain. need more video crunching power? connect a TB video "card" on the chain. i have no idea if apple is going this direction, but it makes sense if they did. and it allows third parties to become actively envolved with the evolution of the product by providing more options that apple can't possibly meet on it's own.

mabhatter
Jun 5, 2013, 10:56 AM
Don't be ridiculous.

More likely, you are paying TRIPPLE for fiber channel 10Gb arrays... Which Mac Pro supports... So why would intel cut a steep discount when they got you locked in. FC is a $500 option just for the Interface. Drives go up from there, but they are shareable.

wizard
Jun 5, 2013, 11:25 AM
have thunderbolt on my 2011 macbook pro for the past 2 and a half years

never used it

So mine has FireWire and I've never used that. Fact is TB is far more useful.

wizard
Jun 5, 2013, 11:41 AM
Lots of misinformation here. For one you guys do realize that TB was developed by Intel on a Mac Pro. TB originally ran on run of the mill Intel hardware.

Second TB isn't a replacement for USB. The cost delta should make that clear to most people. Beyond that acceptance of TB hasn't been much worst than that of USB. If you young ones would read up on history you would know that Apple lead the way on USB too. TB might not be ramping up as fast as some would like but it is widely accepted in many applications as the best tech out there.

mytdave
Jun 5, 2013, 11:46 AM
i'm intrigued to see what they do here...

in order to get thunderbolt into the mac pro, they'll need to either a) use consumer haswell CPUs like the new i7 4770k that have integrated video which will piss a lot of people off because they're not workstation hardware or b) use xeon or sandy bridge-e CPUs and build something crafty to reroute thunderbolt video to the video card which will piss people off just as much because they're yet again using old hardware.

there's also a fantasy c) scenario, where they've made a deal with intel to make new ivy bridge-e CPUs with integrated video for Apple's exclusive use, in which case the whole thing would be absurdly expensive

they're basically screwed every which way, i'm surprised they just didn't axe it altogether

IMHO Apple's mistake was building the Mac "Pro" as a Xeon based system in the 1st place. They should have built a high-end tower on a desktop CPU architecture instead (Core i7) where they could have easily incorporated newer tech like Thunderbolt and USB 3

They should have left the Xeon relegated to the server space where it belongs - of course that would mean continuing and improving the XServe line instead of the bone-head move of ditching it entirely.

Chuck-Norris
Jun 5, 2013, 11:50 AM
So mine has FireWire and I've never used that. Fact is TB is far more useful.

how is it useful WHEN YOU DONT FREAKIN USE IT

B2k1977
Jun 5, 2013, 11:58 AM
how is it useful WHEN YOU DONT FREAKIN USE IT

I've had TB for 2 years. never used it once. It's safe to say I don't even know if the port actually works at all. I've never plugged anything into it. I use firewire and usb.

roadbloc
Jun 5, 2013, 12:24 PM
And now Apple can make even more £30 cables. :D

tevion5
Jun 5, 2013, 12:53 PM
If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.

Absolutely every Professional recording studio I have ever seen has tons of external drives. Usually multiple Firewire drives, but I can see how thunderbolt would be better.

iMikeT
Jun 5, 2013, 01:07 PM
Yeah, because nothing helps proliferate a standard more than letting it stagnate... Seriously, I don't know why people are complaining here. There is literally no downside to continuous, backwards compatible updates to TB.

And we absolutely need an update to Thunderbolt, if only for DisplayPort 1.2 and the ability to drive HiDPI screens. Without that, it would be holding Apple back.


I wasn't referring to Intel sitting on their hands and doing nothing. What I am referring to is the fact that Intel made Thunderbolt too proprietary and too expensive that 3rd-party manufacturers can't easily adopt the standard and release Thunderbolt devices. It's been over two years since Thunderbolt was released and since then, the price for adopting the technology hasn't dropped much.

mdelvecchio
Jun 5, 2013, 02:25 PM
there are two thunderbolts ports on my rMBP that remain unused, and they're already announcing thunderbolt 2?.. oh my.

it isn't for you...big whoop.

----------

TB then TB2 or how Intel & Apple are scre.wing people twice... :mad:

exactly how are you being "screwed" with the improvement of TB?

----------

how is it useful WHEN YOU DONT FREAKIN USE IT

do you really believe everyone's life is identical to your own? really...?

----------

I've had TB for 2 years. never used it once. It's safe to say I don't even know if the port actually works at all. I've never plugged anything into it. I use firewire and usb.

and people like my dad have never used their FireWire ports...but I'm still glad they're there, since I do.

jdiamond
Jun 5, 2013, 03:00 PM
Even though DisplayPort 1.2 still doesn't provide enough bandwidth for a Retina 27" Thunderbolt display (5120x2880 required, 3840x2160 provided), they could utilize a dual-link Thunderbolt connection to provide the appropriate bandwidth (kinda like how the 30" Cinema Display used a dual-link DVI connector).
So a 21.5" Retina ThunderBolt display requiring a single-link ThunderBolt 2.0 connection and a 27" model requiring a dual-link connection is very possible (if they can get a good enough yield from manufacturing). Though, they would need new Macs to drive them (iMac refresh, long awaited Mac Pro, maybe Mac Mini).

I don't understand it - Thunderbolt I has the bandwidth for HDMI 1.4 support, why is Apple sticking with 1.2? No 3D support? Thunderbolt 2 has bandwidth to support the not yet released HDMI 2.0 spec.

AnonMac50
Jun 5, 2013, 04:21 PM
my guess we will see TB as a center piece of a new mac pro which does away with much of the legacy tech such as PCIe, multiple drive bays, optical media drives and their corresponding motherboard components in a much more modular and slimed down solution. no more huge dedicated boxes that only a small percentage of professionals take advantage of. this would allow for cheaper core machines that can scale up easily to service the needs of more demanding professionals. and TB is what makes this possible. what, you need more storage space? slap a a few 2 terabyte drives onto the TB chain. need more video crunching power? connect a TB video "card" on the chain. i have no idea if apple is going this direction, but it makes sense if they did. and it allows third parties to become actively envolved with the evolution of the product by providing more options that apple can't possibly meet on it's own.

I think it's too early to drop PCIe.

deconstruct60
Jun 5, 2013, 05:20 PM
Can someone clarify something for me? I think I read on AppleInsider or someplace that TB 1 has two channels, each 10 GBps while TB 2 has only one 20 Gbps channel so they basically just combined the 2 channels. Did I read/understand that correctly? Just wondering.

That is basically it.

"... It is achieved by combining the two previously independent 10Gbs channels into one 20Gbs bi-directional channel that supports data and/or display. Current versions of Thunderbolt, although faster than other PC I/O technologies on the market today, are limited to an individual 10Gbs channel each for both data and display, less than the required bandwidth for 4K video transfer. ... "
http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2013/06/video-creation-bolts-ahead-%E2%80%93-intel%E2%80%99s-thunderbolt%E2%84%A2-2-doubles-bandwidth-enabling-4k-video-transfer-display-2/


this really seems to be just reshuffling of the deck chairs and not overall throughput increase.

It was probably much easier to make the independent channels isochronous with the major re-encoded PCI-e and Display Port data being transported on different channels.

