External Thunderbolt PCI Expansion Chassis and Hub in Development

[sean.crees]

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

Well USB said they couldn't use their physical port, because that's what Intel originally was going to go with.

I don't really see why using the mini-displayport connector is a bad idea. It made apple happy I'm sure, and the PC side isn't going to really see it as a displayport because they don't use displayports, they use DVI/HDMI. So while "technically" it may have started out as "displayport", it will end up being a "thunderbolt port".

I have i feeling in a couple years no one is going to refer to it as a "thunderbolt using a displayport". It will just be a "thunderbolt port".

There's always the possibility that Intel will use a different physical port for the PC side, perhaps DVI. Or that graphics card manufacturers and monitor manufacturers will start putting TB ports on their devices instead of DVI ports. It would free up space on the back of graphics cards since you would only need 1 TB port to do multiple monitors instead of multiple DVI ports. But considering that if they ran TB over a DVI port, the DVI port would then be able to support multiple monitors from a single port. Idunno it could go either way, but i have a feeling Intel would prefer to have just a single port for everything thunderbolt.

 

[AidenShaw]

I don't really see why using the mini-displayport connector is a bad idea.

The issue as I see it is that if it is mandatory for a TBolt connection to also carry DisplayPort - then it restricts the configurations a lot.

Note that I said "share" the mini-DisplayPort.

Using the mDP connector, without requiring DisplayPort, would be a lot more flexible.

Why can't a TBolt port be on a PCIe card (e.g. MacPro or other mini-tower)? If Intel really wanted to spread TBolt around, what better way than providing TBolt on PCIe cards so that all those PC mini-towers could be upgraded?
________________________

When TBolt 2.0 comes out with true optical connectors, it will all be fixed.

 

[sean.crees]

The issue as I see it is that if it is mandatory for a TBolt connection to also carry DisplayPort - then it restricts the configurations a lot.

I still don't see the problem. If your not using the thunderbolt port for a displayport enabled display, you don't lose any bandwidth.

Even if you do use both, displayport is only going to use up to around 5Gb/s of the available 20Gb/s per port. Still leaving plenty for a graphics card.

Allowing the port to do 2 things instead of 1 if you want seems like a benefit if anything.

Why can't a TBolt port be on a PCIe card (e.g. MacPro or other mini-tower)? If Intel really wanted to spread TBolt around, what better way than providing TBolt on PCIe cards so that all those PC mini-towers could be upgraded?

Well i think the reason for notebooks is because of the small form factor on the connector. I agree though that there should be expansion cards with 2x TB ports for PC's. Perhaps there will be when it starts going more mainstream on the PC side of things. As far as i know there is nothing keeping a third party from making one. You just buy the Intel TB chip, and you can implement it however you want.

 

[firestarter]

I still don't see the problem. If your not using the thunderbolt port for a displayport enabled display, you don't lose any bandwidth.

Even if you do use both, displayport is only going to use up to around 5Gb/s of the available 20Gb/s per port. Still leaving plenty for a graphics card.

Allowing the port to do 2 things instead of 1 if you want seems like a benefit if anything.

No, you're missing the point.

By banning the production of MDP/Thunderbolt ports that don't implement Displayport - Intel is effectively stopping the production of PCIe cards that implement Thunderbolt.

This means you'll never be able to retrofit Thunderbolt to an existing MacPro or an existing desktop PC - you can only implement it at motherboard level on a new design.

This significantly and needlessly limits the uptake possibilities of Thunderbolt. Even if I just wanted to access an external drive over T/bolt from my MacPro, I can't do that, because the standard forces it to be a video connection too (which I don't want or need). If data-only connectors were allowed, it would be easy to implement that on a simple expansion card.

 

[sean.crees]

No, you're missing the point.

By banning the production of MDP/Thunderbolt ports that don't implement Displayport - Intel is effectively stopping the production of PCIe cards that implement Thunderbolt.

Isn't displayport a part of the Intel thunderbolt chip? So wouldn't you auto be doing displayport and thunderbolt whenever you use any thunderbolt chip in any configuration?

 

[AidenShaw]

Isn't displayport a part of the Intel thunderbolt chip? So wouldn't you auto be doing displayport and thunderbolt whenever you use any thunderbolt chip in any configuration?

So now you see the problem with sharing.

Even if the chip has DP on it, you still need to run the DP signals across the motherboard from the GPU to the TBolt chip.

If DP were optional, then don't run DP signals to the TBolt chip, and have the DP part of the TBolt chip power down if it isn't getting an DP signal. Or, make a smaller, cheaper TBolt chip without the DP circuits. (Intel ships lots of chips with disabled or unused transistors - it may be simpler and cheaper for them to put the DP circuits in all the TBolt controllers, whether they're used or not.)

 

[firestarter]

Isn't displayport a part of the Intel thunderbolt chip? So wouldn't you auto be doing displayport and thunderbolt whenever you use any thunderbolt chip in any configuration?

No. Displayport is a signal that comes from a graphics card. A standalone PCIe card wouldn't have this graphics signal therefore couldn't be built.

