Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No, the physical properties like the capacitance, the inductance and the resistance of a conductor limit the bandwith.

I'm not talking about theortectical thought exercises. I'm talking about dealing with real engineering problems with the components you actually have to work with.

If you have a CPU package with a 38 PCI-e lanes coning in each with 2Gbps of bandwidth then you cannot connect 200Gpbs of bandwidth to that box and expect performance. The transmission speed of the material connected to the outside of the box has zero impact on improving the internal bandwidth of the box.

Light Peaks controller/router puts the external singals onto the same internal electronic based buses/networks that the rest of the components are hooked to.


It does make more sense to transmit >5Gbps data over optical externally over relatively longer distances (as opposed to that betweeen CPU and GPU ). There is all kinds of problems that introduces that want to avoid. However, internally over relatively short distances neither Intel nor AMD (or any other high end CPU implementer) is giving up on electronic connection for the next several years. Interconnect between boxes ... yes that is going fiber ... Interconnect between boards (already done in high end mainframes IBM just dropped). However, that is because aggregating traffic between many CPUs/GPUs and transporting over a general service interconnect. Aggregating several slower speed data streams creates a bigger one to transport. that says and does nothing to improve the internal speeds of the sources/targets that network transports to.

Likewise 10Gbps is good at hiding the latency if increase the distances. So can put a PCI-e expander box outside the the box with a LP connector with a bridge chip in it. You connect the bridge to the internal PCI-e network with LP. That does not increase bandwidth. Having 18 PCI-e slots arranged in a tiered network doesn't not increase the total bandwidth inside the box. It means can have higher number of slower connections (that do not use all of the bandwidth on a PCI-e lane), not faster ones.

So for example could have LP from a iMac out to a external PCI-e expander box. That will not solve the problem of hooking the lastest 16x PCI-e v2 card to your iMac. You could stick in some 2x, 1x cards but any high bandwidth card will run right into the bottlenck wall. LP doesn't do jack to solve that.
 
Last edited:
I did work since mid-2007 on Light Peak ideas. The project is much older and comes from Intels labs. Intel wanted to replace the internal copper/silver/gold based bus systems/conductors (like you find them on so called motherboards), because the required bandwith in the future could not be achieved with the old electron based technology. Photons are not dependend on the capacitance, inductance or resistance of a metal conductor. This is the idea behind Light Bus, or later the easier and external version called Light Peak. Intel works already on Light Bus under a different code name. What that means is, that you will see motherboards without copper/silver/gold conductors in the next 10-20 years.

You hear about graphene? Rather new, the two physicists that discovered it each won a Nobel Prize. An atom thick, 200X stronger than steel, and electrons travel 100X faster in it, expect it to replace silicon in the future among many other uses.
 
At least this promises significant performance gains, rather than being a differently-shaped plug.

The USB 3 plug is identical to the USB 2 one on the computer side. It's only differently shaped on the peripheral side. And it can be 10 times faster than USB 2, which is significant.

LightPeak is expected to be far superior, though, and perhaps more expensive, too.
 
Maybe Apple will hold back the next MacBook Pro update for LP, flash storage, and sandy bridge. Once these three gets incorporated into MBPs, it'll be the ultimate dream machine for many.
 
I can see a Light Peak to USB 3, FW 400 & 800, Gbit Ethernet, mini-display port, VGA, SD/XD/CF card super hub coming to our shelves soon.

P.S. I also reeeeally want to see Light Peak in the next MBP. And I want it soon.
 
Last edited:
114610-light_peak_banner.jpg


Am i the only one who thinks this image is super sexy?
 
As I recall, Apple backed blu-ray as well. We see how well that went.

This would be awesome to see, though.

Some things to note:

1) Apple didn't invent Blu-Ray like they did LightPeak, Sony did.
2) Just because Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray drives in their machines doesn't mean they don't like the technology.

