# Thunderbolt Technology: The Fastest Data Connection to Your PC Just Arrived



## btarunr (Feb 24, 2011)

Intel Corporation today announced the availability of Thunderbolt technology, a new high-speed PC connection technology that brings together high-speed data transfer and high-definition (HD) display on to a single cable. Running at 10 Gbps, Thunderbolt technology can transfer a full-length HD movie in less than 30 seconds. This Intel-developed technology is coming to market through a technical collaboration with Apple, and is available first on Apple's new line of MacBook Pro laptop computers.

The vision for Thunderbolt technology (formerly codenamed "Light Peak") is to move media faster, simplify connections between devices, and foster new and exciting ways to build and use PCs. Combining high-speed data and HD video connections together onto a single cable is instrumental to achieving that vision. Thunderbolt technology delivers this via two communications methods, or protocols -- PCI Express for data transfer and DisplayPort for displays. 



 

 

 




PCI Express has the flexibility to connect to almost any type of device, and DisplayPort can drive greater than 1080p resolution displays and up to eight channels of audio simultaneously. Thunderbolt technology is compatible with existing DisplayPort displays and adapters. All Thunderbolt technology devices share a common connector, and let individuals simply daisy-chain their devices one after another, connected by electrical or optical cables.

Thunderbolt technology is designed to meet the demands of serious HD media creators. For example, videographers can unleash their creativity using high-bandwidth audio and video capture/mixing devices, and get both low latency and highly-accurate time synchronization for real-time processing. At 10Gbps, larger media files are transferred faster so there's less time spent waiting to watch and edit videos. Data can be backed up and restored quicker, so there's less waiting for archived content. For mobile PC users, it means having a single connector on their ultra-thin laptop that extends their high-speed media and HD display capabilities at home or in the office. Thunderbolt technology is complementary to other I/O technologies that Intel continues to support.





"Working with HD media is one of the most demanding things people do with their PCs," said Mooly Eden, general manager, PC Client Group, Intel. "With Thunderbolt technology, Intel has delivered innovative technology to help professionals and consumers work faster and more easily with their growing collection of media content, from music to HD movies. We've taken the vision of simple, fast transfer of content between PCs and devices, and made it a reality."

"We're thrilled to collaborate with Intel to bring the groundbreaking Thunderbolt technology to Mac users," said Bob Mansfield, Apple's senior vice president of Mac Hardware Engineering. "With ultra-fast transfer speeds, support for high-resolution displays and compatibility with existing I/O technologies, Thunderbolt is a breakthrough for the entire industry and we think developers are going to have a blast with it."

Thunderbolt technology is powered by an Intel controller chip, and uses a small connector suitable for mobile devices that will be included in products supporting the technology. Several innovative companies have announced Thunderbolt technology-based products, or currently plan to support Thunderbolt technology in upcoming products, including Aja, Apogee, Avid, Blackmagic, LaCie, Promise, and Western Digital. Intel is working with the industry on a range of Thunderbolt technology-enabled products including computers, displays, storage devices, audio/video devices, cameras, docking stations and more.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 24, 2011)

ETA:  2 years.  

Think of how fast USB 3.0 came onto the market, oh wait, it is still not mainstream yet.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 24, 2011)

Can't see it taking off for pc's (Macs excluded) unless they go open source/license it as no one will make devices only for intel pc's that couldn't be used on an AMD machine.


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 24, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Can't see it taking off for pc's (Macs excluded)



In fact....


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 24, 2011)

Copper Peak sounds shitty, so they went with Thunderbolt instead 

We will need to wait for 5 years before we actually know whether this is a success or destinied to fail like Firewire.

Edit: I am not impressed, Bta: "OMFG looks, Thunderbolt connector! Let me try to plug my device through this superfast connector... oh, wait.... FUUUUUUUU...."
On the other hand, USB3.0: "hmm, this looks like a blue USB port." *le plug in* "oh, it works :3 "


----------



## mamisano (Feb 24, 2011)

Sounds like another FireWire vs USB to me and we all know how that turned out. I don't see a significant need for this by a majority of end users. Besides, it's another chip that has to be utilized, totally new interface, drivers, cables, devices = $$$. I just don't see the point.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 24, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> ETA:  2 years.