 

[sean.crees]

No. Displayport is a signal that comes from a graphics card. A standalone PCIe card wouldn't have this graphics signal therefore couldn't be built.

I just read a report about how Intel says its thunderbolt chip needs direct access to both the pci-e bus and the system video. So direct access to just a pci-e slot (an expansion card) wouldn't work.

Well i suppose it limits thunderbolt a little, at first. But in a couple of years i bet every motherboard has at least 1 thunderbolt port on it. I don't think it will be a significant issue though for Intel. Everyone is still going to want it, they'll just have to buy a new system/motherboard in order to get it.

Plus theres really not a lot of things i can think of that a system with enough expansion cards available will really need this. If you have expansion cards, then why not use an internal graphics card? You can get USB3 expansion cards that will get you 1/4 of the speed which should be more than enough for everything except graphics cards.

So meh.. Is it a set back for intel? Sure, but a very small one. In return for this slight limitation, Intel got Apple to put Thunderbolt into every single one of their devices. I think in the end, Intel will win out in this trade-off.

 

[Hellhammer]

No, you're missing the point.

By banning the production of MDP/Thunderbolt ports that don't implement Displayport - Intel is effectively stopping the production of PCIe cards that implement Thunderbolt.

This means you'll never be able to retrofit Thunderbolt to an existing MacPro or an existing desktop PC - you can only implement it at motherboard level on a new design.

This significantly and needlessly limits the uptake possibilities of Thunderbolt. Even if I just wanted to access an external drive over T/bolt from my MacPro, I can't do that, because the standard forces it to be a video connection too (which I don't want or need). If data-only connectors were allowed, it would be easy to implement that on a simple expansion card.

The only possibility is a GPU with Thunderbolt ports.

Isn't displayport a part of the Intel thunderbolt chip? So wouldn't you auto be doing displayport and thunderbolt whenever you use any thunderbolt chip in any configuration?

No. The TB chip is not a GPU, it cannot crush numbers. That why you need the GPU. The issue with desktops is that there is no convenient way to route DisplayPort from the GPU to the TB chip. With laptops it's easy because the whole thing is made and designed by the same people and it's a closed system. Desktops are very upgradeable and open systems, although Mac Pro is a bit more closed than homebuilt rigs.

 

[AidenShaw]

I just read a report about how Intel says its thunderbolt chip needs direct access to both the pci-e bus and the system video. So direct access to just a pci-e slot (an expansion card) wouldn't work.

And why would this be - other than the artificial requirement to share the mDP port with a DP signal?

Well i suppose it limits thunderbolt a little, at first.

I think that it limits it a lot!

Where would USB 3.0 be without PCIe/ExpressCard USB 3.0 controllers - nearly dead for a few more years. Instead, hundreds of products are available with USB 3.0.

 

[Mr MM]

Am i reading something or just confused.

For desktop chipsets that supports switchables gpus thunderbolt pcie cards wouldnt be a problem. Although a hassle.

Integration of thunderbolt in gpus is a great idea btw

 

[firestarter]

The only possibility is a GPU with Thunderbolt ports.

I hope you're correct about this.

I followed the initial Intel press releases pretty closely and they seemed to imply that even this wouldn't work on existing systems - some additional motherboard mojo would still be required.

Has Intel even released a proper public datasheet for Thunderbolt yet?

 

[diamond.g]

I hope you're correct about this.

I followed the initial Intel press releases pretty closely and they seemed to imply that even this wouldn't work on existing systems - some additional motherboard mojo would still be required.

Has Intel even released a proper public datasheet for Thunderbolt yet?

I guess the million dollar question is can you route PCIe through a card that is doing something else already.

As has been said a few times already, Thunderbolt is an externalized version of PCIe...

 

[firestarter]

I guess the million dollar question is can you route PCIe through a card that is doing something else already.

As has been said a few times already, Thunderbolt is an externalized version of PCIe...

Everything I'm reading says no - either it just isn't possible, or Intel won't licence the chipset for expansion card builders.

Here's a Tom's Hardware article from a week ago:

Intel has been non-committal as to whether it will license Thunderbolt to PCI Express add-on card developers. The technology is certainly feasible: a four lane PCI Express 3.0 connection slot, operating at a speed of 4 GB/s (or 32 Gigabits per second), could easily host a 10 Megabit per second Thunderbolt PCI Express add-on card. However, Intel spokesman Dave Salvator told us recently, “There are no plans to do a Thunderbolt expansion card at this time.” This could mean that Intel plans to license Thunderbolt only as a motherboard feature, not as an add-on card feature.

Geek.com

According to Intel, Thunderbolt boards will not be added to existing computers by an expansion card as Thunderbolt chips need direct access to both the systems video and PCI express architectures.

 

[thelead]

This could be very cool. Imagine a thunderbolt external box with 3 or 4 pcie slots for expansion for mini computers like a mac mini or MBA. Hard drives, Sound cards, Video cards, usb/firewire cards, etc. I hope manufacturers really invest in this.

 

[AidenShaw]

The only possibility is a GPU with Thunderbolt ports.

