What you'll really end up with are TB displays which also act as docking stations.
In relation to being docking stations, I think Apple should've included a PCIe slot in the ATDs to facilitate further expansion, such as a GPU.
What you'll really end up with are TB displays which also act as docking stations.
TBolt peripherals are any peripheral connected via TBolt.
And TBolt isn't good for ANYTHING.
By that I mean there are not any current or announced native TBolt peripherals, and probably never will be.
The TBolt storage units are not TBolt disks - they are a TBolt controller bridged to a PCIe bus with a PCIe SATA controller connected to SATA disks. ($ cha-ching $)
Well it sort of all comes down to semantics really...
What are you calling native?
If TB is what seems to be a special purpose interconnect between two PCIe switches and your saying that attaching any sort PCIe interfaced function controller to that switch means the overall device isn't native TB. Then really yes there will never be a native TB device. The point wasn't to have native TB devices like SSD modules, it was to have PCIe device makers be able to install outside the box.![]()
So you agree, there are no native TBolt devices, and probably never will be.
If there's a PCIe driver for the device, it's not native TBolt.
So you agree, there are no native TBolt devices, and probably never will be.
If there's a PCIe driver for the device, it's not native TBolt.
By that I mean there are not any current or announced native TBolt peripherals, and probably never will be.
In my view, a "TBolt peripheral" has two TBolt (mDP) connections and can be inserted into a TBolt daisy chain.
A "USB 3.0 disk connected to a USB 3.0 hub connected to a USB 3.0 PCIe controller connected to a TBolt->PCIe bridge" is not a TBolt device in my parlance. It's a USB 3.0 disk.
/snip
Thunderbolt is by far more flexible. You can connect anything to thunderbolt that you could connect to a PCIe port internally. There really are no disadvantages to thunderbolt besides lack of physical backwards compatibility with USB.
And 99% of the peripherals are usb.
Ya, it's a shame that USB peripherals don't work with TBolt equipped Macs due to these Macs not having USB ports as well. (Disclaimer: this post contains sarcasm.)
And 99% of the peripherals are usb.
Why not re-read the post I replied to?
So you agree, there are no native TBolt devices, and probably never will be.
If there's a PCIe driver for the device, it's not native TBolt.
Why not re-read the post I replied to?
i just dislike how much room thunderbolt takes up. hopefully in some time that gets smaller too. I would still very much love to have USB 3.0 come to macs soon![]()
Thunderbolt is by far more flexible. You can connect anything to thunderbolt that you could connect to a PCIe port internally. There really are no disadvantages to thunderbolt besides lack of physical backwards compatibility with USB.
And 99% of the peripherals are usb.
Ya, it's a shame that USB peripherals don't work with TBolt equipped Macs due to these Macs not having USB ports as well. (Disclaimer: this post contains sarcasm.)
In relation to being docking stations, I think Apple should've included a PCIe slot in the ATDs to facilitate further expansion, such as a GPU.
Let's think about this one... What type of PCIe slot? Half-height, full-height, full-length, single-slot width, dual-slot width? What lane width for the physical connector? How would you carve out space in the chassis to accommodate this? How would the user access this slot? How would the connector be oriented in relation to the display, and how would this be achieved? What type of additional TDP would you design for? How would you provide the power to this slot, and how would you dissipate the heat?
Being sold as a $999 display and all, it should probably still function as one, so it will still need to accept a DisplayPort signal if there is no dGPU present in the PCIe slot. It would also be neat if the other built in features still worked. If we figure 5.8 Gbps for the display signal plus 1Gbps for Gigabit Ethernet, 1.26 Gbps for the two FireWire 800 ports, 480 Mbps for a single USB 2.0 host controller (even though there could well be more than one in there to support the FaceTime HD camera, audio interface and three downstream ports), plus another 25% for protocol overhead on the PCIe stuff, and we've got 775 Mbps left out of our 10 Gbps Thunderbolt channel. Hmmm... Not really enough for a PCIe slot.
But if you did have a dGPU in your PCIe slot, and you could somehow engineer the switching between multiple DisplayPort inputs, you wouldn't need the DP stream on the TB channel, thus freeing up 5.8 Gbps of bandwidth. Now you'd have the legs to support a dGPU with a PCIe 2.0 x1 connection, which would never be bandwidth throttled and most likely perform just as well as that same card in an x16 slot. Well worth the increased cost, added bulk to the display, potential for starting a fire, etc...
I don't know why people keep perpetuating this myth. USB 3.0 isn't better for ANYTHING. It is just cheaper.
Why not read this string of posts in context?
I would think the MXM spec would answer many if not all of these questions.
They are MXM form factor with custom designed cooling, so not exactly reasonable for a user installable upgrade.In terms of hardware implementation, don't iMacs have a GPU?
A device can only use one channel. The other channel is to provide bandwidth for other devices in the chain.Isn't TBolt 10Gbps per channel over 2 channels = 20Gbps?