You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Shares Additional Details on 20Gbps 'Thunderbolt 2'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You realize that this holdup is due to Intel not having currently available Xeon-based processor chipsets that can support Thunderbolt, right?
I feel it's important to mention, in such threads...
Thunderbolt is really mostly oriented at pro users. If you don't use it, big whoop. Most people don't use a fraction of the power their computers offer. For the folks who need it, it's a Good Thing, and not "overpriced," in that Thunderbolt peripherals are actually pretty reasonably priced, compared with PCIe alternatives.
Used to be a day, people really liked the fact that Macs were a "Pro" platform. I guess now that Apple is all hip and trendy, people just want to moan about everything. And ironically, the casual users moan about Thunderbolt being there, and the "Pros" moan about the platform not being "Pro" enough.
If you're a "pro user" you aren't using desktop attached storage.
And if you're solely using thunderbolt for secondary or tertiary displays, who cares? This problem was already solved decades ago. So what, you only one cable, who CARES?
Yup, I do. They could announce new systems with availability down the road. Intel has not made any official statement on the next Xeon based chips, could be the Fall, sooner or later. Perhaps Apple may offer more BTO options/processors (doubtful). Until official releases and announcements are made, it's anyone's guess.
It should be even more embarrassing that the Mac Pros don't even have USB 3.0 !!!! Quite pathetic.
Not necessarily true. As a film editor, I need quite a bit of space. My current gen 12-Core pro is maxed out, 2x8 TB's internal SATA II drives and a 256GB SSD drive under my LG Blu-Ray optical. Thunderbolt would allow:
- a smaller form factor
- daisy chaining external drives/drives
- faster, bi-directional transfers for HD/4K video
- Placing the system in a ventilated closet or a few in another room, with a single Thunderbolt cable leading to (a) workstation(s) for HID's, displays, etc.
Apple chose to implement Thunderbolt in less expensive portables as a replacement for FireWire for many reasons. Showcasing it in consumer systems introduces a generally unknown tech to a larger demographic while pushing third party device manufacturers towards Thunderbolts external devices. Consumer awareness is crucial. As a bi-directional system, it carries a myriad of signals (video, audio, data, you name it), thus eliminating the need for FireWire, eSATA, even USB, allowing for slimmer and more efficient systems.
----------
Yup. Thankfully CalDigit has had a PCIe USB 3.0 card, I've had one running in my Mac Pro for a while. Still doesn't excuse USB 2.0, SATA II, Bluetooth 2.1+ as "current" hardware in a $2499+ system, along with no HDMI, Thunderbolt and/or eSATA connections.
Last edited:
Great, will a cable actually come with the computer this time?!
----------
Target Disk Mode, if you have a cable and another computer with TB. You could also use it to make a really fast ad-hoc wired network between computers. Other than that, there are ripoff hubs and external storage arrays for the few who need them. It needs expansion, like cheap hubs.
----------
You get 4 eSATA hard drive slots on a Mac Pro. Pros with a need for a lot of storage will need an external storage array, and eSATA isn't fast enough to connect the array to the computer.
----------
Target Disk Mode, if you have a cable and another computer with TB. You could also use it to make a really fast ad-hoc wired network between computers. Other than that, there are ripoff hubs and external storage arrays for the few who need them. It needs expansion, like cheap hubs.
----------
You get 4 eSATA hard drive slots on a Mac Pro. Pros with a need for a lot of storage will need an external storage array, and eSATA isn't fast enough to connect the array to the computer.
i'm intrigued to see what they do here...
in order to get thunderbolt into the mac pro, they'll need to either a) use consumer haswell CPUs like the new i7 4770k that have integrated video which will piss a lot of people off because they're not workstation hardware or b) use xeon or sandy bridge-e CPUs and build something crafty to reroute thunderbolt video to the video card which will piss people off just as much because they're yet again using old hardware.
there's also a fantasy c) scenario, where they've made a deal with intel to make new ivy bridge-e CPUs with integrated video for Apple's exclusive use, in which case the whole thing would be absurdly expensive
they're basically screwed every which way, i'm surprised they just didn't axe it altogether
It's more embarrassing that there is no TB since it's marketed as a pro feature, and the pro Mac doesn't have it! It should also have USB 3.0. I still haven't run into anything that uses either USB 3.0 or TB besides the Apple TB display.
----------
Can't they go with choice b? There are new Xeon processors available.
Last edited:
Thunderbolt is diplayport and pcie, why would the re-route need to be more crafty than to a regular display port socket?
I'm so tempted as I've built many systems running OS X. If Apple drops the ball on a revamped Mac Pro, I'm either selling my 12-Core or gutting the components and replacing them with current/power system tech.
Why on earth would you think Apple would introduce a new Mac Pro *without* Thunderbolt? It simply will not happen. Either they replace the Mac Pro with an entirely new line, or they refresh it, but it's going to have Thunderbolt, and possibly in spades. Count on that. But don't count on a new line until Fall at the earliest. I don't expect you'll see anything until Ivy Bridge-E ships.
Why doesn't Intel make any? Thunderbolt is their project, too, and Xeon is their professional CPU.
God I hope you're right. Sadly, many of us have been discussing the lack of a Xeon based Thunderbolt processor(s). We don't know when or if Intel will release them. If they do, it won't be until next year. Since the Mac Pro uses server grade Xeon processors, only Ivy Bridge-E would be possible at the moment and that lacks Thunderbolt.
Lightpeak was not targeted for power systems/users. Intel vision was essentially 1 cable/connection to rule them all over optical with support for multiple protocols. They wanted it in consumer devices, pro devices, everything you name it.
They even demoed it using a pcie add on card. You can find it on youtube.
Somewhere along the line things changed. We'll probably never find out the reasons. one of them was that the USB forum didn't like intel messing with the specs, but that's just the connector portion.
Optical became copper(though they claim they're still working on optical) and pcie addon card was dropped requiring whole new systems for everyone.
No one knows. Perhaps due to more consumer demand in less expensive systems, or some other factor making it difficult for Intel to produce the processors. Until official news/press releases, it's a guessing game.
----------
It was developed using Mac Pro's with the PCIe cards coming later, with fiber optic cables being replaced with copper as fiber optic cables were prohibitively expensive (this also produced sub-optimal "LightPeak" transfer rates).
Can someone explain why this is the case? A thunderbolt controller is a separate chip from the CPU, why would it be tied to specific CPUs?
I called Apple's retina math faux science, not the pixel doubling. They simplified something for marketing purposes and passed it off as science. Then of course many people on here parroted Apple's distance equation.
Displayport standards aren't exactly set by Apple. Deviating from that means custom chip fabrication, custom cables, whatever R&D testing, custom panel resolution, and gpu drivers that support the resolution. I don't see all of that happening for an imac. If desktop panels beyond 4k started to trickle out, that would make more sense to me. I could see something other than 27", unscaled at 4k, as the smaller icons wouldn't be too bad on the imac. What I suggested before was that 1080 doubled is probably a possibility. That would make things larger, but one way or the other might be within a scale Apple would accept. I can't see them employing a crazy amount of work just to stick to pixel doubling. They have changed sizes and aspect ratios in the past, so it wouldn't be anything new.
I don't think they ever passed it off as science, no faux papers where published etc.