External Thunderbolt PCI Expansion Chassis and Hub in Development

[sean.crees]

The facebook discussion from Vidock. Discussion started with a question from a user who was wondering if they could use a TB Vidock with a 27" iMac without using an additional display.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150251573304135&id=89321949134

He explains how you can use a dedicated graphics card in conjunction with the internal graphics card to compress video output over the Pci-e bus and out to the LCD display. It's the same way optimus technology currently works in notebooks that have both a discreet mobile graphics card and integrated graphics.

What do you gain? Portability.

You wouldn't need a docking station, just a notebook with a TB port.

So now you can grab your notebook, TB Vidock, and power adapters, throw them in a bag and be able to have desktop quality graphics anywhere you go. Without this implementation you would also need to take an LCD panel with you which doesn't fit so well into a travel bag like everything else listed above does.

It's a way to get the best of two worlds. Ultra portability when you want it, and ultra graphics performance when you want it. About the only thing you can't do is be on the move away from a power outlet and do both. You can't really do this with a "gaming notebook" either since battery life usually sucks in them. Usually when i want to play computer games, i take my notebook to a table somewhere where i can plug it in since i get better performance when its not on batter power.

You don't really lose anything compared to a gaming notebook, but you gain additional graphics performance and the ability to use your notebook as an ultra portable when you want it to be that.

If you think about it, this also has the capability of fully replacing all desktop computers. Mobile CPU's are only marginally slower than desktop CPU's now. You can get an SSD in a notebook to alleviate the storage bottleneck of 2.5" HDD's. By simply plugging in power and a thunderbolt cable connected to an external graphics card solution, that is connected to a large high quality LCD display. You've now got all the power of a desktop that you can unhook and use as an ultra-portable notebook when you need something mobile.

This has the potential to push desktop PC's, desktop replacement notebooks, and gaming notebooks into niche market obscurity. Since you can choose to either use the built in notebook display, or an external display depending on your needs at the moment.

 

[diamond.g]

The facebook discussion from Vidock. Discussion started with a question from a user who was wondering if they could use a TB Vidock with a 27" iMac without using an additional display.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150251573304135&id=89321949134

He explains how you can use a dedicated graphics card in conjunction with the internal graphics card to compress video output over the Pci-e bus and out to the LCD display. It's the same way optimus technology currently works in notebooks that have both a discreet mobile graphics card and integrated graphics.

What do you gain? Portability.

You wouldn't need a docking station, just a notebook with a TB port.

So now you can grab your notebook, TB Vidock, and power adapters, throw them in a bag and be able to have desktop quality graphics anywhere you go. Without this implementation you would also need to take an LCD panel with you which doesn't fit so well into a travel bag like everything else listed above does.

It's a way to get the best of two worlds. Ultra portability when you want it, and ultra graphics performance when you want it. About the only thing you can't do is be on the move away from a power outlet and do both. You can't really do this with a "gaming notebook" either since battery life usually sucks in them. Usually when i want to play computer games, i take my notebook to a table somewhere where i can plug it in since i get better performance when its not on batter power.

You don't really lose anything compared to a gaming notebook, but you gain additional graphics performance and the ability to use your notebook as an ultra portable when you want it to be that.

If you think about it, this also has the capability of fully replacing all desktop computers. Mobile CPU's are only marginally slower than desktop CPU's now. You can get an SSD in a notebook to alleviate the storage bottleneck of 2.5" HDD's. By simply plugging in power and a thunderbolt cable connected to an external graphics card solution, that is connected to a large high quality LCD display. You've now got all the power of a desktop that you can unhook and use as an ultra-portable notebook when you need something mobile.

This has the potential to push desktop PC's, desktop replacement notebooks, and gaming notebooks into niche market obscurity. Since you can choose to either use the built in notebook display, or an external display depending on your needs at the moment.

Interesting. Can you ask if the compression is actually in use today? I am curious to know if there is any latency added due to the compression/decompression cycles. I am also curious to know if the Optimus hack works with ATI/AMD cards.

And if it is Mac compatible.

 

[AidenShaw]

The facebook discussion from Vidock. Discussion started with a question from a user who was wondering if they could use a TB Vidock with a 27" iMac without using an additional display.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150251573304135&id=89321949134

He explains how you can use a dedicated graphics card in conjunction with the internal graphics card to compress video output over the Pci-e bus and out to the LCD display. It's the same way optimus technology currently works in notebooks that have both a discreet mobile graphics card and integrated graphics.

Thank you.