To multiplex that all together into one logical stream and keep all the timing correct is going to require more complicated hardware in each controller. The future models will have a bigger transistor budget because they'll be on a newer (smaller ) process technology.

However, there is nothing that particularly indicates that the interface to the PCI-e system is any wider or higher bandwidth. The majority of the dat increase seems to be largely motivated by the large increase in throughput handling all of Display Port v1.2 potential demands. There is a bit more flexibility of large PCI-e data + normal video and large video + normal data but the fact they merged what was already there isn't a big jump in overall system throughput.

----------

Yes, they combined the channels and made them bi-directional.[/QUOTE]

Thunderbolt has always been bidirectional. That isn't new. That is just keeping it just as it was.

deconstruct60
Jun 5, 2013, 05:33 PM
<snip>

----------


....
Yes, they combined the channels and made them bi-directional.

No. Thunderbolt has been bidirectional from the beginning. There was no "directionality support" change with the move to 2.0.

deconstruct60
Jun 5, 2013, 05:54 PM
With reservations for not knowing anything about Thunderbolt2, I can agree with the "no clean way" part. But I don't think Xeon will ever see an integrated GPU, because either they sit in a server and then graphics don't matter, or they sit in a workstation and if that workstation is used for graphics, you would want a (much more capable) graphics card.

A myopic and disconnected from present realities viewpoint of the situation. In terms of computation horsepower GPUs can be used a general compute device so parallel float loads. More cores per square mm can be engage than a general GPU.

There is also a point where broad spectrum server core count gets to diminishing returns. E5 are about to go to 12. At about 16 this is probably going to be enough for most. Problems in the workstation space that scale up from there are going to more likely be in the embarrassingly parallel floating point space. The sweet spot for GPGPUs.

For the E5 4600 and E7 yeah. But for the E 1600's the core count march has already stopped. It is likely to stop for the 2600 next iteration or so also. Those are the two that Mac Pro would likely use.



Perhaps a Thunderbolt port on a Mac Pro only carries PCIe, and no Displayport.

Makes absolutely zero sense to fragment the Thunderbolt standard given it is not on solid footion adoption wise yet. There is no large established base to build on (relatively to the overall PC market). Start to fragment it into smaller pieces now and it is never going to get there.

More than likely they can't. It is doubtful the DisplayPort folks allowed Intel to "hijack" their port if it was not going to further adoption of Display Port signal transport. They'd be foolish if OK'ed that. The USB folks veto'ed highjacking USB. It is doubtful that Display Port would be any less good stewards of their standard.


Or, Thunderbolt just like express card is only intended for portable computers

It is not. It just has a pragmatic requirement that there be an embedded GPU on the motherboard. The trivial way to implement that is with a iGPU. However, the iMac has a discrete GPU that manages to pump data to the Thunderbolt controller. Some folks try to project that has to be routed through the iGPU but I don't see why that would be necessary.

Thunderbolt happens to align with Intels agenda of more iGPU but I still haven't seen hard evidence that it requires it.

cmanderson
Jun 5, 2013, 11:02 PM
how is it useful WHEN YOU DONT FREAKIN USE IT

Wow, troll much? At any rate, here I am with a 15" rMBPro with GigE plugged into a Thunderbolt port. There's a monitor plugged into the other.

I don't "lose" a Mini DisplayPort. It's "part of" the Thunderbolt chain, but it doesn't have to be used with a Thunderbolt device, per se. Still, I could use it as a secondary Thunderbolt port if necessary. I could go wireless if I need both of the TB ports for whatever reason.

Under the same desk sits a Mac Mini Server with a LaCie 5big 10TB DAS plugged into its Thunderbolt port. I'm running MacZFS. Actually, I just added Greenbytes ZEVO Community Edition on top of that. 10TB in RAIDZ, 8TB usable storage. I see anywhere from 325 to 475 MBps, read and write, on the 5big. Not Mbps; MBps.

I'm able to accomplish this with ONE device attached to the Mac Mini for primary storage (the cache device is just a toy, can disconnect at any time, wouldn't lose sleep over it.) If I wanted to use eSATA, I'd need a bridge device of some sort, most likely Thunderbolt to eSATA. Or a bunch of USB drives getting hot as they're stacked up on top of each other or getting in my way as they're spread out. What I've done for myself here is a more elegant solution.

It's great for running multiple virtual machines (VMWare Fusion, for the most part), storing my media collection, iPhoto / Aperture photo editing, etc., etc., etc. It's like a GIANT SSD in terms of performance.

Daisy-chained off of the LaCie is an Intel 240 GB SSD stuffed into a Seagate portable GoFlex Thunderbolt chassis. I pulled the 1GB drive for use elsewhere. I use the Thunderbolt SSD for a number of things including *fast* external storage when I'm away on business trips.

While I'm traveling, it's nice to have a bus powered local Time Machine backup, plus additional storage, that I can plug into the second port on the 5big when I'm back home.

While I'm at home, I don't have to unmount drives on the MacBook Pro if I want to take it out to the patio or living room, because things are connected directly to the Mac Mini Server*. I simply unplug my power cable and GigE Thunderbolt adapter and leave the room. I keep the Wireless adapter on and in a lower priority than the GigE and it works well for me that way.

Every once in a while when I need more screen real estate I'll head over to the room where the 27" iMac sits (with it's 2 Thunderbolt ports) and connect my MacBook Pro up to that and use it (the iMac) in Target Display mode.

I don't have a Cinema Display or the Thunderbolt Display, but when the kids are in bed, it's nice to have the option. The Nvidia 650M in the rMBPro ain't too shabby when it comes to gaming, at least the gaming I manage to do these days. I'll admit I don't really have or foresee an immediate need for 4K in my use cases.

I don't want a bunch of Firewire drives either - it's yesterday's technology. No offense to those who still use Firewire 800 (or 400), but Thunderbolt is a legitimate replacement for Firewire, and then some.

Having said that, if there were a compelling reason to add a 4K monitor and the price was right, I'd be feeling the urge to upgrade to Thunderbolt 2 in some way shape or form to be able to obtain that. I don't see this as a realistic possibility in my case for several years, 3 to 4 is probably about right.

tongxinshe
Jun 5, 2013, 11:25 PM
ThunderBolt will be another FireWire -- gradually die out after USB catches up. Price is the most important factor that causes their death.

cmanderson
Jun 5, 2013, 11:53 PM
ThunderBolt will be another FireWire -- gradually die out after USB catches up. Price is the most important factor that causes their death.

In the meantime it just works and works well.

itsamacthing
Jun 6, 2013, 12:02 AM
In the meantime it just works and works well.

It can work well but until Intel makes it affordable to implement, it will keep on being a niche technology

cmanderson
Jun 6, 2013, 12:56 AM
More likely, you are paying TRIPPLE for fiber channel 10Gb arrays... Which Mac Pro supports... So why would intel cut a steep discount when they got you locked in. FC is a $500 option just for the Interface. Drives go up from there, but they are shareable.

FC goes 1 / 2 / 4 / 8 / 16

Tripple - a horse's gait?

