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

Light Peak Ready for Implementation on Copper, Not Yet on Fiber Optic

M

Marx55

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 1, 2005
1,989
819
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/light-peak-ready-for-implementation-on-copper-not-yet-on-fiber-optic/
I thought I had just read (yesterday or the day before) that an Intel engineer said Light Peak wouldn't be ready till sometime later this year. Maybe I misread something?
 
FX120 said:
But it's based on copper, not optical fiber.
Click to expand...

Yep, if true... it's gonna be a mess. Are the plugs going to be interchangeable (copper/optical fibre). Can you buy a LP peripheral today with the copper cable, and then "upgrade" to the optical fibre cable when it's ready?

Will computers ship with ports that will support both the copper and optical cables, or will there be LPv1 (older, slower, copper) and then LPv2 which is what was promised....

Questions Questions.... I suppose all will be made known in due time....
 
Light Peak Ready for Implementation on Copper, Not Yet on Fiber Optic




140549-light_peak_neon.jpg


We've been following Intel's work on its "Light Peak" computer connection standard from some time now, watching as the company has been demonstrating connectivity promising speeds of 10 Gbps over fiber optic cables, with the possibility of extending the technology to 100 Gbps transfer speeds in the future. Rumors have pegged Apple as being likely to be at the forefront of Light Peak adoption, and several Intel demonstrations using Mac hardware have fueled interest in the technology on the part of Mac users.

As reported by IDG News Service, Intel announced at CES last Friday that Light Peak is in fact ready for implementation, with the major caveat being that the standard is initially being deployed over copper wiring instead of fiber optics.
"The copper came out very good, surprisingly better than what we thought," Perlmutter said. "Optical is always a new technology which is more expensive," he added.

Perlmutter declined to comment on when devices using Light Peak would reach store shelves, saying shipment depended on device makers. Intel has in the past said that devices with Light Peak technology would start shipping in late 2010 or early this year.
Click to expand...
There has been some question about whether sticking with copper over fiber optics for the initial implementation will result in a speed reduction, but PCMag reports that Intel has been able to hit 10 Gbps over copper, buying it time to continue to refine the fiber optic implementations as it looks forward to 100 Gbps.
Although data transmission speeds will reach higher levels with fiber-optic cabling - including a proposed scale of up to 100 gigabits per second within a decade - the reality on the ground is that optical cabling is quite expensive compared to copper. Intel tipsters have indicated that the company will still be able to hit its initial target of 10 gigabits per second using copper cabling which, itself, will be more than adequate for the typical short connection lengths needed by computer consumers.
Click to expand...
The initial 10 Gbps implementation of Light Peak offers over twice the theoretical speed of USB 3.0, which itself is still in the early stages of rolling out. The two standards are not necessarily incompatible, however, as USB and other protocols could run on top of Light Peak cabling, offering increased speed and flexibility while maintaining compatibility.

Article Link: Light Peak Ready for Implementation on Copper, Not Yet on Fiber Optic
 
talkingfuture said:
This confused me when I read about, I thought the point of lightpeak was that it was optical, I didn't even know they could substitute in copper.
Click to expand...

Optical fiber is still very expensive, so it would mean the technology would never make it much at first.

Also, the whole fiber optics part is for long data transmission lines where copper proves to be useless or very expensive to maintain.

Inside a computer, copper works fine, for now.
 
Heck, 10gbps. I'd LOVE that! I see a lot of good coming from this if it gets adopted widely enough.
 
2011 will be the yr of the single port MBP (not including magsafe) with a lightpeak dock offering numerous USB 3.0 ports, triple FW800, eSATA, twin ethernet, optical in/out, hdmi and displayport.
 
Looks like a DOA thing

As I understand, any real implementation would have to use two controllers: LightPeak and the data protocol (USB 3.0 or something). That's two chips instead of one (compared to regular USB 3.0). Then 10Gbps is probably a raw speed. Most likely there will be some overhead when data transfer protocol is using LightPeak. So it's not clear if USB over Light Peak will be any faster than regular USB 3.0. The speed bump cmopared to USB 3.0 clearly is not sufficient for computer manufacturers to venture into this thing when USB 3.0 is already tested and gained market acceptance.
 
jav6454 said:
Copper = cheaper

I am not surprised.
Click to expand...

