Intel didn't support FireWire either, but it didn't stop Apple from adding it to their computers.
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.
Notes of Interest on Thunderbolt and MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel didn't support FireWire either, but it didn't stop Apple from adding it to their computers.
Yeah.. haha I hear ya. I think that if the battery life is 7HRS.. with real-world testing.. than it should be more precise!
"ThunderPort" - I like that 
Misleading. Intel hasn't put USB3.0 into the chipset yet (next revision will have it in the chipset).
Intel, however, has USB 3.0 in all Intel manufactured desktop (ATX) motherboards for Sandy Bridge, and most of the Intel small-form-factor motherboards for Sandy Bridge.
That certainly shows that Intel believes that USB 3.0 is important.
That will be convenient and cheap - NOT.
Yes, especially since the ThunderBolt controller is quite large - it even requires a heat sink.
The USB 3.0 controller is quite tiny in comparison.
Misleading. Intel hasn't put USB3.0 into the chipset yet (next revision will have it in the chipset).
Intel, however, has USB 3.0 in all Intel manufactured desktop (ATX) motherboards for Sandy Bridge, and most of the Intel small-form-factor motherboards for Sandy Bridge.
That certainly shows that Intel believes that USB 3.0 is important.
That will be convenient and cheap - NOT.
Yes, especially since the ThunderBolt controller is quite large - it even requires a heat sink.
The USB 3.0 controller is quite tiny in comparison.
Last edited:
USB 3.0 appeared in late 2010 on Intel's latest X58 board revision. (The DX58SO was around for two years.) Intel is not providing the controllers for USB 3.0 on their own boards.
The heatsink on the TB controller is disconcerting. Oh and I do remember mentioning how large the TB controller is in comparison to USB 3.0 ones.
The heatsink on the TB controller is disconcerting. Oh and I do remember mentioning how large the TB controller is in comparison to USB 3.0 ones.
...but you didn't include visual aids.
Quite right. I should endeavor to be more thorough....but you didn't include visual aids.
So wait... Apple doesn't include USB3 because it's not on the chipset according to Steve Jobs, yet they use an external controller for "Thunderbolt" ? Double standards much ?
You saw the beating I took in the Galaxy Tab 10.1 thread did you.
His exact words :
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/31/steve-jobs-usb-3-not-taking-off-at-this-time/
The only thing people believe "no support at this time" can mean is that Intel isn't shipping a controller in the chipset since waiting for an external Intel branded controller doesn't make much sense if you're going to go external anyhow.
You don't remember that thread ?
You saw the beating I took in the Galaxy Tab 10.1 thread did you.
His exact words :
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/31/steve-jobs-usb-3-not-taking-off-at-this-time/
The only thing people believe "no support at this time" can mean is that Intel isn't shipping a controller in the chipset since waiting for an external Intel branded controller doesn't make much sense if you're going to go external anyhow.
You don't remember that thread ?
Yeah... So um Intel doesn't support firewire either...
Hey, don't dare say Steve Jobs has double standards or fibs or twists the truth! (no, I mean it, don't. They'll gang up on you).
On the subject of USB3/Thunderbolt - is it possible to add some sort of 'widget' that would provide USB3 capabilities over thunderbolt? from what I have heard thunderbolt is like an extension akin to a PCIe slot so in theory would that mean it is possible to create some sort of USB3 device to provide USB3 capabilities?
No problem. A $99 dongle only available from the Apple Store.
Or $199 for the powered dongle with the pass-through ThunderPort so that you can use your monitor too.
</joke>
At least I hope that it's a joke. Apple wouldn't charge a hundred dollars for a USB port, would they?
If there are people willing to pay $99 for one I wouldn't be surprised if they did charge for it - they'd probably sell it for $99, four port hub then sell a 'mobile' version which includes a battery inside for $299
When it comes to the protocol, would that be handled by the CPU or would the dongle itself require some sort of USB3->Thunderbolt controller?Edit: Mind you, if they got rid of all the USB ports, replaced them with two thunderbolt ones and sold the dongles separately they could simplify the board, reduce costs and make a few bucks on the side selling dongles by the dozen.
They sure as hell charged $100 for that ADC --> DVI adaptor. And $50 for a USB --> ethernet.
If there are people willing to pay $99 for one I wouldn't be surprised if they did charge for it - they'd probably sell it for $99, four port hub then sell a 'mobile' version which includes a battery inside for $299
Edit: Mind you, if they got rid of all the USB ports, replaced them with two thunderbolt ones and sold the dongles separately they could simplify the board, reduce costs and make a few bucks on the side selling dongles by the dozen.
If I am looking at the specs/images correctly every device will need a TB controller if it plugs directly into the TB pipe. So your USB3 (or whatever) hub would have to have a TB controller in it as well. I believe that is the same thing with FW. USB is cheaper because each device doesn't need the controller, only the host does.
Hello,
For a PCIe adapters, can they add a thunderbolt port on a graphic card ?
Is there enough "space" on a 16x PCIe lane of the graphic card to have good bandwidth for an external hard drive plug on the thunderbolt ?
So this way display port + pcie 4x on the same port will be respected.
Let's make those huge graphic card a little bigger
MM1st
For a PCIe adapters, can they add a thunderbolt port on a graphic card ?
Is there enough "space" on a 16x PCIe lane of the graphic card to have good bandwidth for an external hard drive plug on the thunderbolt ?
So this way display port + pcie 4x on the same port will be respected.
Let's make those huge graphic card a little bigger
MM1st
ThunderPort is a PCIe to PCIe bridge - so your USB 3.0 hub would need the Thunderbolt controller, a PCIe USB 3.0 controller, and two mDP ports (every dongle should support daisy-chaining, so two mDP needed).
Every Thunderbolt dongle or device needs to have a PCIe to whatever (eSATA, USB, GbE, 1394, SATA, RAID...) controller on it - or several in the case of a multi-function devices.
The bag manufacturers would love this too - a lot of demand for new laptop bags with lots of dongle and power brick pouches.
The truly stupid thing is that they could make that "dongle" internal and just run the USB bus for the entire computer off the Thunderbolt bus. If it's just a PCIe bus, it shouldn't be difficult (i.e. USB cards are usually pretty cheap and this only needs the chip). OTOH, they could just add a tiny USB3 chip and keep the bandwidth totally separate. But let's use outdated tech (USB2) instead to prop up support for a format that has no device support. Meanwhile, my USB3 drive has to run under USB2 speeds on my Macs.
If you think about it for a few seconds, that doesn't make much sense.
Why run PCIe lanes to a ThunderPort controller, run ThunderPort to another ThunderPort controller, then PCIe lanes to a USB 3.0 controller - all on the motherboard?
Just run the PCIe lanes to the USB 3.0 controller, like Intel and the others with USB 3.0 support do.
ThunderPort could have been named "ePCIe" - like SATA/eSATA, ThunderPort is just an external PCIe connection.
When you're right, you're right.
But USB 3.0 is a bag of hurt?
So what happens when the PCIe bus is updated and/or replaced in the future with something better? Can Thunderclap adapt to future bus changes or will it then become obsolete (i.e. being the PCIe bus in its current form)?