----------

It can work well but until Intel makes it affordable to implement, it will keep on being a niche technology

For a niche there sure are quite a few options out there, with more to come.

MattInOz
Jun 6, 2013, 01:41 AM
ThunderBolt will be another FireWire -- gradually die out after USB catches up. Price is the most important factor that causes their death.

By Firewire there are still a lot of uses for firewire that USB never replaced, they just aren't main stream.
Yes Thunderbolt is likely to be a lot like Firewire in that regard. For uses with demand and money USB is never likely to catch up because it plays for the useful to almost everyone end of the market.

Atlantico
Jun 6, 2013, 03:34 AM
You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?

Apple doesn't have to rely on Intel providing a reference chipset to put Thunderbolt on a Xeon motherboard.

:confused::p

ogun7
Jun 6, 2013, 05:43 AM
Yup, I do. They could announce new systems with availability down the road. Intel has not made any official statement on the next Xeon based chips, could be the Fall, sooner or later. Perhaps Apple may offer more BTO options/processors (doubtful). Until official releases and announcements are made, it's anyone's guess. :)

You think maybe Intel is waiting for Apple to announce the new MacPro just like how Apple announced a thunderbolt first?

How important are Xeons to anyone outside the server community on Windows?

----------

I built almost Mac Pro myself and have now 2 Thunderbolt ports working on GA-Z77X-UP5 TH mobo. One for Blackmagic Ultrastudio and second for HD.

My colleague built a hackintosh with the older, non-Thunderbolt motherboard and convinced me to build one with the board you have.

Matrixfan
Jun 6, 2013, 07:58 AM
It baffles me a bit that the actual Thunderbolt connector doesn't have any physical retaining as other professional connectors do. We are talking about high bandwidth and multiple connection points due to daisy chaining. You don't have to be a scientist to use the system to it's full extent. A simple prosumer musician (low latency applications like the UAD Apollo) or a video editor (very high bandwidth video streams) can fully utilise the system. TB is "making peripherals" out of components that used to be inside the box. It's not like a keyboard or mouse. Based on technical superiority and setting price aside, I prefer Thunderbolt to USB, but a more professional plug would be nice. What if I plug and unplug my MBP multiple times a day? I wouldn't want my TB socket to loosen up.

Chuck-Norris
Jun 6, 2013, 08:32 AM
Wow, troll much? At any rate, here I am with a 15" rMBPro with GigE plugged into a Thunderbolt port. There's a monitor plugged into the other.

I don't "lose" a Mini DisplayPort. It's "part of" the Thunderbolt chain, but it doesn't have to be used with a Thunderbolt device, per se. Still, I could use it as a secondary Thunderbolt port if necessary. I could go wireless if I need both of the TB ports for whatever reason.

Under the same desk sits a Mac Mini Server with a LaCie 5big 10TB DAS plugged into its Thunderbolt port. I'm running MacZFS. Actually, I just added Greenbytes ZEVO Community Edition on top of that. 10TB in RAIDZ, 8TB usable storage. I see anywhere from 325 to 475 MBps, read and write, on the 5big. Not Mbps; MBps.

I'm able to accomplish this with ONE device attached to the Mac Mini for primary storage (the cache device is just a toy, can disconnect at any time, wouldn't lose sleep over it.) If I wanted to use eSATA, I'd need a bridge device of some sort, most likely Thunderbolt to eSATA. Or a bunch of USB drives getting hot as they're stacked up on top of each other or getting in my way as they're spread out. What I've done for myself here is a more elegant solution.

It's great for running multiple virtual machines (VMWare Fusion, for the most part), storing my media collection, iPhoto / Aperture photo editing, etc., etc., etc. It's like a GIANT SSD in terms of performance.

Daisy-chained off of the LaCie is an Intel 240 GB SSD stuffed into a Seagate portable GoFlex Thunderbolt chassis. I pulled the 1GB drive for use elsewhere. I use the Thunderbolt SSD for a number of things including *fast* external storage when I'm away on business trips.

While I'm traveling, it's nice to have a bus powered local Time Machine backup, plus additional storage, that I can plug into the second port on the 5big when I'm back home.

While I'm at home, I don't have to unmount drives on the MacBook Pro if I want to take it out to the patio or living room, because things are connected directly to the Mac Mini Server*. I simply unplug my power cable and GigE Thunderbolt adapter and leave the room. I keep the Wireless adapter on and in a lower priority than the GigE and it works well for me that way.

Every once in a while when I need more screen real estate I'll head over to the room where the 27" iMac sits (with it's 2 Thunderbolt ports) and connect my MacBook Pro up to that and use it (the iMac) in Target Display mode.

I don't have a Cinema Display or the Thunderbolt Display, but when the kids are in bed, it's nice to have the option. The Nvidia 650M in the rMBPro ain't too shabby when it comes to gaming, at least the gaming I manage to do these days. I'll admit I don't really have or foresee an immediate need for 4K in my use cases.

I don't want a bunch of Firewire drives either - it's yesterday's technology. No offense to those who still use Firewire 800 (or 400), but Thunderbolt is a legitimate replacement for Firewire, and then some.

Having said that, if there were a compelling reason to add a 4K monitor and the price was right, I'd be feeling the urge to upgrade to Thunderbolt 2 in some way shape or form to be able to obtain that. I don't see this as a realistic possibility in my case for several years, 3 to 4 is probably about right.

sounds pretty sexy

HarryKNN21
Jun 6, 2013, 08:47 AM
Thunderbolt 2 will be a more pointless development if those Thunderbolt compatible devices and storages are still not affordable by typical consumers.

Even the current LaCie Thunderbolt external drives are not really that faster than USB 3 drives.

subsonix
Jun 6, 2013, 08:57 AM
In terms of computation horsepower GPUs can be used a general compute device so parallel float loads.

Yes… But graphics cards or dedicated computation cards like Tessla or Xeon Phi does a much better job than an integrated GPU. Integrated GPUs makes sense where graphics cards or even discrete GPUs are impossible, such as in a laptop.



It is not. It just has a pragmatic requirement that there be an embedded GPU on the motherboard. The trivial way to implement that is with a iGPU. However, the iMac has a discrete GPU that manages to pump data to the Thunderbolt controller. Some folks try to project that has to be routed through the iGPU but I don't see why that would be necessary.


How is that pragmatic if you have a graphics card?

ogun7
Jun 6, 2013, 10:07 AM
I don't think they ever passed it off as science, no faux papers where published etc.

IMHO Apple's mistake was building the Mac "Pro" as a Xeon based system in the 1st place. They should have built a high-end tower on a desktop CPU architecture instead (Core i7) where they could have easily incorporated newer tech like Thunderbolt and USB 3

They should have left the Xeon relegated to the server space where it belongs - of course that would mean continuing and improving the XServe line instead of the bone-head move of ditching it entirely.

I believe they used Xeon to address the amount of memory lanes.

deconstruct60
Jun 6, 2013, 10:43 AM
Yes… But graphics cards or dedicated computation cards like Tessla or Xeon Phi does a much better job than an integrated GPU.

The iGPU doesn't have to out compete those. It just has to outcompete the float math function units in the CPU package. Talking effective bang-for-buck transistor allocation inside the CPU package. At some point just piling on more x86 cores doesn't do a whole lot.