It sounds like it *is* Nvidia Optimus, not just *like* Optimus. If it needs the Nvidia drivers and an Nvidia external card, it may not be that general a solution - especially for Apples.

From the link: We have ViDock users who tell us that they use the nVidia Optimus Drivers with the nVidia Card in ViDock to accelerate their build in Display.​

Note that ViDock is currently shipping with ExpressCard and Windows support, so this does not imply that it works with TBolt Apples.

In a nutshell, Optimus lets the discrete GPU do the 3D rendering on the image - but instead of using the discrete GPU output circuits, the Nvidia driver transfers the rendered bitmap frame over PCIe to the integrated GPU, which then displays the frame. The discrete GPU does the heavy work, the integrated GPU is just pushing the frames out the display connection.

 

[whooleytoo]

No mobile graphics card even comes close to a true desktop grade one so this idea that it doesn't matter two years later is patently absurd. It matters one day 1 because it simply doesn't cut it if you want to game. Apple doesn't have to directly support it. It could still let you use anything Apple has a graphics driver for already (i.e. anything made for the Mac Pro, for example) and if NVidia or AMD stepped in to fill the slack, they could probably ensure at least one decent card a year. It doesn't have to support everything, just something decent for computers that are otherwise near useless for any kind of serious gaming (whether in OSX or in Windows).

I agree, that's actually the point I was trying to get across in my first paragraph. Yes, future iMacs/MBPs will probably overtake whatever graphics card you buy today in 18 months or 2 years; but at least by going with this ViTech option you have the option of having near 'cutting edge' graphics now, as opposed to starting off with low/mid range internal graphics in your Mac which is only going to get more outdated.

As for support, if it requires any support from Nvidia or AMD then I don't see it taking off. Much as I'd LOVE to see it, I don't imagine many Mac users buying one of these. The number of Mac users, who are (relatively) hardcore gamers, have a Thunderbolt machine, and are willing to spend money on the dock and additional graphics card is tiny; it's a niche within a niche within a niche. And Nvidia and AMD won't spend time and money unless they see a potential return. Now, if Nvidia or AMD were to buy this tech, and offer & market it themselves, that would be a different story, I think.

Imagine connecting a $999 bare bones Macbook or even a $599 bare bones Mac Mini up to this thing and being able to play games that normally only a Mac Pro could handle. Then there's Windows. Even if Apple won't support this device in OSX, it could still be a Mac user's best friend in Windows for gaming there on the same machine with Boot Camp (it would just need a Windows driver for the device itself and you could use standard NVidia and Radeon drivers afterwards). In other words, it would save you having to buy a separate machine to play Windows games (and maybe OSX ones as well, at least for some cards). I know if I had the latest Mac Mini, I'd rather spend $600 on this with a good graphics card than $1200+ on a whole separate PC with the same card.

You don't have to sell it to me, I'm already sold!! It (if it worked well) could radically change my buying habits. Instead of buying one high-end Mac, I'd buy multiple low-end Macs and this TB dock and move the dock between them.

I imagine Apple would hate the idea. Gaming performance is probably a good driver of new Mac purchases (how often do you need to upgrade your mac for browsing/email/photo management?) and higher-end models. This dock would help circumvent that.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Heck, I'm thinking this thing would be perfect for the MacMini Server model. You would then have a quad-core i7, dual 500GB (or 750GB) 7200RPM drives (i.e. they're just as fast as a 7200RPM 3.5" drive so other than the size limit, they're full speed) and a good quality desktop graphics card. If they could make a case that would lock onto the main Mini and give you one overall piece, perhaps with even more expansion options (room for more drives, etc. and maybe a few USB3 ports), you'd have a real winner on your hands. It'd kind of be a small but real gaming-capable desktop (what the Mac Mini should be, IMO) and it could handle everything from movie encoding to quality gaming with total aplomb. While there are faster i7s, the GPU is far more important than the CPU for gaming while things like rendering or Logic Pro benefit from multiple cores more than a slightly faster dual-core i7.

But what sounds good on paper (or in this case on a forum) and what you'll actually be able to buy in a reasonable length of time are two different things. If this isn't available by the end of the year and works as well as it should, I'll still be looking at a Hackintosh. And I'd still need an external Blu-Ray drive to encode my own HD movies (in Windows).

 

[sean.crees]

Thank you.

It sounds like it *is* Nvidia Optimus, not just *like* Optimus. If it needs the Nvidia drivers and an Nvidia external card, it may not be that general a solution - especially for Apples.

