Thunderbolt Cable Teardown Reveals Electronics and Firmware

[cmaier]

There was a company in late 2009 who made a general purpose optical processor, they said scaling it for mass production wasn't difficult. It was running sort of 17,000Ghz but doing simple things - with that speed does it matter if it is a 6502 clone?!? )

Anyway, gallium arsenide CPUs still use silicon and optical will have I/O restrictions* however if there is going to be this sudden lift above the 3.4Ghz barrier then I/O is key and I am glad Intel are thinking ahead.
!

As one of the few people in the world to have actually designed and built a gallium arsenide CPU, I assure you they do not use silicon.

They use gallium arsenide. Hence they are "gallium arsenide CPUs."

 

[fattire357]

There is no way that with a microchip being required in the cable that this will be affordable anytime soon.

Huge mistake on Apple's part to have such early adoption... people will look at this as being really stupid.

 

[Peteman100]

I'd pay $50 for a cable right now if there were peripherals that I could use it with....

 

[cult hero]

I want one of those damn breakout hubs with EVERYTHING. USB 3.0, FireWire 800, sound, video, ethernet, SATA, etc.

And I'll gladly pay $50 for the cable and $100 for the box.

I know they're aiming for "high end" devices, but really... I want the hub. I'll probably switch to a next gen MacBook Air as soon as one of those are available.

 

[AaronEdwards]

This is why Apple is pushing Thunderbolt. Even in it's first incarnation it is an insane amount of overkill. It will not be quickly obsolesced.

Right now it's too expensive so no one else but Apple is going to use it.
Question is, when it gets cheap enough, what will it compete with then?

 

[ChrisA]

For most of us, the way we will use Thunderbolt is to buy a TB to firewire or TB to eSATA or TB to USB3. We will not but TB disk arrys. We will buy cheap eSATA and adapt them to TB port

An adaptor will be a dongle like device and not need the transciever chips

 

[mattraehl]

I want one of those damn breakout hubs with EVERYTHING. USB 3.0, FireWire 800, sound, video, ethernet, SATA, etc.

And I'll gladly pay $50 for the cable and $100 for the box.

I know they're aiming for "high end" devices, but really... I want the hub. I'll probably switch to a next gen MacBook Air as soon as one of those are available.

My prediction is that a USB3 + eSATA breakout box will be the #1 selling TB peripheral. The hypothetical versatility of TB is great and all, but right now I'd rather just be able to use an affordable USB3 or eSATA enclosure. Kind of annoying to have a super-star port that I will just end up using to get things that should have been put on my computer in the first place. The reality is that right now the best external port I have for connecting storage is FW800, and FW800 enclosures cost MORE than superior eSATA and USB3 devices. Oh well.

ETA: I'll change my tune if we ever see a SATA enclosure with a TB port on it for under $50, but I really don't think that will ever happen.

 

[Peteman100]

A simple Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 hub would be enough for me. The two of those make the rest unnecessary.

 

[snowmen]

Look at Sony Vaio Z...

I really wish MB/MBA/MBP13 can do the same!

The external graphic card will be a good choice when I have my laptop home and I want to do some gaming...

 

[Minority_taxi]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

there's something I don't really understand. Does that mean that my thunderbolt port in my MBP supports optical connection (assuming and when they become available??) or NOT?

Sorta. There's nothing optical about your MBP's ThunderBolt port. What they're referencing is a comment from someone at Intel indicating that when they do start to use optical cables for ThunderBolt, the cables can or will use normal, non-optical connectors on the ends, and the components needed to translate to and from an optical signal will be on the cable itself -- not on the devices.

So, theoretically we could have fibre TB cables working at even higher data rates now but the don't wanna make them? If people in home theatre land are sucked in to buying $200 plus HDMI leads then surely they won't mind a $100 plus fibre lead.

I for one would buy a fibre lead up to $200 if I had 100gb rate of transfer between Mac and drive/card reader.

No. The signalling on copper cables is not the only limiting factor: the whole ThunderBolt system has a limited amount of bandwidth assigned to it (a certain number of PCI-Express lanes) by the system's chipset, and these potential optical cables would still be connected via an electrical mini-DisplayPort style connector on either end, and the deployed circuitry for those might also have some limitations.

The only difference such an optical cable is likely to make for current ThunderBolt-enabled machines is that optical cables can be much longer. It might also help push them closer to the current limits of the spec, but that's all.

The other point is that there might come a day when devices are using a newer, faster version of ThunderBolt, that requires the cables use optical signaling to achieve higher data rates. If Intel sticks to its plan, what this means is that you'd be able to connect a newer optical-required-for-full-speed device to a device from today, and they could still communicate, but you'd be limited to today's speeds.

So, basically the same as every other backwards-compatible bus connector that's ever been made.

