Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 22, 2011, 03:16 PM   #1
Ravich
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
What's the word on thunderbolt via PCIe cards?

When the MBP was first announced, it wasnt quite clear. Any new info?
Ravich is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2011, 04:15 PM   #2
Joshuarocks
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somewhere in Cyberspace
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravich View Post
When the MBP was first announced, it wasnt quite clear. Any new info?
I have a feeling we will still see PCIe thunderbolt cards, just give it time.
Joshuarocks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2011, 09:45 PM   #3
beto2k7
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: ::1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravich View Post
When the MBP was first announced, it wasnt quite clear. Any new info?
I don't this is gonna happen. TB needs a direct link to chipset afaik. Plus I really don't know how video to TB port is gonna work with PCI-Ex video cards.
__________________
2010 Mac Pro | 2 x 2.40 GHz| 24Gb RAM | 3x2TB RAID0 | GTX 570 | 27" ALCD |
iPad 2 16Gb wifi+3G |
iPhone 4S 32Gb Unlocked |
beto2k7 is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2011, 08:59 PM   #4
DustinT
macrumors 68000
 
DustinT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by beto2k7 View Post
I don't this is gonna happen. TB needs a direct link to chipset afaik. Plus I really don't know how video to TB port is gonna work with PCI-Ex video cards.
Oh, there's plenty of clever hardware guys. They will find a work around in time.
__________________

My townhouse could pass for a well stocked Apple store.
DustinT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 04:47 PM   #5
Ravich
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
It's just odd that all through development no one had any doubt that we'd be seeing them, and all of a sudden upon release there is this "needs to be on the motherboard" business.
Ravich is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 07:15 PM   #6
TomKing
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I just cant help but wonder why you'd need thunderbolt on a mac pro, or anything other than laptops (and of course the imac).

For me its a great idea, but, well. We have internal storage space for desktops, with up to SATAIII now, plus esata for external, plus many other I/O options.

I just dont see the need for thunderbolt on desktops, other than to enable you to use the peripherals.

Unless the thunderbolt port could be used as some crazy fast data and video network connection.... to a thunderbolt switch..... with fibre storage hanging out of it.... Now that would make it interesting.
TomKing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 08:28 PM   #7
DustinT
macrumors 68000
 
DustinT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomKing View Post
Unless the thunderbolt port could be used as some crazy fast data and video network connection.... to a thunderbolt switch..... with fibre storage hanging out of it.... Now that would make it interesting.
I think thats the exact idea thats got everyone excited.
__________________

My townhouse could pass for a well stocked Apple store.
DustinT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 08:32 PM   #8
BigBeast
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomKing View Post
I just cant help but wonder why you'd need thunderbolt on a mac pro, or anything other than laptops (and of course the imac).

For me its a great idea, but, well. We have internal storage space for desktops, with up to SATAIII now, plus esata for external, plus many other I/O options.

I just dont see the need for thunderbolt on desktops, other than to enable you to use the peripherals.

Unless the thunderbolt port could be used as some crazy fast data and video network connection.... to a thunderbolt switch..... with fibre storage hanging out of it.... Now that would make it interesting.
(from another post)

Comparing USB 3 to TB is like comparing VHS to Blu-ray. TB is REMARKABLY faster than USB 3. Couple that with the fact that TB allows for simutaneous transfer in BOTH DIRECTIONS at consistently close to theoretical speeds of 10 Gb/s. USB however as always, fluctuates in speed and almost NEVER reaches close to theoretical speeds and is only one way transfer. TB can daisy chain up to FOUR 1080p HD streams simultaneously (if I recall correctly) while I don't think USB 3 can do even 1.
__________________
2012 cMBP 2.6GHz Core i7 16gb 512 SSD iPhone 5S iPad Air
BigBeast is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 08:57 PM   #9
goMac
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomKing View Post
I just cant help but wonder why you'd need thunderbolt on a mac pro, or anything other than laptops (and of course the imac).
If you do video editing, you might be working with cameras or external RAIDs which can push much much more data than FW800 can handle. For cameras you're currently stuck, while external RAIDs usually are done over fiber channel right now.

Internally you can only put in 4 drives, which isn't very much for real pros.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBeast View Post
(TB can daisy chain up to FOUR 1080p HD streams simultaneously (if I recall correctly) while I don't think USB 3 can do even 1.
USB3 can stream 1080p. So can Firewire 800. I've streamed 1080i MPEG2 over FW400 before from my TV.

If you're importing from a camera, you're going to want faster than real time though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beto2k7 View Post
I don't this is gonna happen. TB needs a direct link to chipset afaik. Plus I really don't know how video to TB port is gonna work with PCI-Ex video cards.
It doesn't technically need to talk to the video chipset. Also, you could just put a video chipset on the same card to solve the problem.

