firewire was also faster than usb, thats why we all have firewire now.... no wait...
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.
New MacBook Air Using Scaled-Down Thunderbolt Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
firewire was also faster than usb, thats why we all have firewire now.... no wait...
Pretty sure FW is still on every Mac being made (except the air which has zero ports anyway). Even the little Mac Mini gets it. In fact, they even tried to take it away from the Macbook and had to put it back in because too many people complained. FW800 is a lot more consistent than USB2; I don't see a basis for your argument... unless you're a PC user.
You think his argument isn't logical? As opposed to what? Apple choosing once again to focus on a technology that has a chance of being the industry standard while pretty much stifling its chances at the same time? Have you seen the price of the Thunderbolt cable on the Apple store? And the price of the current hardware? Its too much for too much for a lot of people. I'd like a faster interface than USB 2.0 that is more popular than Firewire. I'd happily take USB3 over Thunderbolt because in five years you'll probably end up paying a heftier premium on thunderbolt products than you do now on firewire products. USB 3 sounds wonderful at this point.
What good is a firewire port if you don't have any devices. All my friends, mac or pc, own usb devices (mouse, keyboard, webcams, memory sticks, readers, hard drives), not firewire. What good does a firewire hard drive if i can't bring it over to my PC friend.
I could see your point if Apple's choice was inferior. However, just like Thunderbolt is to USB 3.0, Firewire800 was/is superior to USB 2.0. The cables don't cost any more than USB and the drives are just as cheap. It's not even a proprietary solution. All of this is true with Thunderbolt, too. Sure, it's expensive right now but it has barely come out. In a couple of years it won't even be a discussion. There is definitely still a place for USB; it's useful for things like keyboards and mice and even little thumb drives that can't utilize the higher bandwidth. All the new macs still support that - that hasn't changed. The point is that as a primary bus, you want the fastest, most accommodating pipeline available. That's thunderbolt, not USB3. And I realize that it doesn't really exist in the PC market yet, but this is Mac rumors, not beige box rumors.
I just addressed this in my reply to the Ubuntu guy, but you don't need USB 3 for any of the stuff you just mentioned. And every Mac still ships with plenty of USB 2 ports, so you're just fine.
It has 2 x 10 Gbps instead of 4 x 10 Gbps, so yes half the bandwidth, but I am guessing you will have to push more than 20 Gbps to notice speed difference.
This chip would still, give full speed of the current generation of Thunderbolt, which is 10Gb/s if I'm not missing something here. Meaning that the chip in the other models have potential to deliver at higher speeds when that becomes available?
http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm
http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm
Macs will get USB3 when intel starts using it in their chipsets.
You're still going to need that displayport output anyway.. Why not make it thunderbolt?
Last edited by a moderator:
Drives are just as cheap? Where? I'd love to buy a Lacie FW800 for my Mac but I ended up buying a cheaper and larger USB 2.0 drive. TB is following the same path: it's a niche interface, but is it a killer solution comparing to USB 3? I mean in practical terms like transferring data from/to external backup storage. The current hard disk speeds would fit very well in USB 3. That would be enough for me and the majority of home users.
Last edited:
Anyone who currently has two monitors attached to a desktop PC, is someone who would similarly like to hang two monitors off a laptop.
It blows my mind they'd cripple the Air by not supporting two external screens, when it's probably the single biggest benefit Thunderbolt offers the average Apple laptop user.
Integrated Intel graphics in PC laptops could drive multiple 24" external displays 3+ years ago. Seems odd they couldn't do it today...
I have to say this is really disappointing news. I was planning on buying one until now, but a single external display is a showstopper.
How is it overrated if it's inherently superior. Thunderbolt is underrated at best.
I have always used two monitors on a desktop PC where possible, but with a laptop I find one external monitor plus the laptop display is pretty much equivalent. Especially if the external display is a 27" job!
Also, anyone who decides to replace a desktop PC with a laptop is probably going to be looking at a MacBook Pro, not an Air - although an Air + a Thunderbolt display looks like a potentially nice set-up.
Thunderbolt and USB3 are not even rivals really. Thunderbolt isn't a USB replacement: it is more a replacement for PCIe and ExpressCard slots. Heck, it may even become a way of adding USB3 to a Mac.