It's already implemented on 2011 Apple Macbook Pro (launched today).


----------



## Nailezs (Feb 24, 2011)

is intel integrating this with the new ivy bridge chipsets?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Feb 24, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Copper Peak sounds shitty, so they went with Thunderbolt instead
> 
> We will need to wait for 5 years before we actually know whether this is a success or destinied to fail like Firewire.
> 
> ...



Shush! Don't make fun of "Thunderbolt" or Thor will smite thee with his hammer!

But to be honest, it doesn't look that impressive. It just combines the 4x free pci-e lanes from the south bridge and a display port into a single connector. I guess the only revolutionary thing is how damn small they made it :]


----------



## cdawall (Feb 24, 2011)

so is this faster than display port over pci-e 16x you know a real video card how is this faster if it goes through the chipset vs being directly off a VGA card?


----------



## v12dock (Feb 24, 2011)

So Intel can't support something made by Intel...


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 24, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It's already implemented on 2011 Apple Macbook Pro (launched today).



But how about devices that connect to it?


----------



## hellrazor (Feb 24, 2011)

I think the main problem behind this is that it ain't cheap. Take USB for example, it was literally designed to be as cheap as possible, and it was a success. Now Firewire was not, and see where it is now.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 24, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I am not impressed, Bta: "OMFG looks, Thunderbolt connector! Let me try to plug my device through this superfast connector... oh, wait.... FUUUUUUUU...."
> On the other hand, USB3.0: "hmm, this looks like a blue USB port." *le plug in* "oh, it works :3 "



Well, that is why Intel has been avoiding USB 3.0 in its chipsets. Now Intel will use its market position to propagate Thunderbolt to everything that's been using USB 3.0 in 1~2 years' time. 

I imagine Thunderbolt with its 1536 MB/s bandwidth having more market longevity (perhaps for the first half of this decade), compared to USB 3.0 with its 480 MB/s bandwidth, which is already bottlenecking 500+ MB/s SATA 6 Gb/s SSDs in USB 3.0 enclosures.


----------



## Nailezs (Feb 24, 2011)

how long until we start seeing this tech in peripheral devices though? thats whats going to truly determine market take-up and longevity


----------



## Imsochobo (Feb 24, 2011)

meh... we already have 100gbit ethernet 
alltho, we have no servers yet with more than 10...alltho our core switch got 100.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Feb 24, 2011)

"Can transfer a HD movie in 30 seconds." Well if you have a couple of RAID 0 array using several SSDs, then yeah... All storage devices are fine with USB 3.0, which is also more supported and compatible with other USB 2.0 devices. I do like the idea of a data connector and a display connector combined. Though I don't see new display connectors being widely adapted, since even DisplayPort isn't widely used.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Feb 24, 2011)

I personally think faster is always better, and I am willing to pay for it, but they will have to expand market share to see this succeed, no one like buying into tech only to see it fail.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 24, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Now Intel will use its market position to propagate Thunderbolt to everything that's been using USB 3.0 in 1~2 years' time.



This is market abuse!


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Feb 24, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> This is market abuse!



Not really, no one will be forcing you to use it.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 24, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Not really, no one will be forcing you to use it.



Well, they denied an existing technology so that they can push their own. Surely that is market abuse.


----------



## csendesmark (Feb 24, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> ETA:  2 years.
> 
> Think of how fast USB 3.0 came onto the market, oh wait, it is still not mainstream yet.



Thank it for Intel corporation 

Leap Ahead


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Feb 24, 2011)

I like the idea of a small netbook "docking" with thunderbolt. No need for proprietary docking stations anymore.  With thunderbolt you could drive a serious GPU with no lag... meaning netbooks could drive the most demanding graphics applications when docked, and could also be used to connect to an external RAID enclosure. All over ONE wire.

This is also an interesting way to interconnect servers. A comms link significantly faster than gigabit and without the horrendous expense of 10G network and 10G switches.