For desktop chipsets that supports switchables gpus thunderbolt pcie cards wouldnt be a problem. Although a hassle.

Integration of thunderbolt in gpus is a great idea btw

I guess the million dollar question is can you route PCIe through a card that is doing something else already.

It seems to me that graphics card makers might be hesitant to build such a device, since you'd probably have to make a PCIe x16-only card, and run the GPU on PCIe x8 (the other 8 lanes would go to the TBolt controller(s)).

While it's clear that most of the time x8 would be fast enough, it looks bad on the spec sheets

For some other ideas, look at this datasheet for a PLX PEX8616 PCIe to PCIe switch. (see the thumbnail below)

Has Intel even released a proper public datasheet for Thunderbolt yet?

Nope, just the same old PR fluff....

 

[sean.crees]

I just can't think of anything that would require external use of 20gb/s of bandwidth other than graphics, maybe a RAID array of SSD's(which would be really expensive). And if you have internal expansion cards, then you don't need external graphics. It may limit thunderbolt adoption for PC's somewhat, but i don't see how it negatively impacts the consumer, or apple. PC consumers have USB3 to tide them over in the meantime, and apple already has thunderbolt on all of their devices. This limitation doesn't affect notebook users or vendors at all, only desktop users.

I mean i have a PC for gaming, and i personally wouldn't need or want a TB expansion card. What would i use it for other than to brag to my friends that i have it?

 

[bobsbarricades]

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr MM]

I just can't think of anything that would require external use of 20gb/s of bandwidth other than graphics, maybe a RAID array of SSD's(which would be really expensive). And if you have internal expansion cards, then you don't need external graphics. It may limit thunderbolt adoption for PC's somewhat, but i don't see how it negatively impacts the consumer, or apple. PC consumers have USB3 to tide them over in the meantime, and apple already has thunderbolt on all of their devices. This limitation doesn't affect notebook users or vendors at all, only desktop users.

I mean i have a PC for gaming, and i personally wouldn't need or want a TB expansion card. What would i use it for other than to brag to my friends that i have it?

cams, pcie expansion cards

 

[sean.crees]

cams, pcie expansion cards

And you can't do cams with USB3?

Whats the point of using an expansion slot to get thunderbolt to get another expansion slot?

 

[AidenShaw]

I just can't think of anything that would require external use of 20gb/s of bandwidth other than graphics, maybe a RAID array of SSD's(which would be really expensive).

Think beyond a single box - a simple daisy chain of spinning hard drives can come close to soaking a TBolt channel. Also, there are specialized audio and video TBolt devices on the way that will be bandwidth hungry.

Whats the point of using an expansion slot to get thunderbolt to get another expansion slot?

One slot to many slots, basically.

You also have more portability - an option card in a TBolt enclosure can be easily moved between systems.

 

[sean.crees]

Think beyond a single box - a simple daisy chain of spinning hard drives can come close to soaking a TBolt channel. Also, there are specialized audio and video TBolt devices on the way that will be bandwidth hungry.

One slot to many slots, basically.

You also have more portability - an option card in a TBolt enclosure can be easily moved between systems.

Who would use a daisy chain of spinning hard drives? Most people MIGHT have 1 external hard drive for backup purposes. So that leaves servers that have capped out on gigabit ethernet? You would need a fairly large LAN, or a huge ISP connection to fully saturate gigabit ethernet connected HDD's.

Key word in your next example is "specialized". IE: not very many people.

I'm still not seeing any major untapped use models for vast majorities of users that own desktop PC's. All of your examples are special case niche markets. It's not going to have this major affect on Intel that you think. Most of your examples are based on thunderbolt accessories that don't even exist yet.

Just because you can think of an example that would make use of a TB expansion card doesn't mean it's a worthwhile investment for Intel, or that not investing in it is going to cripple adoption. And again you have to look at the big picture. Do you seriously think Intel was going to make more money doing PC expansion cards instead of having TB ports in every single apple device? I highly doubt it.

 

[CWallace]

Who would use a daisy chain of spinning hard drives?

At the moment I have a 1.5TB Time Machine drive, a 2TB "Apple TV Store" with movies and television shows on it, and a 2TB "General Storage" drive, all in an FW800 daisy-chain.

That being said, I'll probably retire the two 2TB drives with a WD 6TB unit (using the RAID-1 capability).

 

[L33t Masta]

As a first time Mac owner I have to ask, aren't the Mac video cards the same as the PC video cards? I know Mac only supports certain vid cards because of the drivers and how closed it is, but if I had a 295 GTX should the Mac version of the 295 GTX (theoretically) be the exact same card design and just a drivers difference?

 

[Hellhammer]

As a first time Mac owner I have to ask, aren't the Mac video cards the same as the PC video cards? I know Mac only supports certain vid cards because of the drivers and how closed it is, but if I had a 295 GTX should the Mac version of the 295 GTX (theoretically) be the exact same card design and just a drivers difference?

The firmware is different. PC cards' firmware is optimized for BIOS, whereas Macs use EFI and thus need a special firmware to work. It is possible to flash the firmware to be EFI compatible though (but only certain GPUs work).