TB definitely does not need direct access to the chipset chipset.
goMac is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 09:18 PM   #10
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by DustinT View Post
Oh, there's plenty of clever hardware guys. They will find a work around in time.
It wouldn't be that hard.

There's two primary methods that could be employed IMO (doable, and keeps costs to a reasonable level):
  1. Use an edge connector (flexible PCB similar to an SLI or Crossfire bridge) that connects a compliant graphics card (needs the edge connector, so existing cards wouldn't work) and TB card. Ideally, such a connector would be established via an open standard (i.e. agreed upon by Intel and their development partners and graphics card industry).
  2. Place the TB chip directly on the graphics card (this presents more technical challenges due to PCB real estate and cooling issues, but it's possible). Of course, there's more of a cost increase this way, but it's a guarantee the TB port will carry DisplayPort information as well as data sent over the PCIe bus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravich View Post
It's just odd that all through development no one had any doubt that we'd be seeing them, and all of a sudden upon release there is this "needs to be on the motherboard" business.
Yeah, I know.

There's no technical reason it must be soldered to the main board, but there are issues with adoption to consider if implemented on desktops (systems with slots; no GPU in the CPU <IGP> or an embedded part soldered on the main board). Specifically, the confusion that would be created if some implementations are data only and others data + video.

As it's primarily aimed at portable devices (would be a viable port tech in AIO's as well), it's easy to just add the TB chip to the main board as the GPU is either in the CPU or embedded (separate chip that's soldered to the board), and wire it up (also guarantees that the TB port will contain both data and video information = no confusion).

Combine these two facts, and that accounts for the confusion IMO (i.e. by keeping quiet about a PCIe version, they keep their options open while allowing the portable market to drive adoption).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomKing View Post
I just dont see the need for thunderbolt on desktops, other than to enable you to use the peripherals.
This is the most realistic reason to have a TB card in a desktop ATM.

As the speed is increased however, this could change (i.e. additional features added, such as adapting it to the enterprise market as an inexpensive competitor to 10G Ethernet or Fibre Channel networking).
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 09:33 PM   #11
goMac
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
As the speed is increased however, this could change (i.e. additional features added, such as adapting it to the enterprise market as an inexpensive competitor to 10G Ethernet or Fibre Channel networking).
Considering the first devices being put out on the market are medium size RAID arrays, I think it's already being positioned as a fibre channel alternative.
goMac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2011, 10:38 PM   #12
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Internally you can only put in 4 drives, which isn't very much for real pros.
There are ways to get more disks internally, or external enclosures can also be used. So using a desktop can allow for faster throughputs for storage, faster than TB in fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
If you're importing from a camera, you're going to want faster than real time though.
There are faster solutions (i.e. fast CF card readers), but they're expensive, and lugging a MP around isn't all that convenient.

Thus using a laptop with a camera via a TB port to pull in the data, then edit on a workstation makes sense. Ideally, using an external storage systems, such as the Promise Pegasus R4 or R6, would allow for editing to be performed immediately rather than transferring data, then getting started.

But this is a relatively rare user in the entire scheme of things (including consumer users).

Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Considering the first devices being put out on the market are medium size RAID arrays, I think it's already being positioned as a fibre channel alternative.
I don't, as it can't be used for networking as it currently exists.

What it would be good for, is when a laptop and Promise R4 or R6 are used to record camera data (i.e. location shooting), then bring the data back to the office, attach the enclosure to the workstation, and begin editing (could shave time by not having to transfer data before editing can begin, or if it's done for say data security reasons, it's much faster assuming the pool it's going to is faster than a single disk, such as another array).

It would be very useful for video professionals, and that's where TB is being targeted at from what I get from Intel's site (audio as well, but they can potentially use a laptop as their primary machine with fast data access, which can simplify matters as well as reduce costs).
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2011, 12:27 AM   #13
goMac
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
There are ways to get more disks internally, or external enclosures can also be used. So using a desktop can allow for faster throughputs for storage, faster than TB in fact.
External enclosures linked by eSata, which doesn't come on the Mac Pros, and depending on the drive count, may not be suitable...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
There are faster solutions (i.e. fast CF card readers), but they're expensive, and lugging a MP around isn't all that convenient.
I don't see how using a card reader solves the speed problem. You're still pulling the data off at the same speed, just off a card reader instead of a camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
Thus using a laptop with a camera via a TB port to pull in the data, then edit on a workstation makes sense. Ideally, using an external storage systems, such as the Promise Pegasus R4 or R6, would allow for editing to be performed immediately rather than transferring data, then getting started.
Again, not sure how this solves the importing from camera problem... Unless you're suggesting I buy a dedicated MBP to import footage into my Mac Pro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
It would be very useful for video professionals, and that's where TB is being targeted at from what I get from Intel's site (audio as well, but they can potentially use a laptop as their primary machine with fast data access, which can simplify matters as well as reduce costs).
Right, but I think given that we've already maxed out the speeds of USB3, pigeonholing it as a "good for portable Macs" port is kind of disingenuous. Any situation in which one could use it for a portable Mac is also useful for a Mac Pro.

