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.
Thunderbolt Details Emerge: Bus Power, Mini DisplayPort, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oic!
Now I understand why Apple jumped right away into this bandwagon. The simplicity of connectivity the Apple's obsession of minimalism. Imagine one cable only for all devices which is a good thing I like it. The transfer speed is awesome, wait for the second generation fiber optics.
Now I understand why Apple jumped right away into this bandwagon. The simplicity of connectivity the Apple's obsession of minimalism. Imagine one cable only for all devices which is a good thing I like it. The transfer speed is awesome, wait for the second generation fiber optics.
nice technology. but unkonwn future. at least not to be popular in next 3 years. i liker HDMI instead of this port in current macbook
does anyone know of when HDD manufactures like lacie and gtech are going to come out with drives for these? are they going to be SSD or HDD? Over 2 TB. Nothing takes up more space then HD video (converted to pro-ress)
You think standard HD takes up HDD....Try storing RAW footage captured on RED
How much does 30 minutes take up?You think standard HD takes up HDD....Try storing RAW footage captured on RED
Practical applications of Thunderbolt are storage, one plug to rule them all and backing up your HDD (it takes over a day to back up 2TB while Thunderbolt would take ~40 minutes)
Thunderbolt
Wow - I agree and if that docking station were to include an e-sata port it would be doublely awsome as it the e-sata option that has been lacking on apple computers. Currently I have to rely on Sonnetech for that and their drivers are crap....
Great news Apple...
Wow - I agree and if that docking station were to include an e-sata port it would be doublely awsome as it the e-sata option that has been lacking on apple computers. Currently I have to rely on Sonnetech for that and their drivers are crap....
Great news Apple...
I'm personally pretty excited for this, especially since optical is the next progression... 100 Gbps here we come!
I find it rather nice that this exceeds the SATA 3.0 transfer rate of 6 Gbit/s, meaning that it's ideal for external media like RAID. Now more than ever the bottleneck lies within the physical media-- if a non-RAID HDD can ever fill out SATA 3.0 there will always be another connection interface available.
Of course there's other added benefits like daisy-chaining, etc. Beating out USB 3.0 5 Gbit/s max and FW S3200 3.2 Gbit/s is also wonderful, however I'd still like both of these ports to be available either through adapters/hubs or on device ports.
I find it rather nice that this exceeds the SATA 3.0 transfer rate of 6 Gbit/s, meaning that it's ideal for external media like RAID. Now more than ever the bottleneck lies within the physical media-- if a non-RAID HDD can ever fill out SATA 3.0 there will always be another connection interface available.
Of course there's other added benefits like daisy-chaining, etc. Beating out USB 3.0 5 Gbit/s max and FW S3200 3.2 Gbit/s is also wonderful, however I'd still like both of these ports to be available either through adapters/hubs or on device ports.
Thunderbolt makes me want to get an external HD and have stuff stored. Just knowing I could watch a 1080p movie with 0 lag is awesome! I wonder if this could replace ethernet one day.
I was a strong naysayer about Light Peak until just today and here I'll admit that I was totally wrong about Light Peak's future on the Mac.
However, now that they've reused the Mini DisplayPort and wrapped that graphics standard directly into the Thunderbolt hardware controller I'm pretty much won over. Also, the fact that Intel will produce optical cables that will work with the existing copper ports is just brilliant. Thus, it's really not the 10Gbps speed of Thunderbolt that is so impressive to me, it's that they've made it backward compatible with the DisplayPort standard while also making it forward compatible with optical-based cables and devices.
This change not only gives Mini DisplayPort graphics a huge boost but it is also a wonderfully elegant solution for connecting notebook computers to desktop displays that can then act as breakout points for all of your high-speed peripherals.
There will still be an uphill battle between Thunderbolt and USB3 (and multi-Gb wireless), but I think Intel and Apple have done about as good of a job as possible with this new technology.
Last edited:
Kick in the nuts to USB!
I see USB 2.0 is still useful, but all the wind just went out of the sails of USB 3.
This is kind of like Firewire 10,000.
I see USB 2.0 is still useful, but all the wind just went out of the sails of USB 3.
This is kind of like Firewire 10,000.
Multiple Monitors?
Does this mean I can run two external monitors on the new macbook pro? or 4 even? That'd be awesome!
Does this mean I can run two external monitors on the new macbook pro? or 4 even? That'd be awesome!
1 minute of Red One 4K RAW footage takes roughly 17-19GB, so a 30 minute film takes up anywhere from 510GB to 570GB.
It records 12MB files 24 times per second.
Eh, I guess if you're a laptop user and also happen to commonly use a super fast external RAID, this is good news.
For everyone else, I am not quite sure about the practical applications for the next few years.
Individual drives (even SSD's) aren't close to maxing out the throughput of USB3, so if you're thinking TB will somehow magically speed up transfers from your 2.5" drive that tops out at 100MB/s, you're unfortunately mistaken.
As a "single-cable desktop bus", I still don't think it's fast enough. Adding in DisplayPort to handle the high bandwidth video is a good patch, but if this is supposedly some "future-ready" high speed one cable solution, it's just not going to have the balls. 10gbps sounds like a lot, but once you start adding up overhead it starts disapearing quickly. 1gbps for ethernet, 4gbps for USB3, 2gbps for firewire, 3gbps for eSATA. Want to run something else? Too bad, you're out of room.
The external graphics card concept is one I find very intriguing for notebook users. It has been attempted before over 1x links by other manufacturers and it just works all that well. For comparison, most high end graphics cards perform the best when installed in a PCIe x16 slot, which has a theoretical bandwidth of 40GB/s. That's a lot of data. I doubt we will see the 100gbps implementation any time soon just because mobile chipsets (and even desktop chipsets) are already taxed for PCIe lanes.
Overall it's an interesting concept, but I don't think it is going to catch on outside of Apple's expensive monitors and a few high end niche RAID products.
For everyone else, I am not quite sure about the practical applications for the next few years.
Individual drives (even SSD's) aren't close to maxing out the throughput of USB3, so if you're thinking TB will somehow magically speed up transfers from your 2.5" drive that tops out at 100MB/s, you're unfortunately mistaken.
As a "single-cable desktop bus", I still don't think it's fast enough. Adding in DisplayPort to handle the high bandwidth video is a good patch, but if this is supposedly some "future-ready" high speed one cable solution, it's just not going to have the balls. 10gbps sounds like a lot, but once you start adding up overhead it starts disapearing quickly. 1gbps for ethernet, 4gbps for USB3, 2gbps for firewire, 3gbps for eSATA. Want to run something else? Too bad, you're out of room.
The external graphics card concept is one I find very intriguing for notebook users. It has been attempted before over 1x links by other manufacturers and it just works all that well. For comparison, most high end graphics cards perform the best when installed in a PCIe x16 slot, which has a theoretical bandwidth of 40GB/s. That's a lot of data. I doubt we will see the 100gbps implementation any time soon just because mobile chipsets (and even desktop chipsets) are already taxed for PCIe lanes.
Overall it's an interesting concept, but I don't think it is going to catch on outside of Apple's expensive monitors and a few high end niche RAID products.
Wouldn't this be perfect for external docking stations? You could have your gbps ethernet, display and current USB/FW devices all connected through one cable.
The display can be anywhere in the chain, unless it only supports DisplayPort 1.1. The current version of the DisplayPort standard is 1.2, so as long as your adaptor supports it, it won't matter where it is (except of course it probably wouldn't have any way to pass on a signal further down the line, so it'll have to be the end of a line anyways).
There also may be hubs available to negate the need for daisy chains. That's not been officially announced, but I would imagine it should be possible. You could also easily have a breakout box that had an HDMI port and also another Lightpeak port and even a couple USB ports, audio ports, etc.
jW
1 minute of Red One 4K RAW footage takes roughly 17-19GB, so a 30 minute film takes up anywhere from 510GB to 570GB.
It records 12MB files 24 times per second.
Uh, REDCODE RAW is VBR, but maxes out at only 36MB/s, or about 2GB/minute. You should go check your information.
If your converting to REDCODE....RED has the ability to capture in RAW 4.5K. Not using the REDCODE codec. I work with RED on a weekly basis.
Last edited:
Yes, but that wasn't what you were talking about. And I am unaware of anyone who actually is recording at 4.5K uncompressed.
What was I talking about? When I go back and look at my post, I never stated anything about compressions....I simply stated that RED RAW footage had a file size of X per minute.
You can do it already via FW800, even if your 1080p source is lossless compressed (HuffYUV or something else) or uncompressed.