From the link: We have ViDock users who tell us that they use the nVidia Optimus Drivers with the nVidia Card in ViDock to accelerate their build in Display.​

Note that ViDock is currently shipping with ExpressCard and Windows support, so this does not imply that it works with TBolt Apples.

In a nutshell, Optimus lets the discrete GPU do the 3D rendering on the image - but instead of using the discrete GPU output circuits, the Nvidia driver transfers the rendered bitmap frame over PCIe to the integrated GPU, which then displays the frame. The discrete GPU does the heavy work, the integrated GPU is just pushing the frames out the display connection.

There are users that have their current express card vidock working in MBP's. So it's not just a PC thing.

Also with the release of Lion, apparently there is a very easy way to get any Nvidia Geforce 5xx card to work natively without additional drivers.

The only difference between an express card version and TB should be the interface since TB supports the pci-e protocols which is what express card uses. Granted this is still all theorycraft until an actual product is available, but i can't find any reason why it wouldn't work.

 

[AidenShaw]

There are users that have their current express card vidock working in MBP's. So it's not just a PC thing.

Working as an external graphics card, or working "headless" with the display out through the MBP Display Port? (The "Optimus" driver method...)

Also with the release of Lion, apparently there is a very easy way to get any Nvidia Geforce 5xx card to work natively without additional drivers.

Any GeForce 5xx card with any MacBook/MBA/MBP ? (BTW, GE 5xx cards are the latest, mid to high end Nvidia cards.)

The only difference between an express card version and TB should be the interface since TB supports the pci-e protocols which is what express card uses.

Any way that I parse this I come up with "PCIe" == "TBolt" == "ExpressCard".

In other words, "no difference".

What did you mean to say?

Granted this is still all theorycraft until an actual product is available, but i can't find any reason why it wouldn't work.

I love the word "theorycraft" as a synonym for "vaporware". Love it!

 

[potatis]

could you use this as hard drive/ssd chassis as well?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

My current MBP (circa late 2008 with the 8600M GT) has Express Card, but it's 2.x (come to think of it, I don't think Apple ever used 3.x?). How well does it work at that speed for a high-end graphics card?

 

[sean.crees]

Well people over at notebook review have been working on ViDock and DIY ViDock related setups since 2009 it seems:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...7667-lets-figure-out-how-make-diy-vidock.html

Here is a link showing specific users implimentation experiences with DIY external graphics with Express Card slots including some MAC users:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...851-diy-egpu-experiences.html#implementations

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...ards/418851-diy-egpu-experiences.html#macbook

Here is ViDocks "Officially Supported" page listing some MBP models:
http://www.villagetronic.com/vidock/compatibility.html

Here's a link to the guy explaining how to make any Nvidia Geforce 5xx graphics card work natively in Lion. People on this site have been posting how they have GTX580's working in hackintosh's:

http://tonymacx86.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-graphics-support-discovered-in-os-x.html

Express Card uses the Pci-e standard. Express Card 1.0 is a Pci-e 1.0 1x slot. Express Card 2.0 is a Pci-e 2.0 1x slot. And if they ever release Express Card 3.0, it would be a Pci-e 3.0 1x slot. Thunderbolt allows the use of multiple different protocols, one of which is the pci-e standard.

 

[sean.crees]

My current MBP (circa late 2008 with the 8600M GT) has Express Card, but it's 2.x (come to think of it, I don't think Apple ever used 3.x?). How well does it work at that speed for a high-end graphics card?

Here's a link where they did some Pci-e scaling analysis comparisons between a full pci-e 16x slot and a x2 slot and an x1 slot.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...e-out-how-make-diy-vidock-16.html#post5122549

Pci-e 2.0 1x (same as Express Card 2.0) shows a 10-20% performance drop on average.

As far as i know no one has released anything using a pci-e 3.0 slot or express card 3.0 slot yet.

Here's a link where HardOCP did some Pci-e scaling analysis showing the difference between 16x and 4x. Thunderbolt ports will have the bandwidth to fully suport Pci-e 2.0 4x slots. Their conclusion is that a 4x slot will not bottleneck graphics performance.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/25/gtx_480_sli_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x4x4

could you use this as hard drive/ssd chassis as well?

Depending on the ports supplied on the external enclosure, you can use thunderbolt for anything as far as I'm aware. That has always been the big draw for TB, is that you can use it to transport any protocol. So Pci-E, HDMI/DVI/VGA/Displayport, Ethernet, USB, eSATA, Firewire, Audio etc etc etc.