In the blade and/or custom cluster node space large PCI-e cards are nether thermally or space efficient. Where are talking the space between a whole card with a whole another set of RAM and the exact same space of CPU socket and the RAM that was also already there.

Intel isn't really ready just yet. Haswell HD graphics just got OpenCL 1.2. But couple eDRAM and the next generation (or one after) HD graphics GPGPU compute engine block (not max biggest but single building module) to 6-8 Xeon like x86 implementations and it will be decent out of the box for a modest server and much more aligned with the workstation market. All the more so if TB peripherals market matures and prices come down a bit.

If actually look at E5 2600 server boxes they come with an Matrox G200eW , at some point is likely to absorb that market also. If look at those systems they are already embedded GPUs present now. iGPU just shifts the implementation strategy for the embedding.



Integrated GPUs makes sense where graphics cards or even discrete GPUs are impossible, such as in a laptop.

You are still missing the point. It is a computational engine and effective use of die space. CPUs and GPUs are going to merge and it has little to do with limited laptop space.

Over the 50+ year history of electronic/transistor computers things have grown more integrated over time. That isn't stopping now. The CPU "black hole" sucked in the memory controller (and northbridge ). At that point the GPU was bound to get pulled in also in a wider variety of designs.



How is that pragmatic if you have a graphics card?

Many servers don't have graphics cards. They have embedded graphics. So it is quite pragmatic.

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/xeon/c202_c204/x9scl-f.cfm (Matrox G200eW )

A list of blades.

http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/xeon_x9_e5.cfm?pg=sb ( all Matrox G200eW )

subsonix
Jun 6, 2013, 11:08 AM
The iGPU doesn't have to out compete those. It just has to outcompete the float math function units in the CPU package.

I'm sorry, floating point math on a regular CPU is a completely different matter.



You are still missing the point. It is a computational engine and effective use of die space.

Ok, you are right!

----------


Many servers don't have graphics cards. They have embedded graphics. So it is quite pragmatic.

So what? The reason it's not pragmatic if you have a graphics card is that you would likely want to use your graphics card, not the integrated graphics of either the CPU or separate chip.

deconstruct60
Jun 6, 2013, 11:25 AM
I believe they used Xeon to address the amount of memory lanes.

The very high end Core i7 x9xx and workstation Xeon implementations share the same basic micro-architecture implementation.

The fallacy is that the Core i7 variant comes any quicker ( a couple months some what but it is fundalmentally on same schedule because based on exactly the same core implementation. ). The fallacy is preptrated by confusing/muddling the different Core i7 implementations. Not all of them are the same really the same product line. It is marketing grouping name far more than a product grouping name.


At this point the Xeon workstation line of development is decoupled in the related factor of x86 core count and memory controllers. More cores typically require more paths to memory (for a given fixed memory speed and relative much higher x86 core speed ).

The desktop oriented implementation evolves "faster" but comes couple to (some of these are named Core i7 typically not in the x9xx sequence):

1. transistor budget allocated to iGPU.
2. two memory controllers and hence a core count capped at 4
3. very lmited top end PCI-e v3.0 throughput: capped at 16 PCI-e lanes.
( geared toward two x8 slot implementations and another 2-3 slots posing as bandwidth be really highly oversubscribed IOHub/Southbridge lanes. )

In contrast the Workstation single package implementation (and somewhat confusing Core i7 that uses an entirely different micro-architecture implementation. )

1. So far, zero budget on iGPU cores. ( when transistor budget bigger that is likely to change)
2. formerly (previous tick/tock generation three and now ( v1 and v2 Sandy-Bridge/Ivy Bridge ) four memory controllers. Hence, max core count raised to 6. ( the core count is leveling off, probably to make room for future transition to iGPU and/or focus on clock cranking. )
3. Substantially larger PCI-e lane budget. 40 lanes, enough for two x16 and two x4 slots without smoke and mirrors bandwidth allocation.

ECC memory is more useful for folks who are going to deploy double digit GB of memory. More memory have the higher likelihood incur error. Also folks who are handling valuable data typically like to know when that data is screwed up. (streams of video data have about zero value at the individual bit level. )

Most of the claims that a Core i7 x7xxk are the results of overclocking or just outright Apples to Oranges comparisons. There is slim to no possiblilty of Apple going that way of selling boxes intended to be "tricked out" by the customers. Scalable software and more cores smoke the mainstream desktop implementations if don't go the modified/tweaker route. That is more about control than CPU performance.

deconstruct60
Jun 6, 2013, 11:44 AM
I'm sorry, floating point math on a regular CPU is a completely different matter.

No they aren't. You initial assertion was

"But I don't think Xeon will ever see an integrated GPU, because either they sit in a server and then graphics don't matter, or they sit in a workstation and if that workstation is used for graphics,..."

So the topic is about CPU design. Now you want to run away because your assertion is fundalmentally flawed as I outlined on both counts. First, servers do have graphics embeded. Second, workstation market customers do care about the float computational performance in their CPUs. The misdirection you keep trying to push is that GPU are only useful for graphics. That is a deeply dated and obsolete viewpoint mired in the past; not the future.



So what? The reason it's not pragmatic if you have a graphics card is that you would likely want to use your graphics card, not the integrated graphics of either the CPU or separate chip.

There is nothing stopping the user from using more than one GPU. In fact that is probably going to be an increasing trend over the next couple of years in the workstation is that two or more GPUs become much more common. One for graphics and one for computations. (e.g., Nividia Maximus http://www.nvidia.com/object/maximus.html ).

Intel will try to compete to get at least one of those. Your disconnect is that somehow they have to get both to win. Standards like OpenCL means the computations just have to get done. There isn't a proprietary lock-in that necessarily forces those into specific matched pairs.

One of the arguments against putting in a iGPU was that if use a discrete card GPU then the iGPU is useless. It is not useless if it is also available as a GPGPU unit. There is software that doesn't take advantaged of it. But there is software that doesn't take advantage of SSE. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included on the CPU package. Again focusing on the past to guide the future is deeply flawed.

subsonix
Jun 6, 2013, 12:04 PM
No they aren't. You initial assertion was

"But I don't think Xeon will ever see an integrated GPU, because either they sit in a server and then graphics don't matter, or they sit in a workstation and if that workstation is used for graphics,..."

So the topic is about CPU design. Now you want to run away because your assertion is fundalmentally flawed as I outlined on both counts. First, servers do have graphics embeded. Second, workstation market customers do care about the float computational performance in their CPUs. The misdirection you keep trying to push is that GPU are only useful for graphics. That is a deeply dated and obsolete viewpoint mired in the past; not the future.

First of all, servers where mentioned because Xeon came up. Embedded graphics on a server is used for graphics, not general purpose computations.

Secondly, I have never said that workstation market does not care about floating point computations. I said that floating point capabilities of CPU is a different matter. If you have ever actually used OpenCL or similar you know that it's quite different from just using floating point numbers in a CPU. It's a different use case, it's not something that cat be exchanged freely without effort.


There is nothing stopping the user from using more than one GPU.