The first TB products have, unsurprisingly, been for high-end RAID arrays and video capture devices aimed at video professionals who, currently, are stuck with MacPros or 17" MBPs because they need to plug stuff into a PCIe or ExpressCard slot (Prediction: next release of 17" Macbook Pro to drop the ExpressCard slot and replace it with SD or maybe even a second TB).
The Apple Thunderbolt Display is an example of something else TB is good for (its a pity Apple didn't announce this alongside TB) - 27" display, USB Hub, Sound system, FW800 port, GB Ethernet port, Webcam and TB daisychain all through a single TB cable.
Sonnet have announced external TB boxes that can take PCIe cards (admittedly, not suitable for graphics cards that use multiple PCIe lanes).
I doubt that we'll ever see Thunderbolt mice, Thunderbolt memory sticks, Thunderbolt SD card readers - or even cheap, domestic Thunderbolt backup drives.
If TB is to be successful outside of the "pro" arena, we'll need to see more "docking station" type products (a box with FW800, USB, Ethernet, eSata without having to buy a Cinema Display would be nice).
Sonnet is designed for graphics cards
Actually, the Sonnet Echo Express *is* suitable and designed for graphics cards - the full length model even has 150w and the auxiliary power connector for PCIe x16 graphics cards that need supplemental power.
There are PCIe x1 graphics cards on the market - these are fine for many tasks that just need more screen real-estate or 2D graphics.
What it wouldn't be suitable for is heavy 3D gaming or work that requires massive transfers of textures between main RAM and the VRAM. It would be fine for driving extra displays for added real estate. Depending on the ratio of GPU load and memory bandwidth, it may even be suitable for CUDA or other GPGPU loads.
It would also be a big upgrade from the integrated graphics - even on a PCIe x4 link.
Agree completely with your other two comments - no TBolt mice and the future is TBolt breakout boxes. (In fact, the Sonnet boxes are do-it-yourself breakout boxes, but you'll quickly run out of daisy chain room with them.)
Actually, the Sonnet Echo Express *is* suitable and designed for graphics cards - the full length model even has 150w and the auxiliary power connector for PCIe x16 graphics cards that need supplemental power.
There are PCIe x1 graphics cards on the market - these are fine for many tasks that just need more screen real-estate or 2D graphics.
What it wouldn't be suitable for is heavy 3D gaming or work that requires massive transfers of textures between main RAM and the VRAM. It would be fine for driving extra displays for added real estate. Depending on the ratio of GPU load and memory bandwidth, it may even be suitable for CUDA or other GPGPU loads.
It would also be a big upgrade from the integrated graphics - even on a PCIe x4 link.
Agree completely with your other two comments - no TBolt mice and the future is TBolt breakout boxes. (In fact, the Sonnet boxes are do-it-yourself breakout boxes, but you'll quickly run out of daisy chain room with them.)
Last edited:
I don't know why people tell you you're spot on when this quip is completely wrong. 10 year old GPUs with much less VRAM can handle multi-monitor support, the MBA absolutely can.
They'd then have a total of three displays, what you said speaks to my point that it's a reasonable compromise given the size of the Air, even if choosing the lesser ThunderBolt chip is a matter of cutting cost and not because of technical constraints, since most people accept a total of two displays as being enough.
Seriously, you are so right. I was fortunate and by the luck of the draw got the faster Samsung SSD on my refreshed MacBook Air. All of us who bought the refreshed MBAs are screwed though. Less capability than a freaking Mac Mini? Really? What bad tricks Apple is playing on its customers. What next? As a fanboy, I'm beginning to think that Apple is becoming rotten to the core.
The Intel HD graphics in the Air does indeed have dual monitor support.
However, what you are proposing is one internal display + two external monitors = three displays. Intel HD graphics does not support that - see http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-031040.htm#11
(...and while that link talks of physically connecting 3 and only having two active, that's the sort of trick you can pull on a system with multiple connectors for HDMI/VGA etc. its unclear whether the two active monitors could both be DisplayPort)
The same is true of the 13" MacBookPro which also relies on Intel's on-chip graphics (I haven't seen any reports of that having the 'lite' thunderbolt controller). The 15" and 17" MBPs can support 3 displays because they have a Radeon discrete graphics chip.
Also, the only monitor that currently supports Thunderbolt/DisplayPort daisy-chaining is the 27" 2560x1440 running one of those plus the internal display is probably more than enough for the HD graphics.