2012 Mini - evidence for USB3? I think so.

[HandySam]

FireWire? No, that's dead.
Esata? No, dead as well.
Pci-express? No, TB doesn't have sufficient bandwidth for anything other than very very very low end graphics cards. 16 lane PCI Express 3.0? Forget it.

You do know that Thunderbolt carries 4x PCI-express 2.0? Thunderbolt is actually a PCI-express connector. (sort off) Oke, it isn't 16x PCI-e 3.0 but that is just not possible yet over 1 cable.

How many USB3 motherboards and PC's / laptops are out there, and have been out there since before Ivybridge?

Hundreds of them, is the answer.

A discrete USB3 controller costs less than peanuts and omitting USB3 in 2011 was still a travesty, Ivybridge or no Ivybridge. The 500 other manufacturers who did include USB3 were not put off by lack of Intel chipset support.

Apple doesn't really have room to spare in their products. Just an extra controller chip isn't really an option and besides all USB 3 solutions with extra controller chips don't work as good as you would think. Most off them are providig 2 full USB3 ports but they add a built-in hub so they get 4 USB 3 ports.

 

[Chippy99]

You do know that Thunderbolt carries 4x PCI-express 2.0? Thunderbolt is actually a PCI-express connector. (sort off) Oke, it isn't 16x PCI-e 3.0 but that is just not possible yet over 1 cable.

No, I didn't know that. But even so, it's not enough bandwidth to hang a decent graphics card on the end of, is it.

 

[HandySam]

You could (in theory) connect a better graphics card. But I think it would be better then a HD3000/HD4000 but not better then let's say a GT650m.

PCI-e on motherboards has almost no latency at all but If you do this over Thunderbolt there is a considerable amount of latency. (for graphic cards)

If you want high-end graphics over one cable (or over more then one) then I think you will have to wait several years because with the current technology this isn't possible due to bandwidth and latency.

The beauty of Thunderbolt (in my eyes) is that it carries PCI-e. If you know that all extra controllerships (LAN ports, firewire, audio processors, most USB3 ports, ...) in your PC are connected through PCI-e then it is not so hard to think that they are able to connect practically everything with Thunderbolt. There's no extra overhead because of protocols (like USB, firewire, ...).

 

[Chippy99]

All very exciting, Sam.

If only the plethora of devices that TB will support actually existed! <sigh>

And if only the few that did, did not cost an utter fortune. <another sigh>

 

[Cisco_Kid]

What "variety of ports" does the normal user need?

Normal is a setting an a dishwasher.

 

[Jazper]

Hahha. Of course they will have USB 3.0, and again, it will probably be thinner!

 

[hitekalex]

A discrete USB3 controller costs less than peanuts and omitting USB3 in 2011 was still a travesty, Ivybridge or no Ivybridge. The 500 other manufacturers who did include USB3 were not put off by lack of Intel chipset support

This just tells me you don't understand what's involved in design decisions of Apple products. Discrete controllers consume more power and take up precious space. This is not about component costs. Apple is not the company that jumps into first gen chipsets (LTE is another example of it in mobile space). They made a conscious decision to wait until integrated Ivy Bridge controllers are available. I don't give a crap what other 500 PC makers shoved into their ugly 3" laptops with 2-hour batteries - if I wanted a PC I would get one.

How on earth can they have released the TB display - a £900 display, designed to act as your media hub - and fitted it with USB2 ports, in late 2011. It's unbef***inglievable to be honest. And that has NOTHING to do with Ivybridge.

Obviously, it has everything to do with Ivy Bridge, as per above. Without USB3 support on host system, they could not have extended it across TB bus into the display.

 

[HandySam]

Obviously, it has everything to do with Ivy Bridge, as per above. Without USB3 support on host system, they could not have extended it across TB bus into the display.

No it does not. To implement USB3 in the thunderbolt display they need to use separate controller chips. But I think they didn't do it because 1 USB3 port demands 4,8 gigabit/s bandwidth and Thunderbolt only delivers 10 gigabit/s bandwidth so if they wanted to implement USB3 on the thunderbolt Display they would only been able to implement 1 USB3 port because there is also a gigabit ethernet port, firewire port, iSight camera, speakers, ... that should al be driven by the remaining 5,2 gigabit/s bandwidth.

They have some bandwidth left but if they would fill up this bandwidth then there is no bandwidth left for other devices that are daisy chained.

 

[Chippy99]

How on earth can they have released the TB display - a £900 display, designed to act as your media hub - and fitted it with USB2 ports, in late 2011. It's unbef***inglievable to be honest. And that has NOTHING to do with Ivybridge.

Obviously, it has everything to do with Ivy Bridge, as per above. Without USB3 support on host system, they could not have extended it across TB bus into the display.

That's just plain wrong, unfortunately. The TB display has a PCI to USB2 bridge in it. They could have just as well used a PCI to USB3 bridge. It has *nothing* to do with Ivybridge.

@Sam - it's not about bandwidth either. The Apple TB port (and cable) carries 2 x TB 10Gb channels = 20Gb/s.

Personally I am 100% convinced that Apple's lateness re USB3 adoption is not down to any technical challenge at all - Ivybridge or otherwise. It is simply because they have wanted to promote TB as the high-bandwidth transport of choice and USB3 undermines this significantly. They have reluctantly had to add it now to Ivybridge based product, since not doing so would be ridiculous in the face of increasing market adoption of USB3.

 

[HandySam]

@Sam - it's not about bandwidth either. The Apple TB port (and cable) carries 2 x TB 10Gb channels = 20Gb/s.

It is about bandwidth. You are correct in saying that Thunderbolt delivers 2x 10Gb but There is 10 gigabit reserved for the display itself, that half is actually the mini displayport part. Which leaves only 10Gb for other devices.

 

[Chippy99]

It is about bandwidth. You are correct in saying that Thunderbolt delivers 2x 10Gb but There is 10 gigabit reserved for the display itself, that half is actually the mini displayport part. Which leaves only 10Gb for other devices.

So what.

By your logic, the next TB display wont have USB3 either. Clearly this is wrong.

 

[HandySam]

I haven't said that there wouldn't be USB3 on the Thunderbolt display. But I think they will wait to update the TB display till there is Thunderbolt over optic cables or something (this should theoretically give 100Gb bandwidth). I don't really expect a TB display update soon. I think they will want to give it retina resolution as well and those kind of panels aren't really available yet.

 

[Poki]

I haven't said that there wouldn't be USB3 on the Thunderbolt display. But I think they will wait to update the TB display till there is Thunderbolt over optic cables or something (this should theoretically give 100Gb bandwidth). I don't really expect a TB display update soon. I think they will want to give it retina resolution as well and those kind of panels aren't really available yet.

I think you misunderstand how TB works. As far as I know, the DisplayPort has his own channel reserved, so no matter how many Displays you daisy chain (as long as DisplayPort supports the pixels), it won't affect your 2x10 Gbit/s bandwidth. (Except the iSight cameras, speakers, USB ports, etc. when you use them, of course)

 

[HandySam]

Displayport uses bandwidth from the available 2x 10Gb. One of the 10Gb channels is reserved for Displayport. The other peripherals have 10Gb bandwidth available.

You can connect up to 2 Displayport monitors on one Thunderbolt connection because 1 Displayport roughly uses 5,4 Gb.