First signs:
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/06...quos_first_thunderbolt_addon_card_at_computex
;-)
----------
Gigabyte motherboards have 2 Thunderbolt ports:
http://www.gigabyte.com/microsite/306/images/thunderbolt.html
iLOL
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Thunderbolt Card for 2010 Mac Pro
- Thread starter odinsride
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/06...quos_first_thunderbolt_addon_card_at_computex
;-)
----------
http://www.gigabyte.com/microsite/306/images/thunderbolt.html
iLOL
That requires special support on the motherboard, but does at least show what Apple could do on the Mac Pro. Apple might even have some clout to put put the header connection onto the GPU instead.
Edit: Wait, blah, a GPU wouldn't need a header at all.
Here is a block diagram from a Intel motherboard with Thunderbolt.
[ Anadtech ran an article covering this another board. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5884/...s-part-2-intels-dz77rek75-asus-p8z77v-premium ]
The Thunderbolt controller is hooked to the PCH. This notion of direct coupling is goofy since Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge CPUs don't even have graphics direct output. There is not direct coupling to the CPU at all.
Likewise the Tomshardware article pointed to earlier in the post you are trying to knock down also has a diagram which probably more so illustrates the delusion flaw in your claims about direct CPU coupling.
[ Contextual page. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thunderbolt-performance-z77a-gd80,3205.html containing the borrowed from Intel graphics. ]
The first option above is all that is needed to make it work in a Mac Pro. The dGPX does not need to be implemented on a detachable PCI-e card. The iMac and MBP 15" models do did it in the 2011 & 2012 without one.
There is also no requirement that the TB controller pick up a display port output from the PCH if there isn't one or that there even be two Display port inputs (some TB controllers don't even have more than 1 input.). The PCH of a new Mac Pro could either use x4 PCI-e from CPU or x4 from its PCH. There is no requirement only to use one or the other.
There are limitations in placing the Thunderbolt connector. It pragmatically needs to be only a couple of inches from the connector ( the very high bit rates relative to even PCI-e make it a problem to place elsewhere).
Pragmatically though there is another limitation. Namely the Thunderbolt controller needs some power and firmware connectivity
[ Again the Thunderbolt 103 section in same article http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/thunderbolt-performance-z77a-gd80,3205-4.html ]
The "native host interface" (NHI ) + Thunderbolt Target mode (on Macs ) + the power distribution + "host mode configuration at boot"requirement means these 'custom' host interface on ASUS (and other ) designs for TB cards are more than just a simple DisplayPort connector from the motherboard's PCH DP output.
The block schematics are more about movement of data than of boot/firmare/power specifics. I think that is the tipping point against "plug in cards" for legacy oriented design around PCI-e cards. Not the PCI-e and DisplayPort data traces.
Impossible means can't be done at all; even as a kludge. That is fundamentally different from improbable ( extremely not likely). A kludge that hooks up legacy PCs (including previous Mac Pros ) could be done. As I pointed out before they'd have to kludge around the missing firmware/power/boot issues. It just isn't very likely. It is far more cleaner and easier to pass TB certification to run embedded GPU output along with the other connections needed from the motherboard.
Externally mounted loop back cables? Apple 'could' do that. They extremely likely will not. It is not a particularly simple or elegant design. Again the is a gap between possible/impossible and probable/improbable.
Apple could also so some custom GPU card to perhaps clean up the cables. However, they'd be apple proprietary GPU cards. If you thought the"Apple tax" on regular cards with Apple EFI support was high, that would likely be higher.
The Mac Pro desperately needs to get away from an overly narrow set of cards to survive long term. Custom workarounds will kill off the product long term.
I was thinking internal loopback cables. They have the influence on the GPU design to make it happen. Put a few internal DPs on the card and you're in business. But it would be kind of the opposite of what that ASUS board did. Loopback from the GPU to the Thunderbolt controller on the board.
But yeah, as you mentioned, it would mean more proprietary cards. But if things went well, maybe it would become a wider standard if PCs adopted the same sort of Thunderbolt implementation as well.
Sounds like what was said when Apple created ADC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Display_Connector ). It went no where as an industry standard. Apple adopting something that swims "upstream" against Thunderbolt and industry trends is extremely likely not to be adopted by anyone else.