Networking would be nice. But we've certainly maxed out the ports we already have.
goMac is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2011, 10:24 AM   #14
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
External enclosures linked by eSata, which doesn't come on the Mac Pros, and depending on the drive count, may not be suitable...
I was thinking more in terms of hardware RAID controllers, as they can exceed the throughput limit of TB.

In the case of eSATA, you do have to add a card to a MP, as Apple has never seen fit to include an eSATA port. But they're also cheap, and using a Port Multiplier enclosure will be cheaper than a TB alternative (for now anyway, but this may not change either, as to create a PM enclosure on TB, means adding another chip to the PM board - TB to eSATA bridge).

Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
I don't see how using a card reader solves the speed problem. You're still pulling the data off at the same speed, just off a card reader instead of a camera.
It comes down to the interface (figuring an existing camera that uses FW800 or USB 2.0).

There are eSATA and USB3.0 CF readers out now, and they're not expensive (either one can get CF to read faster; at or near it's limit). Faster cards on a faster interface will speed things up. It's not ideal, but it's due to the limitations of the technology being used (i.e. too expensive to dump the existing camera for a newer unit that has TB when they arrive).

Now as per using TB in the camera, I agree that's the way to go (also presumes the storage media is fast enough TB is warranted in terms of bandwidth BTW, or it's a waste). But I'm not aware of them being out yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Again, not sure how this solves the importing from camera problem... Unless you're suggesting I buy a dedicated MBP to import footage into my Mac Pro.
No, the example was based on location shooting (easier to haul a laptop and drive enclosure than MP and any accessories needed, as well as the camera itself). With airline fees lately, there's further reasoning to go for the laptop method.

As per importing data off the camera directly to the desktop, see above (need a TB camera to do what you're thinking + TB port on the MP). Neither TB cards or cameras are out yet, and the cameras will be expensive. So finding a faster interface for the CF cards (i.e. eSATA or USB 3.0) could be a cheaper way to go vs. buying a new camera and selling off the existing one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Right, but I think given that we've already maxed out the speeds of USB3, pigeonholing it as a "good for portable Macs" port is kind of disingenuous. Any situation in which one could use it for a portable Mac is also useful for a Mac Pro.
In terms of maxed out, do you mean in terms of single device or daisy chaining?

For single devices, such as HDD's, can't max it out yet. SSD's at 6.0Gb/s are the only things that come to mind in terms of a single device that can. As you daisy chain/add devices via hubs, the odds of maxing it out do increase (you'd certainly throttle with a pair of fast 6.0Gb/s SSD's running on USB 3.0 for example, and it's not that hard to do with USB 2.0 or FW800 either).

As per TB in the laptop/portable device based systems, that's the primary market, and has been clearly indicated by Intel. It's also being followed suit by system vendors (laptops/devices are the first products to get it, and I expect AIO's won't be too far behind).

Now I'm not saying it doesn't have it's uses for desktops with PCIe slots (niche market that actually would benefit from using it), but there's better ways to utilize the PCIe bandwidth than TB. Existing port technology may also be cheaper down the road (definitely the case now, as there's little TB gear out).

Quote:
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Networking would be nice. But we've certainly maxed out the ports we already have.
I'd love to see networking capabilities added (makes clusters more accessible for example due to the lowered cost).

In terms of a single common port that's being maxed out, there are instances where they are (namely do to SSD's in terms of a single device or attaching enough devices on ports that can use either hubs or Daisy Chaining). Which is why TB has serious merit in the laptop/device market. Particularly with systems that don't offer ExpressSlots.

