Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

[In the next MBPs?] LightPeak is here (over copper, though)

Not really that big of a deal in the scheme of things, but still lame considering the hype. Copper is loads more durable and cheaper than Fibre Optic cable; so really not surprising Intel's taking this route.
 
baxingo said:
I would rather wait to see the fiber optics implemented.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with copper if it really provides 10Gb/s.

Just because it's ready now, doesn't mean that we will see it anytime soon. In IDF 2010, Intel clearly stated late 2011 for availability. Could be that all the little details are ready now but it still not in mass production. Still much we don't know but hopefully Intel will tell us something about the availability soon.
 
It's still another controller to fit onto the board just like USB 3.0. It'll be more interesting when it comes standard on Intel's PCHs.
 
Hellhammer said:
I'm fine with copper if it really provides 10Gb/s.
Click to expand...

If Copper really can do 10Gb/s then I will be fine, but the quote from engadget says.
"Then again, it's not like the 10Gbps optical option has been dismissed out of hand, it's just that we'll probably have to keep on waiting for it for a little (or a big) while longer. "
 
I look forward to eliminating all the various types of cables. Don't can't if it uses copper or fiber. One thing is copper is trading at all time high.
 
Here, here +1 fail.

10GB/s was based on the optical cable. Copper will probably make it a USB3 speed. Engadget think so:

"it's not like the 10Gbps optical option has been dismissed out of hand, it's just that we'll probably have to keep on waiting for it for a little (or a big) while longer." - Engadget
 
thejadedmonkey said:
So... how does CopperPeak differ from USB3?
Click to expand...

AFAIK "Copper"Peak is more versatile because it's designed from scratch to be protocol independent (i.e. it's a "neutral" highway on which legacy protocols like USB, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, display port, HDMI, ecc. can "travel").

Lightpeak aims to replace every internal and external connection.

USB3 is just USB2.0 on steroids.

During the switching phase (from legacy to lightpeak) people could benefit from hubs like the ones depicted in these apple patents:

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...tion-of-magsafe-may-include-fiber-optics.html

6a0120a5580826970c013489a8ec61970c-800wi


6a0120a5580826970c0147e04ca253970b-800wi
 
...

are you using hub as a fancy word for adaptor? I can see this as Apples dream come true...one connector and then they can sell 10 different $30 adaptors!
 
whitedragon101 said:
Here, here +1 fail.

10GB/s was based on the optical cable. Copper will probably make it a USB3 speed. Engadget think so:

"it's not like the 10Gbps optical option has been dismissed out of hand, it's just that we'll probably have to keep on waiting for it for a little (or a big) while longer." - Engadget
Click to expand...

You know I just quoted that right?
 
newdeal said:
are you using hub as a fancy word for adaptor? I can see this as Apples dream come true...one connector and then they can sell 10 different $30 adaptors!
Click to expand...

No I'm using hub as a word for hub.
 
Light Peak would assumedly be still pretty good with copper, although Intel will have serious problems getting their 10 GBit/s transfer speeds. Furthermore, it should be trivial to make an optical to copper light peak adapter in the future.

The main problem with copper light peak (and the main advantage of optical light peak) is it will only have a very short range. The high frequency inductance over even short distances is going to be huge, which will mean it will eat power. Optical light peak doesn't have this problem.

Hopefully the copper light peak is just an internal thing to keep their development costs down, and Intel already have their optical adapter ready to bolt on the end to create the final product.
 
...

optical isn't needed right away anyway. The majority of devices that will hook up to it will be unable to utilize all the bandwidth anyway. No point in taking such a huge leap when copper will be cheaper and work just as well for current needs. Then they can upgrade to optical as needs increase
 
gianly1985 said:
AFAIK "Copper"Peak is more versatile because it's designed from scratch to be protocol independent (i.e. it's a "neutral" highway on which legacy protocols like USB, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, display port, HDMI, ecc. can "travel").

Lightpeak aims to replace every internal and external connection.

USB3 is just USB2.0 on steroids.

During the switching phase (from legacy to lightpeak) people could benefit from hubs like the ones depicted in these apple patents:

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...tion-of-magsafe-may-include-fiber-optics.html

6a0120a5580826970c013489a8ec61970c-800wi


6a0120a5580826970c0147e04ca253970b-800wi
Click to expand...

Wait, so would this make a one-plug "dock" finally possible on the Mac? i.e., the user could plug in one CopperPeak plug, and have their USB keyboard/mouse, DVI monitor, Ethernet, etc. all plugged into the hub? Because that's exciting enough on it's own, never mind the higher speeds and other benefits of the technology...
 
Demosthenes X said:
Wait, so would this make a one-plug "dock" finally possible on the Mac? i.e., the user could plug in one CopperPeak plug, and have their USB keyboard/mouse, DVI monitor, Ethernet, etc. all plugged into the hub? Because that's exciting enough on it's own, never mind the higher speeds and other benefits of the technology...
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly.
Eventually, or immediatly with Apple branded peripherals, you will also be able to daisy chain stuff, like plug the monitor to the mac, the keyboard to the monitor, the mouse to the keyboard, the ethernet to the monitor and so on.
 
i think Apple will wait to either early 2012 or late 2012 to implement this. i think they will redesign a brand new mbp and put this in as a new feature.
 
gianly1985 said:
7 years ago we had the technology to beam 10Gbps of data up to 15 meters over copper
It was just bigger and pricier.
7 years have passed, why people find it hard to believe the guys at Intel can get good near 10Gbps speeds over copper too.
Click to expand...

Optical Light Peak consists of two fibres, one for "upload" and the other for "download". One would assume that copper Light Peak would also feature two wires, one for each way. From a quick look, it appears 10 Gbit/s Ethernet has many more than 2 wires, which is why it can operate at such high speeds.

It's not a question of advancing technology, it's a fundamental limit of copper based purely on physics. It is, and will always be, difficult and power draining to transfer information quickly down a metal wire.
 
I'm okay with copper even if the speeds are down a little. Being kinda selfish here but as it is, there is little I would use that can saturate the 10Gbps bandwidth. Having said that, I would be annoyed if it turned out that we were given copper and will have to get a hardware upgrade to a "LightPeak 2.0" or something that uses optical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back