Neither ThunderBolt nor fibre are magic. They won't be able to make your computer suddenly faster several years from now when next-gen ThunderBolt devices start to appear.

So in a sense, the optical cables that could come out are no different really then an optical-coax convertor already used in network conversions?

So new optical cables connected into existing TB devices will increase the speed/data transfer rate? Or not.

Cc

 

[lostngone]

chip cost is only half...

The chip cost is only half the problem. If these chips have licensed firmware on them you might be able to get the chips/parts cheap but the manufactures are going to have to pay the licensing cost for use of the firmware.

 

[spacepower7]

There is no way that with a microchip being required in the cable that this will be affordable anytime soon.

Huge mistake on Apple's part to have such early adoption... people will look at this as being really stupid.

FireWire Gear was sold at a premium, and Mac users were rocking 40MB/s transfer rates while PC users were stuck with USB 1.1.

Huge mistake for Apple to be an early adopter? Should we wait for Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, and all those innovative PC companies to adopt it? Then we'd be waiting forever.

Those companies still sell computers with VGA ports instead of a combo DVI/analog port like two of my Macs in 2003. With a $20 adapter you can use VGA or DVI, but that would be too confusing and expensive for PC users, so just keep shipping VGA

Maybe Apple should have not been an early adopter with touch screens, then there wouldn't be iPhones, iPads, or most of the android phones that exist

Nobody said that thunderbolt was a consumer product, though you might have assumed it. Like most tech, it's expensive for the first few years until it trickles down from the Pro to consumer markets.

Most hard drive companies still charge $30 or more premium for a hard drive with a FireWire 400 port even though that technology has been in the market since 1999.

Thunderbolt is also going to have a premium cost for years to come. Once the 2012 Macs have USB 3, most consumers ( Mac and PC ) will never buy anything thunderbolt unless they have to, ie intel puts it in every chipset and apple puts it in their iOS devices. But that's at least 4-5 years away.

Thunderbolt is useless in the present for everyone but pros and prosumers ie they need it for work or they are tech enthusiasts. The main products for thunderbolt for the foreseeable future are RAID Arrays and converters to fibre channel, another professional interface.

Thunderbolt will not be standard on all intel chipsets until at least 2013. Consider that most computers are more powerful than their users' needs, and that the consumer PC replacement cycle is slowing down due to this power, along with substitutes such as smart phones and tablets. Therefore I don't expect to see the majority of hard drives on Best Buy shelves using Thunderbolt until at least 2015.

I hope I'm wrong but as the VGA example above proves, most of the computer industry is conservative.

 

[orisonmarden]

I'm still not convince that this is worth $50! Look at the iPod Shuffle it has more chips and has a memory inside. Those chips are probably added to make us believe that Apple should sell this for $50. That Intel Light Peak demo showed on IDF back in 2009 is just a regular cable as far as I could remember.

very very bad analogy.

TB is totally different technology. U never give a comparation between them.

 

[skier777]

There is no way that with a microchip being required in the cable that this will be affordable anytime soon.

Huge mistake on Apple's part to have such early adoption... people will look at this as being really stupid.

Right and Wrong.
No it wont be affordable for a while. Its been almost 10 years since the release of IEEE1394 FireWire 800 yet you still pay a fair bit extra for devices that support this. A firewire 800 cable on the apple store is 39.99.
Someone has to adopt it. True, its not a consumer product yet, but they have captured a pro market and I bet a lot of people who do video editing ARE running out to buy one.

 

[skier777]

Nine year old technology: http://store.apple.com/us/product/TP319LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY

Only 10bucks cheaper than one day old technology:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC913ZM/A?fnode=MTY1NDA3Ng&mco=MjMwNDM0NjI

 

[baryon]

That explains the price. I still don't care. Too expensive for a freaking cable. I thought the future was about making things easier, simpler and cheaper, instead of more complicated and more expensive.

Instead of just thinking about speed they should also be thinking about easy adoption, price and compatibility.

By the way: "Yo dawg, we herd u like computers so we put a computer in your cable that you can plug into your computer, so you can compute while you compute!"

So I wonder how USB 3.0 works now, I bet it has no chip inside. I'm guessing Apple will be forced to adopt that too eventually, as they realize that every new device will support it. Or Apple won't support it ever, and it's just going to be a mess.

 

[iMikeT]

Depending on what you mean by short-term, yes. I mean, single-drive non-RAID ThunderBolt enclosures don't even exist yet. (In-market.)

Also… $110? Look at one of these: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MEP944FW8EU2/

This is what I meant: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...uting_OWCMEPQ946AL2_MERCURY_ELITE_AL_PRO.html

By short-term I mean in the next year as I am expecting 2-bay Thunderbolt enclosures to be shipping in that timeframe. However, I am also hoping that the enclosure-only solution isn't terribly expensive (ie, $200 for a 2-bay enclosure only). I'm definitely keeping an eye out for what OWC has in store considering that their bare FireWire enclosures have been narrowed in the past week. Hopefully they introduce a FW+TB enclosure in the summer.

 

[Jerome Morrow]

That explains the price. I still don't care. Too expensive for a freaking cable. I thought the future was about making things easier, simpler and cheaper, instead of more complicated and more expensive.

Instead of just thinking about speed they should also be thinking about easy adoption, price and compatibility.

By the way: "Yo dawg, we herd u like computers so we put a computer in your cable that you can plug into your computer, so you can compute while you compute!"

So I wonder how USB 3.0 works now, I bet it has no chip inside. I'm guessing Apple will be forced to adopt that too eventually, as they realize that every new device will support it. Or Apple won't support it ever, and it's just going to be a mess.

You can't have it both ways, at least not in 2011. So make up your mind and choose.

 

[odedia]

Do you know if it is possible to go Macbook Pro -> iMac -> iMac, in serial, where each iMac is in target display mode?

I suspect that 10Gbps won't drive dual 2560 at 60Hz, but technically is it possible? Perhaps with a reduced refresh?

If I understand the technology correctly, you get 10gb/second for EACH device in the chain. So, each display should get a 10gb/sec feed.

 

[Mr. Gates]

Nine year old technology: http://store.apple.com/us/product/TP319LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY

Only 10bucks cheaper than one day old technology:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC913ZM/A?fnode=MTY1NDA3Ng&mco=MjMwNDM0NjI

So one ridiculous price justifies another?

I can get one of those firewire cords for $7.00 online and Apple charges $40.00 for as you said....Outdated tech

The biggest hurdle for Apple is themselves.

You know I'm right.

 

[Torrijos]

If I understand the technology correctly, you get 10gb/second for EACH device in the chain. So, each display should get a 10gb/sec feed.

Actually the 10Gb/s are only for TB communications (devices), the display port information passes through separated channels (max 17Gb/s in the 4 channel implementation of DisplayPort, good for 3840×2160 @ 30bpp @ 60 Hz or over 2 27inch display at 60Hz).

The thing is there were rumors of the DisplayPort bandwidth being impacted to offer the 10Gb/s for TB, but I can't find a definite answer. If it is the case maybe Apple / Intel restricted the display port channel to 2 only achieving then 8Gb/s or 2560×1600 @ 30bpp @ 60 Hz.

 

[NightFox]

As well as the price of these cables inevitably coming down, I wonder if there is the potential for there be a cheaper consumer version without or with less electronics? My thinking is that a lot of professional use will be of long cables where SNR is a big issue, whereas many consumers might only need a 1 or 2m cable where the SNR might be within acceptable limits without any additional electronics to improve it.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[///M5]

Since when teardown is just opening up 3 pieces of metal? This is barely called uncovering.

From a teardown; I expect exposing those "Electronics".

 

[Torrijos]

About the controllers on the cable, the problems is that in order to achieve those rates (10Gb/s in both direction concurrently) of transmission the cable has to be finely tuned and it will even be worst with optical cables.

Then a lot of people talk about USB3, I have myself bought a card (a cheap one for that matter) for my old MBPro in order to connect LaCie USB3 minimus drives (LaCie drivers work with cards from other companies but only with their devices).
The result are better data rates than FW800, but far from the max throughput possibles and putting my system on its knees when transferring large files.

The limit on the rates of transfer are due to the limit of a single disk, any single disk system won't go above an average of around 115MB/s (while burst transfer can reach 240MB/s) so in that case even USB3 would be overkill BUT as soon as you start talking about more complex systems, like RAID enclosure or SSDs you can easily be over the available throughput of USB3.
So the real question is what kind devices you need. If you're only looking for single disk storage you have every right to be pissed at Apple for waiting that Intel develops a USB3 capable chipset, BUT if you're looking for a RAID enclosure ThunderBolt is a godsend, ensuring the port won't bottleneck the enclosure capacities the way USB3 would.

From the specifications USB3 real max data rate (once overhead has being taken out) are around 400MB/s while TB should be around 1GB/s (with a 20% overhead taken out too).


P.S. : I for one I would be ready to spend 1000$ on a RAID5 capable enclosure that wouldn't be limited by the connecting port if my machine supported it...
I've had too many disillusions with a few backup external drive or RAID1 enclosures that cost me loads of valuable data while having meager performances, although you're still at the mercy of the enclosure systems crashing and corrupting data...

 

[res1233]

So one ridiculous price justifies another?

I can get one of those firewire cords for $7.00 online and Apple charges $40.00 for as you said....Outdated tech

The biggest hurdle for Apple is themselves.

You know I'm right.

Pretty sure you're agreeing with him. You know I'm right.