The issue as pointed out by both Arstechnica and Annandtech is not that you can not use multiple GPUs, it's that the only current solution, used by Asus re-routed the output of the grahics card with a cable back to the motherboard, something Apple is likely not going to do.

If you look at the block diagram from intel, it shows two scenarios, one where Displayport is taken from the PCH, the other from a discrete GPU. According to Arstechnica, no current GPUs can re-route their screen output back to PCIe so that it can show up in the Thunderbolt socket.

I'm fully aware that there may be other solutions that are not covered, but then they are not publicly known at this point. Which is why anyone making assertive statements about this is basically talking BS.

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Jun 6, 2013, 01:03 PM
iThink 99 percent of the Xeon-based computers worldwide, do not need the Thunderbolt-option.

The E3-1200 series seem to be relatively unknown, but, they are perfect for a lot of professional applications. They support ECC memory, have fast cores, have reasonably low power requirements, and support the embedded graphics (HD4000) in some models, support full VM and other pro features, too. They only thing they don't have is that they are limited to single-chip systems (no QPI) and limited to 4 cores. But, they are perfect for a lot of professional applications and would be perfect for a lower-cost Mac Pro model.

usersince86
Jun 6, 2013, 02:35 PM
Is it just me, or does thunderbolt feel like the new firewire?

Faster! Better! You need it!

But the industry - and therefore consumers - are cool with whatever iteration of USB.

subsonix
Jun 6, 2013, 02:47 PM
Is it just me, or does thunderbolt feel like the new firewire?

Faster! Better! You need it!

But the industry - and therefore consumers - are cool with whatever iteration of USB.

So let's stick with the lowest common denominator the consumer market dictates is enough? Apple cares about the pros that's why.

Btw, it's also a display port. Thus if you do not need the fast data transfer, just use it to connect your monitor and be happy that the option is there for others, or you, should you need it. Beyond speed it also offers PCIe expansion in computers without PCIe slots, it's not really there to compete with USB.

Nothing wrong with Firewire btw.

toke lahti
Jun 6, 2013, 03:48 PM
Under the same desk sits a Mac Mini Server with a LaCie 5big 10TB DAS plugged into its Thunderbolt port.[..] I see anywhere from 325 to 475 MBps, read and write, on the 5big. Not Mbps; MBps.
Anybody tested what numbers you'd get with usb3 (4big has one hdd less...)?
10% less maybe? How critical this (maybe) 10% is?

cmanderson
Jun 6, 2013, 04:56 PM
Anybody tested what numbers you'd get with usb3 (4big has one hdd less...)?
10% less maybe? How critical this (maybe) 10% is?

It doesn't touch the 5big in RAID-0 which is > 700 MBps. Not even close. It's an order of magnitude faster going from 4big to 5big and USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt, respectively.

LaCie publishes "Up to 245MB/s" for the 4big. It ships in RAID-0, but you can setup RAID-1 or RAID-5. I can guarantee you they're not going to publish RAID-5 numbers as their maximum performance mode.

The 5big also ships in RAID-0, but you have to depend on OS X for striping and mirroring (or turn to one of the ZFS solutions like I've done if you want something more.)

In RAID-5, the 4big would be no better than one drive's worth of performance in the write scenario. You'd think the same would be true for the 5big in RAIDZ1, but it isn't. Setting the ashift value to 12, since the device has 4K sector drives, nets a 50-75% increase in performance over RAIDZ1 with the default ashift value. That's where I see upwards of 325 MBps in writes. It was much better in RAID-0 (500 to 600 MBps) but I had the constant fear of a drive failure hovering over me.

There's no chance you'll see those numbers on the 4big. I've attached a little BM test I performed after a bit of tinkering. Again, this is a 5big with RAIDZ1, not OS X RAID-0.

I've tested the 5big with AJA and a stop watch as well as the ever popular Blackmagic Speed Test (people like big fancy gauges, don't they?)

Again, it's not even close (much > 10%). Compare the price of a 10 TB 5big to a 8 or 12 TB 4big with USB 3.0 and the price is very much in line with where it should be, all things considered. The 5big even ships with a Thunderbolt cable. That makes two TB cables I've received as part of drive purchases.

You can't daisy chain USB 3.0 devices, but you can daisy chain additional 4big's via Firewire 800 (up to 3 additional devices.)

What kind of performance do you think you'd get on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th 4big? I'll tell you it's impossible that it would be more than 80 MBps.

You can daisy chain 5bigs as well, and if you're in RAID-0, you'll completely saturate the Thunderbolt bus with only 2 5big's. That test has been performed (you can Google it.)

Also, There are no "USB 3.0 hubs" that have breakout ports for Firewire, Gigabit Ethernet, Thunderbolt / MiniDP, etc.

It's just not a fair comparison.

theSeb
Jun 6, 2013, 06:29 PM
have thunderbolt on my 2011 macbook pro for the past 2 and a half years

never used it

That's great. I use it all the time.

usersince86
Jun 6, 2013, 07:28 PM
So let's stick with the lowest common denominator the consumer market dictates is enough? Apple cares about the pros that's why.

Btw, it's also a display port. Thus if you do not need the fast data transfer, just use it to connect your monitor and be happy that the option is there for others, or you, should you need it. Beyond speed it also offers PCIe expansion in computers without PCIe slots, it's not really there to compete with USB.

Nothing wrong with Firewire btw.

I know all that, but unless it's adopted, it's not that beneficial. FW was great, but it's gone now... that's all I was trying to say.

Chuck-Norris
Jun 6, 2013, 08:43 PM
That's great. I use it all the time.

great technology


way over priced

cmanderson
Jun 6, 2013, 09:34 PM
great technology


way over priced

"MacRumors" forums: Where fans (we think) of Mac's come to complain about pricing of Mac's (HELLO!) and their respective technologies and related peripherals.

I've seen it all now.

wizard
Jun 7, 2013, 12:24 AM
Yes… But graphics cards or dedicated computation cards like Tessla or Xeon Phi does a much better job than an integrated GPU. Integrated GPUs makes sense where graphics cards or even discrete GPUs are impossible, such as in a laptop.


This is very old fashion thinking. Integrated GPUs are now good enough for many desktop uses especially in the context of the new Intel and AMD APUs.

As for compute on these devices it is a mixed bag at the moment because Apples drivers don't even support compute on Intel integrated GPUs. It is pretty hard to knock something that isn't even supported.


How is that pragmatic if you have a graphics card?

----------

TB was never intended to be a USB replacement by Apple. Apple got exactly what they wanted out of TB and that is a high performance docking cable.

The fact of the matter is that many consumer products don't even saturate USB 2. High speed isn't always the answer.

Is it just me, or does thunderbolt feel like the new firewire?

Faster! Better! You need it!

But the industry - and therefore consumers - are cool with whatever iteration of USB.

subsonix
Jun 7, 2013, 12:28 AM
This is very old fashion thinking. Integrated GPUs are now good enough for many desktop uses especially in the context of the new Intel and AMD APUs.

You're wrong. The context here is graphics workstation, not regular desktop usage.


As for compute on these devices it is a mixed bag at the moment because Apples drivers don't even support compute on Intel integrated GPUs. It is pretty hard to knock something that isn't even supported.