But I don't see it as a 'Holy Grail' in terms of desktops. There are certainly limited uses, but I don't see it taking over for existing ports, when it's already possible to make better use of bandwidth by using the existing ports (not just data, but video - existing monitor specifications can exceed what TB can transfer, which is particularly important for larger displays).
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 04:27 AM   #15
cowasaki
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
I would be happy with a TB card on the Mac Pro that doesn't handle video. It would be worth it JUST to connect to external peripherals such as a RAID SSD. Yes it is quicker to stick more drives inside the Pro but I want to work on my MBP then stick the drive onto the MP then back to the MBP. With TB I can have the application and all the data files on the external drive running at full speed and move it between computers at will. Even if the application will not live on an external drive keeping large amounts of application data and libraries on the ext drive means I can work on whichever machine is most convenient. I appreciate that they could both work on FW800 but we are seeing drives getting to that limit in an array now.
cowasaki is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 06:13 AM   #16
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowasaki View Post
I would be happy with a TB card on the Mac Pro that doesn't handle video. It would be worth it JUST to connect to external peripherals such as a RAID SSD. Yes it is quicker to stick more drives inside the Pro but I want to work on my MBP then stick the drive onto the MP then back to the MBP. With TB I can have the application and all the data files on the external drive running at full speed and move it between computers at will. Even if the application will not live on an external drive keeping large amounts of application data and libraries on the ext drive means I can work on whichever machine is most convenient. I appreciate that they could both work on FW800 but we are seeing drives getting to that limit in an array now.
Matrox has announced a PCIe Thunderbolt card, albeit on the expensive side (MSRP of $299).
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 11:31 AM   #17
ActionableMango
macrumors 68040
 
ActionableMango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
Matrox has announced a PCIe Thunderbolt card, albeit on the expensive side (MSRP of $299).
OUCH!

Hopefully in a year it'll be $40.
ActionableMango is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 06:22 PM   #18
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ActionableMango View Post
OUCH!

Hopefully in a year it'll be $40.
Not unless the cost of the TB chip is significantly reduced (currently, it's ~$90 per unit in quantity ). Expensive little devils, especially for something that was hyped as a low cost, high speed interconnect.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 08:25 PM   #19
lbeck
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
Matrox has announced a PCIe Thunderbolt card, albeit on the expensive side (MSRP of $299).
Do you have a link for this info? I'd love to read more ...
__________________
Mac Pro 3.33Ghz 6-Core | MacBook Pro Retina | iPhone | iPad | LukeBeck.com
lbeck is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 08:30 PM   #20
philipma1957
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
a link

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/pr...o_thunderbolt/


and a second link

http://www.videoguys.com/Blog/K/Matr...8297d2b03.aspx
philipma1957 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 08:49 PM   #21
lbeck
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Thank you my good man!
__________________
Mac Pro 3.33Ghz 6-Core | MacBook Pro Retina | iPhone | iPad | LukeBeck.com
lbeck is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 08:54 PM   #22
lbeck
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
I was thinking it was a PCIe card that could be plugged in internally on a desktop system like the mac pro. Shoot.
__________________
Mac Pro 3.33Ghz 6-Core | MacBook Pro Retina | iPhone | iPad | LukeBeck.com
lbeck is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 09:05 PM   #23
Whaditis
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
x2 ^^^ I also was expecting a PCI-E card.


In the Mac Pro section, this is what we mean, an internal pCI-E card for the Mac Pro and not:

"Matrox DualHead2Go DP and TripleHead2Go DP Multi-Monitor Adapters Now Compatible with New Thunderbolt-Enabled MacBook Pro"

Not what I had in mind ^^^


Still looking.
__________________
Mac Pro 4.1, 2009 Octo 2.26, 20GB ram, 120GB OCZ SSD (Colossus) + 1TBx2 WD RE4 in Raid0 + 2x2TB WD Red, Lacie eSata card, 640GB w/Win7, Dell 2007FP, Asus PA246Q, GT120 + fanless 6670, Snow Leopard
Whaditis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 09:31 PM   #24
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
From the articles I saw, it seemed as if the TB card went directly into the system (what everyone's looking for), not a PCIe card that transferred PCIe lane communication over a cable to an external converter device.

Not sure if this was a misunderstanding by the original author and that translated into the article (and that article picked up by other sites and used as a source), or if the product isn't as far along and no further information is being released.

From a technical standpoint, placing a TB chip on a PCIe card that plugs into a desktop system isn't that big a deal, especially if it's going to be data only.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 09:41 PM   #25
mac.tastic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanofrog View Post
especially if it's going to be data only.
Not possible. Its design is tied into the GPU.
mac.tastic is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thunderbolt 2.0: capable of PCIE 3.0 16x cards in external enclosures? darkgoob Mac Pro 69 Apr 1, 2014 02:20 PM
GPU upgrade: understanding PCIe vs. Thunderbolt jcurri iMac 9 Oct 19, 2013 01:49 AM
Power 2 Graphics Cards - Lack of PCIe oliverj777 Mac Pro 8 Aug 6, 2012 11:27 AM
Need some help with PCIe cards SteelBlueTJ Mac Pro 1 Jul 31, 2012 09:14 PM
Thunderbolt to PCIe Expansion ?! Zeov MacBook Pro 11 Jun 12, 2012 10:53 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC