Thunderbolt Details Emerge: Bus Power, Mini DisplayPort, and More

[ALUOp]

It's definitely not useless. I have hundreds of gigabytes of files...audio, video, and large virtual machine files.

As an example, for me to back up my 125GB collection of mp3 files, it takes about 8 hours via a USB 2.0 connection. Using Lightspeed (or USB 3.0), would cut that down to maybe 1 hour or less. 8 hours compared to 1. That's huge.

It's also a big deal if you want to "stream" anything...such as HD movies or even lossless audio...being able to have a storage device that can CONSISTENTLY push high throughput speeds for long periods of times.

Technology will always get faster and faster. Period. In your example(s), take all the times and tell yourself "it will now go 8 times faster"...so those 8 minute iPod syncs will be 1 min or less. Of course your 8 second sync (if that even exists) would go to 1 second but now we're talking about, in reality, saving 7 seconds which is the time it takes for you to plug it in, sit on your chair, and wiggle the mouse to wake up the screensaver.

LOL. You totally forgot about the fact that the bottleneck of today's new external drives is the hard drive itself not the interface.
You usually get around 20 to 30MB/s with USB 2.0 and around 60 to 80MB/s with USB 3.0 and eSATA.
This already the max you can get from the drive, unless you are using SSD or RAID, which is rare, especially for a notebook.
So, no, your 8-time performance increase example is not true.
I agree that technology is always moving forward, but what the other person said is quite true. This technology on a notebook now is quite useless. Most people probably will not get to use it before they retire the machine.

 

[i make movies]

As an example, for me to back up my 125GB collection of mp3 files, it takes about 8 hours via a USB 2.0 connection. Using Lightspeed (or USB 3.0), would cut that down to maybe 1 hour or less. 8 hours compared to 1. That's huge.

According to my math, rounding 900 MB/s to 1 GB/s (so I don't have to bust out a calculator), transferring your 126 GB should take a little more than 126 seconds.

I'll double that to be generous, so, 4 minutes.

I suck at math, so any corrections are more than welcome.

I can't wait to see some benchmarks one these Lacie and Pegasus RAIDs are on the shelves.

 

[kenliles]

it means from now on you have an external PCI bus on every freaking Mac.

If that doesn't get you excited, I don't know what will...

along with every other major bus type;

I think Benjamins' description is the best summation;
Makes external expansion a non-issue; and multiple cabling to boot...

ken

 

[The Captain]

Love the tech, but here's what I don't understand. It's copper now, with intel saying the optical version will be out latter this year. Now leaving aside the loss of power on the optical version, will cables/drives/devises that are made for the copper connections work with the optical ones? Is the difference just the cables, or does the connections change too? Basically if you get a Macbook pro now, will drives being made next year for the optical version work with it?

 

[jb510]

So I just realized a serious flaw to this implementation....

I'm working away and then realize, hey I need to blog in my killer Thunderbolt drive... wait one momment while I UNPLUG MY DISPLAY? That's seriously bad user expereince... should of had two TB ports until displays are built with dual TB ports instead of DisplayPort....

 

[DeViAnThans3]

I see a huge potentional.

TB addresses some key issues with current ports and actually has a very good point: making it easier for the consumer. No more worrying for non-technical consumers about "do I have a HDMI or a DVI port?" (for example)

Obviously, in the beginning it may make things more complex (buying connectors for backwards compatibility with older devices etc.). Depending on this phase, TB will succeed or fail. First signs are good though, quite a few companies already seem to jump on the TB car.

The only thing which actually worries me is, i quote from the article, "According to Intel, bus power will likely not be supported over future optical cables (so no additional copper lines just for bus power)".
This was a key advantage of USB (according to me), as it removes the need for an additional power cable for smaller devices. It is present in the copper implementation, but if it gets dropped in the optical implementation, I see this as a step backward after a step forward.
I am sure Intel has a good reason for it, but I truely hope it gets implemented in some way.

 

[shervieux]

less cables?



Ok, so I just watched the video. I do not see where this means less cables. The video clearly showed each device connected to each other via a cable between the device. This would mean each device needs to have 2 lightpeak ports. One coming from the computer, and one from the device to the next device.

I hope this means that someone will come out with the light peak octopus or splitter cable. 1 cable for 2 or many devices. Or their will be a hub/dock real cheap. But that in turn would not mean any case not less cables.

 

[cyclingsessions]

You could have a Wacom Cintiq that has power, data, and video all in one tiny cable.

You could have a Cinema Display act as a USB hub without using up a USB port on your computer.

Basically anything that PCI Express can do, Thunderbolt can do, too — like, perhaps, external Blu-Ray drives?

So how can one use say a 16GB flashdrive and be able to transfer them back and forth using this output?

It would have been nice if Thunderbolt matched the usb plug like some of the earlier Intel demos I saw online.

 

[TMar]

Good to see it's out, sad to see both USB 3 and LP lost their fibers. Bring on the fiber and give me an induction desktop so anything I set on it has power.

 

[Full of Win]

So I just realized a serious flaw to this implementation....

I'm working away and then realize, hey I need to blog in my killer Thunderbolt drive... wait one momment while I UNPLUG MY DISPLAY? That's seriously bad user expereince... should of had two TB ports until displays are built with dual TB ports instead of DisplayPort....

Who ever said they will only have one TB port per computer in the future. I suspect the reason we only have one now is a cost savings measure, in that Apple does not have to redesign their cases to add the extra port. When the next gen MBP come out, they will be without FW and with 2 or 3 TB ports.

 

[gmcalpin]

So I just realized a serious flaw to this implementation....

I'm working away and then realize, hey I need to blog in my killer Thunderbolt drive... wait one momment while I UNPLUG MY DISPLAY? That's seriously bad user expereince... should of had two TB ports until displays are built with dual TB ports instead of DisplayPort....

Thunderbolt drives will have two ports so you can chain the monitor to the end.

Just like (most) peripherals have always had, with Firewire, SCSI, whatever.

 

[JPark]

So I just realized a serious flaw to this implementation....

I'm working away and then realize, hey I need to blog in my killer Thunderbolt drive... wait one momment while I UNPLUG MY DISPLAY? That's seriously bad user expereince... should of had two TB ports until displays are built with dual TB ports instead of DisplayPort....

If that's your typical work environment, just get a hub.

 

[SilianRail]

Good to see it's out, sad to see both USB 3 and LP lost their fibers. Bring on the fiber and give me an induction desktop so anything I set on it has power.

Hard drives are still the bottleneck at 10 Gbps, and current ports are compatible with optical TB.

 

[diddl14]

Love the tech, but here's what I don't understand. It's copper now, with intel saying the optical version will be out latter this year. Now leaving aside the loss of power on the optical version, will cables/drives/devises that are made for the copper connections work with the optical ones? Is the difference just the cables, or does the connections change too? Basically if you get a Macbook pro now, will drives being made next year for the optical version work with it?

Intel spec states that the connectors will be the same. I'm guessing that the conversion from copper to fiber will be done in the plug instead of in the device. This makes compatibility a non-issue, except for power. One could however argue that fiber would only be used over longer distances (>3m) where it is likely that the connected device is self powered anyway (like raid arrays).

 

[gmcalpin]

So how can one use say a 16GB flashdrive and be able to transfer them back and forth using this output?

I'm not following your question.

You hook a Cinema Display to your MDP/Thunderbolt port, and the monitor has USB ports on it.

It stands to reason, if Thunderbolt flash drives are made, you'll eventually see MDP (1.2 or later) monitors with Thunderbolt ports on them instead of or in addition to USB.

 

[Darth.Titan]

P$r$o$p$r$i$e$t$a$r$y$

You really should do your research before spouting nonsense.

1. Apple licenses the Mini-Displayport connector technology with no fee.
2. They're not using the USB formfactor because the USB consortium frowned upon it.

Sorry, no conspiracy here.

 

[Richdmoore]

I can think of setups where both hubs would be better, (game controllers) and daisy chaining (for example a cluster of external drives).

I hope that both methods are supported.

 

[corinhorn]

I'm curious if TDM will be supported via thunderbolt

 

[tasslehawf]

I wonder if we will see multiple display support if you can daisy-chain..?

 

[deus_ex_machina]

Mm, I just renovating and I need to add my UTP/COAX cables next week.
Should we start thinking about Lightpeak cables?
What kind of cables should we use? Can we add our own connectors? Or is it premade in factory?

And what is the maximum length?

Per article:
- Maximum single cable length is 3 meters for current copper implementation.

 

[CIA]

Think of it this way. Down the line as more devices become TB aware you can have a simpler setup. Currently display devices that are based on DP 1.1 have to be at the end of the chain, but later on (DP 1.2) the display will be allowed to be anywhere.. So...
Example: MacPro --> Display --> built into the display I have a few USB ports, maybe a Media Card reader... --> chain continues to another display with same options, --> chain continues to my RAID (I edit video) --> then to my audio mixer --> then finally to a breakout box that has maybe Firewire, eSATA, USB 3, whatever. So it makes life a lot more simple, as my devices before are a mismash of USB, FW 400 & FW 800, some eSATA port multipliers hooked to a PCIe eSATA card, plus a DVI connector to my monitors (and a power, then USB A-B for the media reader and extra USB ports in my monitor)

The number of cables may not change much, but the types of cables will shrink. Regardless of whether you think this will be good or not, a single cable for ALL devices will make life a lot easier.

 

[j-traxx]

right now i'm doing esata through the express 34 card slot. i love how much faster than fw800 it is but this is on a whole new level. i clone macs on the regular for friends who shut down their macs during os updates. lol. tossing 500GB disk image over esata takes a friggin long time and that's the fastest way possible. this will just beat all. i cant wait. ive bellyached over the disappearance of express 34 on our 15 inch mbp's but now with this i wont even care at all. this is amazing.

 

[diddl14]

So I just realized a serious flaw to this implementation....

I'm working away and then realize, hey I need to blog in my killer Thunderbolt drive... wait one momment while I UNPLUG MY DISPLAY? That's seriously bad user expereince... should of had two TB ports until displays are built with dual TB ports instead of DisplayPort....

I think the statement that 'Any DisplayPort 1.1 device needs to be the last in a daisy chain' is not correct. The picture in the Intel document clearly shows the display being the first device which obvious makes much more sense. See http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_secured.pdf

Update: Ok, scrap that comment. I guess the point is that a DP 1.1 won't have TB support so it can only be at the end of the chain. So a TB hub would be the only way to hook up a display and some otherTB device.

 

[Lesser Evets]

SAUCEOME... in 2012 when lots of stuff begins to support it.
Seems a great step forward for home computing of the twenty-teens.

Looking at it in this moment of time it seems bizarre, but the possibilities are excellent.

 

[The Captain]

Intel spec states that the connectors will be the same. I'm guessing that the conversion from copper to fiber will be done in the plug instead of in the device. This makes compatibility a non-issue, except for power. One could however argue that fiber would only be used over longer distances (>3m) where it is likely that the connected device is self powered anyway (like raid arrays).

Thanks. That explains a lot.