I know it's possible… The context again, is workstation, and someone who perhaps does scientific computations on GPU's in that workstation.

The reason that it's not pragmatic, is that if you invested in a workstation, and a graphics card because you need it. Then you surely want to be able to use it, not only an integrated lesser version.

You see, this whole discussion started with a question of the possibility of Thunderbolt in a Mac Pro.

wizard
Jun 7, 2013, 12:36 AM
First of all, servers where mentioned because Xeon came up. Embedded graphics on a server is used for graphics, not general purpose computations.

The statement above is out of touch with reality. In some cases the only thing the GPU is used for is computation as there is no other use for the unit.

Secondly, I have never said that workstation market does not care about floating point computations. I said that floating point capabilities of CPU is a different matter. If you have ever actually used OpenCL or similar you know that it's quite different from just using floating point numbers in a CPU. It's a different use case, it's not something that cat be exchanged freely without effort.

Freely interchanged? Maybe not but often it is just a case of moving an algorithm from the CPU to the GPU. Currently much effort has to be expended in data transfers and formatting but that is another issue. The goal though is much free interaction of the GPU with respect to computation.


The issue as pointed out by both Arstechnica and Annandtech is not that you can not use multiple GPUs, it's that the only current solution, used by Asus re-routed the output of the grahics card with a cable back to the motherboard, something Apple is likely not going to do.

Interesting so how does Apple accomplish this on their MBPs?

If you look at the block diagram from intel, it shows two scenarios, one where Displayport is taken from the PCH, the other from a discrete GPU. According to Arstechnica, no current GPUs can re-route their screen output back to PCIe so that it can show up in the Thunderbolt socket.

A block diagram used for marketing purposes is of limited value in this discussion. The real question is this how many input ports are there on the cross bar.

I'm fully aware that there may be other solutions that are not covered, but then they are not publicly known at this point. Which is why anyone making assertive statements about this is basically talking BS.

subsonix
Jun 7, 2013, 12:48 AM
The statement above is out of touch with reality. In some cases the only thing the GPU is used for is computation as there is no other use for the unit.

You are out of touch with reality. I know that a GPU can be used solely for computations, but if that is the purpose of a server then it's not going to be done on an integrated GPU.


Freely interchanged? Maybe not but often it is just a case of moving an algorithm from the CPU to the GPU. Currently much effort has to be expended in data transfers and formatting but that is another issue. The goal though is much free interaction of the GPU with respect to computation.


Have you ever actually used OpenCL, CUDA or OpenMP? The issue here was a comparison with floating point computations on a CPU, it's a different matter, it's routine.


Interesting so how does Apple accomplish this on their MBPs?


The GPU on a MBP does not have it's own Displayport socket in the chassis, all it's I/O is on the board it's soldered to.


A block diagram used for marketing purposes is of limited value in this discussion. The real question is this how many input ports are there on the cross bar.

Ok, show me a different block diagram then. My point all along has been that the information is lacking.

tongxinshe
Jun 7, 2013, 01:19 AM
By Firewire there are still a lot of uses for firewire that USB never replaced.

Do you really mean at the year of 2013? Or do you just mean the year of 2003?

toke lahti
Jun 7, 2013, 05:37 AM
It doesn't touch the 5big in RAID-0 which is > 700 MBps. Not even close. It's an order of magnitude faster going from 4big to 5big and USB 3.0 to Thunderbolt, respectively.

LaCie publishes "Up to 245MB/s" for the 4big. It ships in RAID-0, but you can setup RAID-1 or RAID-5. I can guarantee you they're not going to publish RAID-5 numbers as their maximum performance mode.[..]
It's just not a fair comparison.
Yeah, I know it's not fair, but I was thinking how much you get more speed because of TB. I'd guess not very much. In 4big the speed is limited by hdd speed and in 5big by computations of raid mode.

It would be really interesting to compare identical setups of 4-disk or 5-disk boxes with usb3 and tb. In raid-0 there might be a big difference, but in raid-5 or raid-Z there might not. Usb3 should handle 500MB/s easily. And next year (okay, 2014) usb4 even more...

ikir
Jun 7, 2013, 06:39 AM
I feel it's important to mention, in such threads...

Thunderbolt is really mostly oriented at pro users. If you don't use it, big whoop. Most people don't use a fraction of the power their computers offer. For the folks who need it, it's a Good Thing, and not "overpriced," in that Thunderbolt peripherals are actually pretty reasonably priced, compared with PCIe alternatives.

Used to be a day, people really liked the fact that Macs were a "Pro" platform. I guess now that Apple is all hip and trendy, people just want to moan about everything. And ironically, the casual users moan about Thunderbolt being there, and the "Pros" moan about the platform not being "Pro" enough.

:rolleyes:

Ah finally someone who use his brain. Sadly there are few like you on internet forums...

cmanderson
Jun 7, 2013, 12:10 PM
Yeah, I know it's not fair, but I was thinking how much you get more speed because of TB. I'd guess not very much. In 4big the speed is limited by hdd speed and in 5big by computations of raid mode.

It would be really interesting to compare identical setups of 4-disk or 5-disk boxes with usb3 and tb. In raid-0 there might be a big difference, but in raid-5 or raid-Z there might not. Usb3 should handle 500MB/s easily. And next year (okay, 2014) usb4 even more...

Two 5bigs in RAID-0 will push about 1200 MBps. Whatever combination of USB3 drives you put together can't get there. Perhaps when 10 Gigabit USB ships, it will inch closer.

But, for those who want it (performance) now, it's there, for those who need it now, it's there, and they don't have to wait. It really is a suitable alternative to every day Fibre Channel connections in certain scenarios.

The cost of entry is much lower than FC. And it does more display in addition to storage. Sure, USB can talk to printers and web cams, but that's low bandwidth stuff.

cmanderson
Jun 7, 2013, 02:22 PM
It's embarrassing that the top line professional system, the Mac Pro, doesn't have Thunderbolt while the entire line currently does. If there is a Mac Pro refresh announced this month, it better include Thunderbolt along with the hints at a return to the pro-market.

It would have been more embarrassing for Apple to rush a half-baked solution to market just to put Thunderbolt on the "Pro" desktop. They're intending to do it right. Whether or not everyone else agrees with them when they do bring it to market is another story.

toke lahti
Jun 8, 2013, 06:58 AM
Two 5bigs in RAID-0 will push about 1200 MBps. Whatever combination of USB3 drives you put together can't get there. Perhaps when 10 Gigabit USB ships, it will inch closer.

But, for those who want it (performance) now, it's there, for those who need it now, it's there, and they don't have to wait. It really is a suitable alternative to every day Fibre Channel connections in certain scenarios.

The cost of entry is much lower than FC. And it does more display in addition to storage. Sure, USB can talk to printers and web cams, but that's low bandwidth stuff.
That's why I wasn't talking about raid-0.
Btw, who's using FC with DAS?
Aren't this the nichest of the niche?

FC is usually used with SAN and FC is connected with switches, so it's pretty far away from what TB is and what's it used for.
Although many mac users now has to buy TB-box to put FC-nic in it. Doesn't make either protocols any cheaper...

cmanderson
Jun 8, 2013, 01:49 PM
That's why I wasn't talking about raid-0.
Btw, who's using FC with DAS?
Aren't this the nichest of the niche?

FC is usually used with SAN and FC is connected with switches, so it's pretty far away from what TB is and what's it used for.
Although many mac users now has to buy TB-box to put FC-nic in it. Doesn't make either protocols any cheaper...

The point I'm making is FC is unreachable for many, for the performance it has to offer. TB offers a very competitive level of performance for a single user and is within reach for prosumers / professionals.

As far as your 4big to 5big comparison, it's not really equal. 4big can do RAID-5 in the box, 5big only does RAID-0 and RAID-1. You can do RAIDZ in software with either, and I'm convinced you'd see more than 10% performance difference. But going back to what the 5big (TB edition, not the NAS) is truly meant for, it's the video pro who needs the performance it can bring in RAID-0. Which is a couple of hundred actual MB more p/s than theoretical max performance of USB 3.0.

But feel free to purchase a couple and run the tests (or fly to France and run them out of their labs if you're a journalist.)

throAU
Jun 8, 2013, 02:05 PM
have thunderbolt on my 2011 macbook pro for the past 2 and a half years

never used it

I've never used the microphone port or caps lock key either, maybe they should remove them?

:rolleyes:

toke lahti
Jun 9, 2013, 04:28 PM
The point I'm making is FC is unreachable for many, for the performance it has to offer. TB offers a very competitive level of performance for a single user and is within reach for prosumers / professionals.

As far as your 4big to 5big comparison, it's not really equal. 4big can do RAID-5 in the box, 5big only does RAID-0 and RAID-1. You can do RAIDZ in software with either, and I'm convinced you'd see more than 10% performance difference. But going back to what the 5big (TB edition, not the NAS) is truly meant for, it's the video pro who needs the performance it can bring in RAID-0. Which is a couple of hundred actual MB more p/s than theoretical max performance of USB 3.0.

But feel free to purchase a couple and run the tests (or fly to France and run them out of their labs if you're a journalist.)
Hmm, looks like I chose very bad comparison to get a glance of real world difference of TB and usb3. 4big and 5 big are so different products.

I do know that there is use of TB among some video professionals. The thing I've used to criticize is that there is only 0.1% of users who benefit from TB and usually Apple doesn't cater such niche.

If you use software raid, I'd guess that limiting factor is how much you have cpu power for software. If you have hardware raid-5, once again the limiting factor is hardware's processing power.

If you need only 5 or less hdd's in raid-0 you can just use internal hdd's of MP in desktop enviroment. In the field with laptop usb3 is fast enough for 3-disk raid0.

So what's left is need for over 5-disk raid-0 in desktop enviroment or over 4-disk raid-0 with macbook on the field. These are pretty über-niche things.
Eg. if you are a DIT in big productions, you'll use much more expensive equipnment and if you are indie-DIT with no budget, you're better off with cheaper storage than TB-connected raids.

If we really think that Apple wants to offer support for this kind of niche use, then why not anything else? Why not 17" retina? Why not matte retina? Why not to offer wider expandability like modular bays which could be used as ec-slot, cf-reader, secondary or tertiary storage or just for extra battery? Why not giving decent GPU options for hard work? Why they had to get rid of video professionals with shake & fcp?

Much more logical reason for TB to exist in even the cheapest macs is just for PR value. You can say that it has something better than the rest, even if it's probably not even used. Also there's lots of people who like to buy new tech they don't ever need.

subsonix
Jun 9, 2013, 04:45 PM
Much more logical reason for TB to exist in even the cheapest macs is just for PR value. You can say that it has something better than the rest, even if it's probably not even used. Also there's lots of people who like to buy new tech they don't ever need.

It's not more logical. IMO they see where the market of full blown workstations with PCIe slots is heading, more people can do with a laptop or smaller computer, what TB does is give an interface that enables the expansion on smaller computers, and now it's included in all Apple's computers.

An interesting side note, I have noticed that it's usually the same group of people who resisted flat screens in favor of CRTs the longest that also complain about non-matte screen options, that is despite the fact that CRTs had glossy screens. There are no-gloss options however, although not matte afaik.

cmanderson
Jun 9, 2013, 05:58 PM
Hmm, looks like I chose very bad comparison to get a glance of real world difference of TB and usb3. 4big and 5 big are so different products.

I do know that there is use of TB among some video professionals. The thing I've used to criticize is that there is only 0.1% of users who benefit from TB and usually Apple doesn't cater such niche.

If you use software raid, I'd guess that limiting factor is how much you have cpu power for software. If you have hardware raid-5, once again the limiting factor is hardware's processing power.

If you need only 5 or less hdd's in raid-0 you can just use internal hdd's of MP in desktop enviroment. In the field with laptop usb3 is fast enough for 3-disk raid0.

So what's left is need for over 5-disk raid-0 in desktop enviroment or over 4-disk raid-0 with macbook on the field. These are pretty über-niche things.
Eg. if you are a DIT in big productions, you'll use much more expensive equipnment and if you are indie-DIT with no budget, you're better off with cheaper storage than TB-connected raids.

If we really think that Apple wants to offer support for this kind of niche use, then why not anything else? Why not 17" retina? Why not matte retina? Why not to offer wider expandability like modular bays which could be used as ec-slot, cf-reader, secondary or tertiary storage or just for extra battery? Why not giving decent GPU options for hard work? Why they had to get rid of video professionals with shake & fcp?

Much more logical reason for TB to exist in even the cheapest macs is just for PR value. You can say that it has something better than the rest, even if it's probably not even used. Also there's lots of people who like to buy new tech they don't ever need.

You should look at it from another angle. TB allows them to move more out of the desktop / laptop and into external devices (via Thunderbolt displays, third party hubs, etc.) It allows for thinner devices. If they dropped everything but power, audio and Thunderbolt, they'd still have plenty of connectivity options.

I don't see them doing that at this time, as USB 3.0 is supported directly by Ivy Bridge / Haswell, thickness of the connector isn't much more than display port, etc. I could see them going to a mini USB 3.0 connector, but that's neither here nor there.

The LaCie product in comparison doesn't have anything to do with Apple, per se.

Apple has Thunderbolt support, which is pushed by Apple, but it's Intel tech. What is your point?

Do you really think Apple would dump Firewire and marginalize the product by outfitting their laptops with the same connectivity options that all PC brands offer? They added Thunderbolt before USB 3.0, but that was strictly due to the previous generation Intel support for USB 3.0. Apple wasn't going to put a third party chip in there just for USB 3.0.

As far as outfitting their laptops the same as the PC industry as a whole, that's not in their vision, it's not what a vast number of their customers want to see, and it's a strawman that I'm tired of talking about. So I'm done.

toke lahti
Jun 9, 2013, 07:50 PM
You should look at it from another angle. TB allows them to move more out of the desktop / laptop and into external devices (via Thunderbolt displays, third party hubs, etc.) It allows for thinner devices. If they dropped everything but power, audio and Thunderbolt, they'd still have plenty of connectivity options.
I do understand that TB is nice tech for laptops to get powerful peripherals which are overpriced for most of users, but what I don't get is why Apple couldn't still have a real desktop workstation that would do more than TB can deliver.