If you meant, can you plug a pci-e mass storage device into the slot, i don't see why not. It's just a pci-e 2.0 4x slot. There's nothing about it that makes it only work for graphics cards. As long as whatever your plugging into it has driver support in the OS your using, it should work.

 

[Sol]

Here's a link where HardOCP did some Pci-e scaling analysis showing the difference between 16x and 4x. Thunderbolt ports will have the bandwidth to fully suport Pci-e 2.0 4x slots. Their conclusion is that a 4x slot will not bottleneck graphics performance.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/25/gtx_480_sli_pcie_bandwidth_perf_x16x16_vs_x4x4

That's good news about 4X slots. For now that will be enough bandwidth for everyone planning to use one of these to boost a MacBook or Mac Mini's graphical performance. Surely by the time the cards that need more bandwidth are mainstream the Thunderbolt standard will be updated to match them. We still have not seen what difference the optical cables will make.

 

[dime21]

So in theory if someone created USB3 drivers for Mac OS X one could put a PCIe USB card into one of those external boxes and thus have what so many people seem to be demanding?

Huh? Who gives a crap about USB3? I certainly don't. Seen any benchmarks? USB3 sucks. If you want performance, it's Firewire 800 today, and Thunderbolt tomorrow once devices become widely available. USB3 is a turd.

 

[AidenShaw]

optical TBolt 1.0 will make no difference

That's good news about 4X slots. For now that will be enough bandwidth for everyone planning to use one of these to boost a MacBook or Mac Mini's graphical performance. Surely by the time the cards that need more bandwidth are mainstream the Thunderbolt standard will be updated to match them. We still have not seen what difference the optical cables will make.

Note that the vaporware "optical TBolt" cables that have been proposed for TBolt 1.0 will be no faster than copper.

Some future, probably not compatible, TBolt 2.0 may have faster connections over either copper or fibre - but 10 Gbps/channel is the max for TBolt 1.0 over both copper and fibre.

 

[Sol]

Huh? Who gives a crap about USB3? I certainly don't. Seen any benchmarks? USB3 sucks. If you want performance, it's Firewire 800 today, and Thunderbolt tomorrow once devices become widely available. USB3 is a turd.

I recall reading recently that OS X already has drivers for USB 3. Don't quote me on it because I do not recall what forum discussion I saw that mentioned in but theoretically using a USB 3 PCI card with a Mac Pro should work.

 

[firestarter]

Huh? Who gives a crap about USB3? I certainly don't. Seen any benchmarks? USB3 sucks. If you want performance, it's Firewire 800 today, and Thunderbolt tomorrow once devices become widely available. USB3 is a turd.

Sorry dime21, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I'm no USB3 fan, but it's set to become the de-facto standard for devices like external drives, where it tidily blows Firewire away, and is cheaper to implement than Thunderbolt. Unfortunately FW800 runs at about half the speed of current mechanical drives, let alone SSDs - it truly belongs in the past.

Thunderbolt is great, but I'm sure it will be more widely used as a bus extender - or to connect to external hubs. A Thunderbolt->USB3 hub will be a useful product that I'm sure will be produced.

Note that the vaporware "optical TBolt" cables that have been proposed for TBolt 1.0 will be no faster than copper.

They're not meant to. They're meant to work over a longer distance.

 

[AidenShaw]

They're not meant to. They're meant to work over a longer distance.

We both know that, but lots of people (including the post I was replying to) think that optical TBolt 1.0 will be faster than copper TBolt 1.0.

Not so. Same speed, but longer cables.

 

[Sol]

We both know that, but lots of people (including the post I was replying to) think that optical TBolt 1.0 will be faster than copper TBolt 1.0.

Not so. Same speed, but longer cables.

You are correct. Still, just being able to use an external graphics card from a computer up to 100 metres away is amazing in itself.

 

[HurryKayne]

well,i'm one the guy who started the Vidck feeler...
it was amazing..and i think it will be a very good thing..
do you think Apple will hate the idea..?
Apple knows what it does...if would had hated you wouldn't have now in your mac...
don't think so..for them will be really easier to have thinner macs..
without the constant voices on macs good to work but not to game..
or the everlasting asking for a X.Mac...
while the user will be able to upgrade it..
this will be good even for Thunderbolt Cinema Displays
and for the quad server mini...
So thanks Apple...and thanks Vidock..and you all.

 

[strabes]

A little off topic I guess, but I don't play computer games or use an external monitor on my new 11" MBA so I don't really care about graphics performance. What I'm looking for is something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Kensington-US...1XNW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312480789&sr=8-1

But it also needs to have an 1/8" audio port. Right now I'm using the above product (with an USB extension cable so it's out of sight) with this USB "sound card" plugged into one of its USB ports: http://www.amazon.com/External-Chan...4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1312480818&sr=1-4

My mass data storage is my Time Capsule.