Neither am I. Copper is a logical move from Intel if they want LP to be more than just geeks' wet dream. Fiber might have made it too expensive to be used in mainstream computers (such as Macs, excluding Mac Pro), so in order to make LP affordable by normal people, they had to use copper.

I would rather take 30$ "Copper Peak" @10Gb/s than 800$ "Fiber Peak" @10Gb/s.
 
Copper wires are also far more versatile than optical cabling. You could fold a copper wire in half or stuff it into a cavity somewhere, without any problems. With optical wire you need to be careful about the minimum radius you allow it to curve at, or risk breaking it.
 
notjustjay said:
Copper wires are also far more versatile than optical cabling. You could fold a copper wire in half or stuff it into a cavity somewhere, without any problems. With optical wire you need to be careful about the minimum radius you allow it to curve at, or risk breaking it.
Click to expand...

Wrong... Ethernet cables don't fancy being bent or stuck in some cavity. They also break.
 
Have they addressed the power flaw in lightpeak yet? (I.E It has none.)

I'm all for Light peak - its fast. But without power it halves its usefulness. A portable hard drive requires a power over usb. It'd be pointless to use light peak and have a second cable plugged into a USB socket to get power to the device.

Surely if they plan to roll it out on copper it would be wise to use it for standard 5v power like USB does? Even intel said they wanted to use copper along side the fibre to get power to the device.

As much as we all want 10 or 100 gbps, the technology doesn't feel ready. They seem to be skimping on the important parts just to get it to market as quick as possible :/
 
Hey this is my story I posted!

Glad to see they do take member's input though ;)
 
jav6454 said:
Optical fiber is still very expensive, so it would mean the technology would never make it much at first.

Also, the whole fiber optics part is for long data transmission lines where copper proves to be useless or very expensive to maintain.

Inside a computer, copper works fine, for now.
Click to expand...

Or where copper can't deliver the speed. There's a story now running in the main news that states this further.
 
rmwebs said:
Have they addressed the power flaw in lightpeak yet? (I.E It has none.)

I'm all for Light peak - its fast. But without power it halves its usefulness. A portable hard drive requires a power over usb. It'd be pointless to use light peak and have a second cable plugged into a USB socket to get power to the device.

Surely if they plan to roll it out on copper it would be wise to use it for standard 5v power like USB does? Even intel said they wanted to use copper along side the fibre to get power to the device.

As much as we all want 10 or 100 gbps, the technology doesn't feel ready. They seem to be skimping on the important parts just to get it to market as quick as possible :/
Click to expand...

They'll most likely have the optical fibers running, and on the side, two copper wires to carry the voltage and current necessary to power in spec devices.
 
How many Volts and how many Amps can Light Peak deliver? No matter how fast a cable is, if it can't power a hard drive at 7200 RPM, it's pointless! That's the problem with USB, it delivers so little power (5 volts and 500mA I think) that any hard drive you connect to it is either slow or requires a bulky power adapter. I think that in the future, portable hard drives should not require separate power adapters to run fast.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I intend to buy a new Mac - probably an iMac - to finally replace my old and crawling G4 tower. I think I may hold out for the next release with the prospect of Sandy Bridge, but is this something else I should be waiting for?
 
baryon said:
How many Volts and how many Amps can Light Peak deliver? No matter how fast a cable is, if it can't power a hard drive at 7200 RPM, it's pointless! That's the problem with USB, it delivers so little power (5 volts and 500mA I think) that any hard drive you connect to it is either slow or requires a bulky power adapter. I think that in the future, portable hard drives should not require separate power adapters to run fast.
Click to expand...

I agree...I'd like to see 12v as standard. This would be sufficient to power both portable and desktop hard drives without a plethora of power bricks stacked around the desk!
 
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