I'd say this is the whole point of these topics about new MP. Does it have suffer from TB being in existence. Right solution would be keep everything there was and add TB to the mix. Not replace something that already works better.

cmanderson
Jun 9, 2013, 09:21 PM
I do understand that TB is nice tech for laptops to get powerful peripherals which are overpriced for most of users, but what I don't get is why Apple couldn't still have a real desktop workstation that would do more than TB can deliver.

I'd say this is the whole point of these topics about new MP. Does it have suffer from TB being in existence. Right solution would be keep everything there was and add TB to the mix. Not replace something that already works better.

I can't think of a thing they replaced that worked better than what I have now. I've lost nothing and gained a lot. Good day.

toke lahti
Jun 10, 2013, 03:27 AM
I can't think of a thing they replaced that worked better than what I have now. I've lost nothing and gained a lot. Good day.
40 lanes of PCIe4.0 equal 31 TB sockets.
But I'll continue in "Something different for MP"-thread.

toke lahti
Jun 10, 2013, 01:25 PM
I can't think of a thing they replaced that worked better than what I have now. I've lost nothing and gained a lot. Good day.
Well, now you've got internal (non-replaceable?) GPU and lost PCIe slots and swappable internal storage.
Welcome lots of boxes and cables with incredible high prices!

cmanderson
Jun 10, 2013, 01:38 PM
Well, now you've got internal (non-replaceable?) GPU and lost PCIe slots and swappable internal storage.
Welcome lots of boxes and cables with incredible high prices!

If I wanted a PC I'd have bought a PC.

toke lahti
Jun 10, 2013, 04:23 PM
If I wanted a PC I'd have bought a PC.
I want a pc with osX, so I guess I'm going to build one...
Price gap is undoubtedly getting so much wider, when with MP you need a box and cables for every component.

cmanderson
Jun 10, 2013, 05:17 PM
I want a pc with osX, so I guess I'm going to build one...
Price gap is undoubtedly getting so much wider, when with MP you need a box and cables for every component.

Those are choices you get to make. I don't look down on anyone who wants to run a Hackintosh, it's just a concern whether or not it's appropriate to do so in a business setting (it is not) or at home (it's still not, but Apple seems to be looking the other way so far...at least when it comes to enthusiasts.)

cmanderson
Jun 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
God I hope you're right. Sadly, many of us have been discussing the lack of a Xeon based Thunderbolt processor(s). We don't know when or if Intel will release them. If they do, it won't be until next year. Since the Mac Pro uses server grade Xeon processors, only Ivy Bridge-E would be possible at the moment and that lacks Thunderbolt.

In spades.

toke lahti
Jun 12, 2013, 04:04 AM
cmanderson,
why your raid has so much lower reading speeds than writing?
Isn't it usually other way around?

Jjaro
Jun 22, 2013, 07:24 AM
While you can daisy chain 2 of Apple's TB Displays together, I know what you're saying & some people don't want to use Apple's displays.

Can someone clarify something for me? I think I read on AppleInsider or someplace that TB 1 has two channels, each 10 GBps while TB 2 has only one 20 Gbps channel so they basically just combined the 2 channels. Did I read/understand that correctly? Just wondering.

Yeah I know you can daisy chain the Apple displays, but mine aren't Apple. Sure wish I had the cash for those babies though, they are pretty nice looking.

jdiamond
Jun 22, 2013, 08:04 AM
A sign of 4K support on Macs?

EDIT: no, apparently

I can only hope that since they need plush 4K support on the new Mac Pro and upcoming FCP X, that this will be (finally) rolled into the general Mac OS, and so any Mac that could physically drive a 4K monitor would finally be able to.

As an example, many other forums have noted that the current MacOS can only drive HDMI at half speed (1.1 rates) even when the hardware supports HDMI 1.2, so it seems like all around, the OS is the bottleneck. It's sad how often I see "it works when I use Windows in boot camp".

jdiamond
Jun 22, 2013, 08:15 AM
An interesting side note, I have noticed that it's usually the same group of people who resisted flat screens in favor of CRTs the longest that also complain about non-matte screen options, that is despite the fact that CRTs had glossy screens. There are no-gloss options however, although not matte afaik.

CRTs all had anti-glare coatings, and I can't remember any with a truly flat front, which is the true reason glare becomes an issue - because your glass becomes a mirror.

Early flat screens (LCDs) had horrible resolution (and color gamut) - that's why people who cared about monitors waited for them to catch up to CRTs before adopting them. The first flat screen monitor I owned was the 17" SGI 1600SW in 1998 - until then I'd've been a total idiot to inflict a flat screen upon myself. New doesn't mean better.

There's an easy way to tell whether something is an actual improvement or not: If it starts on the lowest end models and slowly rises up to the high end models as it improves, then it's something that helps save the company money (like removing anti-glare coatings), but doesn't improve the experience. If it's something that starts at the high end models and slowly works its way down as the price gets better, then it's an end user feature - something that makes the experience better.

If you see high end users hesitate to adopt something, it's probably not a feature for the end user, but a way the company is being cheap.

twoodcc
Jun 22, 2013, 08:58 AM
hopefully the iMac with get this in it's update this year

subsonix
Jun 22, 2013, 10:13 AM
CRTs all had anti-glare coatings, and I can't remember any with a truly flat front, which is the true reason glare becomes an issue - because your glass becomes a mirror.

Some of the MacBooks also have anti-glare options, and Sony Trinitron CRTs had a truly flat surface.


Early flat screens (LCDs) had horrible resolution (and color gamut) - that's why people who cared about monitors waited for them to catch up to CRTs before adopting them. The first flat screen monitor I owned was the 17" SGI 1600SW in 1998 - until then I'd've been a total idiot to inflict a flat screen upon myself. New doesn't mean better.

Yeah, I know, I'm just saying that no CRT was matte in the way some flat screen monitors are.

jdiamond
Jun 22, 2013, 04:29 PM
... Sony Trinitron CRTs had a truly flat surface.

Ah, cool info! The "FD Trinitrons" actually were flat, but they came out right after I stopped using CRTs, so I hadn't heard of them. Surprisingly, according to their wiki page, they were of much lower resolution and had to use vertical interlacing just to break 1000 lines. I guess Sony was mainly aiming them at television usage.

OK, that was an aside to this forum discussion, but it was interesting to see...

subsonix
Jun 22, 2013, 05:32 PM
Ah, cool info! The "FD Trinitrons" actually were flat, but they came out right after I stopped using CRTs, so I hadn't heard of them. Surprisingly, according to their wiki page, they were of much lower resolution and had to use vertical interlacing just to break 1000 lines. I guess Sony was mainly aiming them at television usage.

OK, that was an aside to this forum discussion, but it was interesting to see...

Many of the previous Trinitron monitors also had a flat surface (mid to late 90s), it looked as though a flat glass screen was fitted ontop of the actual display surface (seen below). The effect on reflections would still be the same however, which was what we were discussing.

http://www.wit-at.com/wwwPictures/dell19-2.JPG

otismotive77
Jun 23, 2013, 03:12 PM
really awesome advancement, i hope it comes out soon.