:apple:
 
This port should usher in very high performance and low cost for neworking, storage attachment, clustering and new or uncommon uses. Consider this, if each new Mac came with two Lightpeak ports you could have one port dedicated as a clustering port and another for storage or external networking. BOOM, Apple instantly becomes the leading hardware manufacture for scientific computing, database servers and other uses where tightly coupled and quickly communicating hardware is required.

When it comes right down to it I don't think anybody at Apple or Intel see Light Peak's strong suit . . .

I doubt they see the I/O opportunities as we do. Apple has ALWAYS been I/O crippled. I wish they did. I also wish they allowed "unlimited multi-homing" (max carriers at once). They will be "unlocked" won't they?

Rocketman
 
Some things to note:

1) Apple didn't invent Blu-Ray like they did LightPeak, Sony did.
2) Just because Apple doesn't have Blu-Ray drives in their machines doesn't mean they don't like the technology.

:apple:

Well, obviously Apple did not invent Light Peak. It's an Intel invention and Apple has nothing to do with it (except that they might eventually use it like everybody else).
 
light peak early 2011 could be true but the price of course would still be too high, projecting 2 years after the launch it would be more okay for the wallet. :p
 
My god I hope not. Rarely does mixing, matching and translating protocols work very well.

If you read any of the articles about Light Peak, you will find that one of its key features by design is to be able to pass through many other protocols, specifically including USB & FW. I think we can take it that there most certainly will be a USB hub for Light Peak and that it will work well.
 
:confused: in the OP it states that Apple was key in the development of LP.

This whole article referenced in OP is probably bogus. It's a blog post on CNET referring to unnamed sources. What's funny is that the same author (Brooke Crothers) wrote the following on CNET in 2009:

Industry sources are refuting a report claiming that a future fiber-optics technology was an Apple idea that was brought to Intel.

Light Peak was an Intel Labs project that the chipmaker was working on before anyone was thinking of using it, according to industry sources close to the issue.


It would appear that the guy's sources are very confused :p
 
This whole article referenced in OP is probably bogus. It's a blog post on CNET referring to unnamed sources. What's funny is that the same author (Brooke Crothers) wrote the following on CNET in 2009:

Industry sources are refuting a report claiming that a future fiber-optics technology was an Apple idea that was brought to Intel.

Light Peak was an Intel Labs project that the chipmaker was working on before anyone was thinking of using it, according to industry sources close to the issue.


It would appear that the guy's sources are very confused :p

Excellent detective work. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :) (note to Arn, we need a thumbs up emoticon)
 
114610-light_peak_banner.jpg


Am i the only one who thinks this image is super sexy?

Reminds me of PC light bomb cases. Used to be a fan back in my PC days but now can't stand the ****. I think you like it because it sparks excitement :) And I don't think you would be the only one to think that hehe
 
If you read any of the articles about Light Peak, you will find that one of its key features by design is to be able to pass through many other protocols, specifically including USB & FW. I think we can take it that there most certainly will be a USB hub for Light Peak and that it will work well.


Assuming it can use the same protocols as USB here is a little guess of what will happen. In the video it looked as if the Light Peak port was shaped much like a USB port. I will put two and two together and say that Light Peak will be USB (hopefully 3) capable, even without an adapter. Maybe that is why Intel is taking so long to adopt USB3?????
 
Maybe Apple will hold back the next MacBook Pro update for LP, flash storage, and sandy bridge. Once these three gets incorporated into MBPs, it'll be the ultimate dream machine for many.

I agree that will be ultimate!! im actually waiting to see what the next mpb upgrade will be.
 
If LightPeak is really going to replace USB, then I don't see it happening that there will be USB ports next to LightPeak ports.

In my opinion, it will only work out when all ports that LightPeak is able to replace, replaces.

As an example:
attachment.php

Source image: another thread in MacRumors
The only problem I see is that you have included 4 LP ports in the mock up. You know for a fact if 4 ports is what you and I would like to see on a MBP, then Apple will most likely only include 2. ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.