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

Intel Working to Boost Thunderbolt Speeds with Move to PCI-Express 3.0

Not surprising at all but you will probably be waiting until 2014 to allow the current market to saturate with peripherals. (That's the joke.)

PCI-SIG should have its own competitor out in hardware by then too.

Intel's mainstream platform will probably stick to the usual lane starved 16/20 configuration. DMI 2.0 does not appear to be getting a bump any time soon. Even on what we know of Haswell.
 
Kinda funny - it seems the current thunderbolt-equipped computers are going to be outdated before thunderbolt has even become widespread in terms of device adoption.
 
You know I've been getting by "just fine" on FW800 for quite some time. The jump from FW800 to USB3 will be greatly significant. I am basing all of this on the fact that Apple will implement in on the new iMacs.

With that said, of course I will eventually migrate over to TB, but when an equivalent TB external cost 5-6 times more than its USB counterpart, something tells me to wait a little longer, which is exactly what I'll do.

But cool news either way!
 
Liquinn said:
Two thousand pounds would be a lot to spend on a machine that could be out of date next month. :/
Click to expand...

Except your argument makes no sense.

The current thunderbolt technology is still ridiculously fast.
Plus, most thunderbolt-equppied-Mac users have probably never attached any sort of thunderbolt equipment.
 
osx11 said:
Except your argument makes no sense.

The current thunderbolt technology is still ridiculously fast.
Plus, most thunderbolt-equppied-Mac users have probably never attached any sort of thunderbolt equipment.
Click to expand...
I haven't - of course I have only had a mac with TB for about a month now...
 
Once again we're talking about fixing aspects that weren't broken (raw speed and encoding overhead) while ignoring the real issues (availability and cost) entirely. A few breakthroughs with inexpensive hardware using the current ThunderBlunder spec would do a lot more to make this port exciting than a speed boost or overhead reduction most average users would never notice.
 
Last edited:
Liquinn said:
Two thousand pounds would be a lot to spend on a machine that could be out of date next month. :/
Click to expand...

You can spend 2000 pounds now on a machine that might be out of date in a month. Or you can spend 2000 pounds at some point in the future on a machine that might be out of date in a mount. It doesn't matter when you buy, it will soon be out of date.
 
Tech product are obsolete soon

Liquinn said:
Two thousand pounds would be a lot to spend on a machine that could be out of date next month. :/
Click to expand...

Tech products are pretty much obsolete as soon as you open the box, if not sooner. The criteria for buying a tech product should be that it meets your needs and value requirements when you buy it. There will always be something cheaper / faster / better / more cool next month. That's just the way it is.
 
daxomni said:
Once again we're talking about fixing aspects that weren't even broken (speed) wile ignoring the real issues (availability and cost) entirely. A lot of inexpensive hardware that uses the current ThunderBlunder spec would do a lot more to make this port more exciting than a speed boost most people would never notice.
Click to expand...

Why would you want Intel to stop improving their products while they wait for other manufacturers to implement the design?
 
Don't care. There are not that many thunderbolt accessories out there and those that exist are too expensive. All I want is the next Macbook Pro to have USB 3.0 so I can get a $100 backup hard drive.
 
Laird Knox said:
Why would you want Intel to stop improving their products while they wait for other manufacturers to implement the design?
Click to expand...
Improving something that isn't broken while ignoring all of the actual weaknesses serves no purpose in my view. Focus should be on making the already speedy ThunderBlunder cheaper and easier to implement so that it gains enough devices and peripherals for the speed to actually become an issue at some point. You'd think this sort of common sense reasoning would be obvious.
 
Last edited:
why would you want an external graphics card?? seriously asking. would it work like an external HD?? just so you can have a better graphics card that inside the mac already or what?
 
daxomni said:
Improving something that isn't broken while ignoring all of the actual weaknesses serves no purpose in my view. Focus should be on making the already speedy ThunderBlunder cheaper and easier to implement so that it gains enough devices and peripherals for the speed to actually become an issue at some point. You'd think this sort of common sense reasoning would be obvious.
Click to expand...

New chipsets are smaller, more efficient and cheaper. Intel already has a roadmap, and various chipsets.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Plans-to-Release-Low-Cost-Thunderbolt-Controller-224376.shtml

So, maybe common sense reasoning at Intel is obvious after all, but it doesn't prevent anyone from searching on the internets, to you know, find that out before posting.
 
TMay said:
New chipsets are smaller, more efficient and cheaper. Intel already has a roadmap, and various chipsets.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Plans-to-Release-Low-Cost-Thunderbolt-Controller-224376.shtml

So, maybe common sense reasoning at Intel is obvious after all, but it doesn't prevent anyone from searching on the internets, to you know, find that out before posting.
Click to expand...
I do not believe the concern is in the controllers on the system logicboard any longer. It is now on the added expense to the peripherals.
 
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