It's nice that I only have to plug in power and 1 usb cable to get gigabit ethernet, USB devices, NAS, and audio, but it's a little "jerry-rigged" so to speak, and the MBA's audio volume keys don't adjust the volume (have to use the speaker's volume controls). Anyone have any ideas?

 

[diamond.g]

Well people over at notebook review have been working on ViDock and DIY ViDock related setups since 2009 it seems:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...7667-lets-figure-out-how-make-diy-vidock.html

Here is a link showing specific users implimentation experiences with DIY external graphics with Express Card slots including some MAC users:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...851-diy-egpu-experiences.html#implementations

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...ards/418851-diy-egpu-experiences.html#macbook

Here is ViDocks "Officially Supported" page listing some MBP models:
http://www.villagetronic.com/vidock/compatibility.html

Here's a link to the guy explaining how to make any Nvidia Geforce 5xx graphics card work natively in Lion. People on this site have been posting how they have GTX580's working in hackintosh's:

http://tonymacx86.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-graphics-support-discovered-in-os-x.html

Express Card uses the Pci-e standard. Express Card 1.0 is a Pci-e 1.0 1x slot. Express Card 2.0 is a Pci-e 2.0 1x slot. And if they ever release Express Card 3.0, it would be a Pci-e 3.0 1x slot. Thunderbolt allows the use of multiple different protocols, one of which is the pci-e standard.

I was under the impression that Thunderbolt was PCIe and Displayport data folded into one signal. Which is why it supposedly needs direct access to the PCIe bus versus just being added as an add on card.

 

[AidenShaw]

I was under the impression that Thunderbolt was PCIe and Displayport data folded into one signal.

You are correct, in TBolt 1.0 only DisplayPort and PCIe protocols are encapsulated on the TBolt cable.

The Apple TBolt display doesn't send USB/1394/audio and other info across the TBolt cable. The TBolt display contains a PCIe USB "card", a PCIe 1394 "card", and a PCIe (or perhaps USB) sound "card".

Which is why it supposedly needs direct access to the PCIe bus versus just being added as an add on card.

There are PCIe bridge chips (essentially PCIe hubs) that could be used by an add-on card.

I suspect that the real reason is that a PCIe card would not have access to the DisplayPort signals - therefore you would fragment the TBolt market by having some TBolt ports able to drive displays, and other ports that couldn't.

In my opinion, Intel is going to regret (or is already regretting) the decision to share the mini-DisplayPort connector.

 

[firestarter]

I suspect that the real reason is that a PCIe card would not have access to the DisplayPort signals - therefore you would fragment the TBolt market by having some TBolt ports able to drive displays, and other ports that couldn't.

In my opinion, Intel is going to regret (or is already regretting) the decision to share the mini-DisplayPort connector.

This is true, and it's a shame that the mandatory DisplayPort signal is preventing the production of PCIe/Thunderbolt cards for use in current MacPros (and PC desktops).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Huh? Who gives a crap about USB3? I certainly don't. Seen any benchmarks? USB3 sucks. If you want performance, it's Firewire 800 today, and Thunderbolt tomorrow once devices become widely available. USB3 is a turd.

Yeah, I have seen some USB3 benchmarks. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I've got a 3TB USB3 drive here. I sure as hell haven't seen a Thunderbolt 3TB drive yet, let alone one for $140. USB3 is well over 3x faster than FW800 (theoretically over 6x faster, but I'll give half off just for argument's sake) so spare me the nonsense. It only shows your ignorance on the subject.

Frankly, I'm sick of the fanboy attitude towards USB3 just because Apple isn't currently supporting it. I want USB3 AND Thunderbolt. You can rant all day how great FW800 is, but I still wanted USB2 on my Mac as well because that's what many devices are that don't need that extra bandwidth and I don't want to pay 3x as much on a device where it makes no difference, what-so-ever (like any normal single SATA drive). I did buy a FW800 drive where it did make a difference (and it was $100 more than the same drive with USB2 only).

 

[Marx55]

Is it possible to power on a Mac from a Thunderbolt port, as was previously possible using a device like the i-Cue for USB
http://www.lindy.co.uk/usb-boot-dongle-i-cue-for-mac/32871.html
or the former ADB Apple keyboards that also allowed powering on the Mac from them? That is really convenient when the Mac is away and difficult to reach, below the table, etc.