Whether Thunderbolt is broadly adopted by the general PC industry depends upon how it is utilized with new systems and peripherals; not legacy designs.
The vast majority of new desktops have GPUs embedded in them now. Intel's and AMD's core desktop offerings references motherboard designs have GPUs embedded in them. It involves creating no new additional industry standard to wire up a Thunderbolt controller on them. For example, Apple's recent two iMacs solved the issue of connecting a dGPX to the controller with no new standards. So it is not even a solution that is foreign to Apple.
The Rube Goldberg complexity is only invoked when trying to push Thunderbolt into the past as opposed to the future.
Thunderbolt can not be compared to ADC at all. ADC is Apple's own technology but Thunderbolt is Intel's technology. Intel doesn't benefit from Thunderbolt being Apple-only, it needs everybody (Apple, the pc brands) to adopt it just like their USB3 standard, CPUs and many other products/technology. Apple aims for itself, Intel aims for anybody.
Just because it looks like a CPU doesn't mean it is a CPU.
Would you call a north/southbridge a CPU?
Guess where the memory controller is on every modern computer ? Right, on the CPU!
On a logicboard specifically designed to demo it and it was not a PCIe card.
Ever heard of cost management?
Its cheaper to R&D on a removable card than a logicboard. That way, only the card has to be remade vs the entire logicboard.
Logical, huh?
TB uses the GPU built into the CPU.
Please provide proof to support your opinion.
----------
[/COLOR]
They won't because Apple and Intel hold the patents and aren't sharing/licensing the technology.
Yes there is. Its called hardware limitations.
Oh, yet, third parties have "bothered" to make Lightning cables that cost as much as the genuine Apple-brand?
----------
Not a sign.
"With this in mind ASUS is proud to unveil its exclusive Thunderbolt upgrade solution for its line of Z77 and H77 motherboards."
Its not an expansion card that goes in a PCI-E slot, its an upgrade card made specifically for two brands of logicboards.
That is a built-in feature, not an expansion card.
Last edited:
Sure would!
It's not a general purpose CPU, but it's a CPU. That's why the distinction exists.
A North Bridge has a clock rate, onboard memory, a state machine... what else does it need to meet the classification of a CPU?
Which means...? Intel CPUs already have multiple CPUs and vector CPUs on die. You act like adding another CPU onto the die is some amazing feat of linguistics.
I'm sure it was for R&D.
That doesn't change that according to Intel's own diagrams for the final spec there isn't anything keeping Thunderbolt directly tied to the motherboard.
Not on the iMac or Macbook Pro.
False. Please look up the definition of a CPU, most importantly what the letters C, P and U mean.
The ability to execute code given to it by software.
False.
Both have an on-die GPU used by the TB multiplexer.
As mentioned before, the lack of on-die GPU is the only thing keeping TB from the MacPro.
Hugely flawed. On both iMacs and MBP 15", both the iGPU and the discrete GPU are hooked to the TB controller with a switch; The TB controller only sees two inputs from the switch. When the GPU workload is low the integrated GPU is used. On high GPU workloads the discrete GPU is used. The Thunderbolt port does not stop working when run at high GPU workloads. Therefore the discrete GPU is connected. Which one is a matter of the switch, it has nothing to do with Thunderbolt.
As long as there are DisplayPort signal that is all that matters.
The benefit that the iGPU provide is that there is no requirement for a discrete GPU for Thunderbolt to work in that context. That is extremely fundamentally different from saying the iGPU is required. The only requirement is that there is at least one DisplayPort output to use as input. That's it. Integrated in the CPU package or embedded on the motherboard both equally satisfy the "at least one" requirement.
It is highly questionable in a workstation whether want two GPUs hooked to the same "video input" on a Thunderbolt controller. Only one is necessary and the second can easily use conventional connections to a monitor. "looping back" from a removable card is not a requirement either.
P.S. there have been some TB concept boards that failed Thunderbolt certification but that seems more aligned with trying to use a removable PCI-e graphics card only to provide the video. Those are likely going to fail because a reconfigured system could just remove that card thereby removing a critical Thunderbolt input. That isn't going to pass. Again iGPU is convenient solution because inserting the CPU package means have one. If remove it the whole system isn't functional. A discrete solution would need to be equivalent in system crippling (e.g., desolder components off the motherboard) to likely qualify.
Intel is disallowing folks to "backdoor" creating a 'PCI-e data only' Thunderbolt variant. For PCs the socket has to provide both PCI-e data and DisplayPort video all the time. There would be no certified PCs where sometimes you plug in a monitor and it doesn't work. Peripherals are in a different boat with different expectations (especially when have just one Thunderbolt port).
Last edited:
That's a general purpose CPU, not a CPU.
A CPU is not required to be programable. Although technically a northbridge can execute instructions given to it by the CPU, and is therefore programable, meeting your requirements...
You're just flat out wrong here. The TB multiplexer on the iMac and Macbook Pro are connected to the discrete GPU and memory, not the CPU.
There is a Macrumors topic on someone trying to change this behavior, actually:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1140854/
Proof to back up your opinion?
----------
False.
False.
Those are called "microprocessors". Completely different from a CPU.
False.
False.
*eats popcorn*
I love this thread. One guy has a vocabulary of a single word, everyone else is busy trying to tell him how wrong he is. The next time I feel like trolling someone, I'm totally just going go reply "False." to every one of their statements and watch them reel.
-SC
I love this thread. One guy has a vocabulary of a single word, everyone else is busy trying to tell him how wrong he is. The next time I feel like trolling someone, I'm totally just going go reply "False." to every one of their statements and watch them reel.
-SC
Hello from 2014!
Are there any updates for this topic? I noticed HP has an expandable Thunderbolt 2 PCI-e card
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039491-REG/hp_f3f43at_hp_thunderbolt_2_pcie_1_port_i_o.html
Are there any updates for this topic? I noticed HP has an expandable Thunderbolt 2 PCI-e card
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039491-REG/hp_f3f43at_hp_thunderbolt_2_pcie_1_port_i_o.html
Very doubtful.
"One internal 5-Pin header connector"
Apple and Intel don't want their precious TB going pell mell showing up anywhere and everywhere.
I think for Apple, the cMP can't die fast enough, and this would only increase it's longetivity and cement the cMP's relevance in the market.
What's being missed though (IMO) is the oppertunity to capilize by marketing an Apple branded card that would sell like hotcakes, and squeezing out every last ounce of profit to be had from us cMP stalwarts. There is no reason why the Mac Pro, and the Mac Pro jr. couldn't coexist.
However, I don't know how it (TB enabled cMP) would actually be possible considering the need for the CPU embedded GPU.
Last edited:
The HP Thunderbolt-2 PCIe 1-Port I/O Card is compatible with the HP Z820, Z620, Z420, and Z230 workstations,
Taken from the link. As I understood then needed some support on the Mobo for the Thunderbolt Addon Cards that been bandied about.
I doubt that the Mac Pro motherboards bearing in mind is effectively a 2009 product has the necessary support to add this in.
Taken from the link. As I understood then needed some support on the Mobo for the Thunderbolt Addon Cards that been bandied about.
I doubt that the Mac Pro motherboards bearing in mind is effectively a 2009 product has the necessary support to add this in.
My thinking too considering the need for an embedded GPU. Even if some silicon wizard did find a way, it wouldn't be permitted.
The interesting thing is that the hp card specifically notes that it includes a DP input.
So, another one of the "can't do it and here's why" reasons has been broken down.
Yes, kludgy, but kludge that many would happily endure. Run DP from your Titan Black through it onto a TB bus, would make many happy.
I'm sure that the right combo of brave wizards, some soldering, and understanding of code could make it work. By myself I could not, would be nice to read a report from someone who tried though. (I am already frying a larger than normal number of fish in my pan)
I wouldn't mind it at all, in fact, I would like to have TB just for storage expansion. I don't know if it would work this way, but they could leave out the VIDEO TB factor and it would still be a great push forward for me.
And here's the thing, I guarntee that for Apple or Intel it would be super easy to create such a card. They could easily create one called "T-Zap" or any other thing to denote that it was DATA only and people would scoop it up.
It is this desire to be 100% in control that has held back TB. I hope some of those clever Chinese flood the market with $5 TB knockoff chips. I have been reading up over at "eGPU DIY" and the more in tune over there completely agree that the stratospheric price for TB stuff is 100% artificial and just a money grab by the parties in control.
Someone with more dollars than sense and some spare time should buy an Asus and HP card and play around.