In fact, the interconnect is fast enough to stick CPU/rendering resources at the other end. "Join" your PC to your laptop, or indeed two or more PC's together to great an inter-workstation.

Expect to see workstations with two thunderbolt ports.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Feb 24, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Well, they denied an existing technology so that they can push their own. Surely that is market abuse.



Given they created USB, they are free to do whatever they wish, if they wanted they could never officially support USB and there isn't a thing anyone could do about it.

You can't force a company to create or support a technology if they do not want to.


----------



## Taer (Feb 24, 2011)

btarunr said:


> I imagine Thunderbolt with its 1536 MB/s bandwidth having more market longevity (perhaps for the first half of this decade), compared to USB 3.0 with its 480 MB/s bandwidth, which is already bottlenecking 500+ MB/s SATA 6 Gb/s SSDs in USB 3.0 enclosures.



Actually, that's 1,250MB/s vs 600MB/s (10,000Mbps vs 4,800Mbps)

I don't see the problem in an external peripheral connector bottlenecking an 8-HDD RAID-0 array or a top-end SSD. If you have 1,000$ to spend on storage, you're not going to use USB.

OT: 
I don't know what to think of this in general.
It seems to be the norm to have a competing interface that's only 2-3x as fast.
Firewire's 800Mbps vs USB 2.0's 480Mbps vs LAN's 1,000Mbps.

Now we have Firewire's 6,400Mbps vs USB 3.0's 4,800Mbps vs Thuderbolt's 10,000Mbps.

USB 4.0's 48,000Mbps vs Thunderbolts 2.0's 100,000Mbps is not necessary.

I think everyone's needs can be met with USB.


----------



## 1freedude (Feb 24, 2011)

I see it as the longest riser card made, with a display port piggy-backed.  If that's the case, possibilities are almost endless (never mind the display port).


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 24, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> But how about devices that connect to it?



Compatible with all Display port connectors.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 24, 2011)

we are getting closer now to a 1 cord solution. 1 cord to power your rig and one cord to send data. and with the advances in power over ethernet we could truly see a one cord solution in 10 years


----------



## Nailezs (Feb 24, 2011)

i would debate the feasbility of a 1 cord solution, but thats for another thread


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 24, 2011)

Nailezs said:


> i would debate the feasbility of a 1 cord solution, but thats for another thread



and there certainly is a debate but it is indeed possible. when we will see or if companies can agree on a standard it is another question.


----------



## OneCool (Feb 24, 2011)




----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 24, 2011)

So does this mean they are gonna get rid of USB ports in the future?  USB is so popular i don't see how they could.  I also don't understand why everyone wants 2 Thunderbolt ports.  I have a printer, external hard drive, mouse and keyboard.  I need at least 4 ports!


----------



## sy5tem (Feb 24, 2011)

Taer said:


> Actually, that's 1,250MB/s vs 600MB/s (10,000Mbps vs 4,800Mbps)
> 
> I don't see the problem in an external peripheral connector bottlenecking an 8-HDD RAID-0 array or a top-end SSD. If you have 1,000$ to spend on storage, you're not going to use USB.
> 
> ...




you are quite right  many words leading to , a simple answer lol i love it 
amen!


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 24, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> So does this mean they are gonna get rid of USB ports in the future?  USB is so popular i don't see how they could.  I also don't understand why everyone wants 2 Thunderbolt ports.  I have a printer, external hard drive, mouse and keyboard.  I need at least 4 ports!



You can daisychain them =.="


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 25, 2011)

thought this story was a tad interesting. 

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/24/intel-refutes-apple-exclusivity-for-thunderbolt-i-o-lacie-and-p/

apple has a head start but other OEMs can go ahead and start launching their own.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 25, 2011)

Imho Its a good thing,tho underwhelming and poorly timed (sata^g fiasco) ,intel now expects everyone to use their socket, and fully change almost your entire pc after many got their ass burned grief style.
 ridiculouse too that mobo makers know us and will use valuable pciex lanes to give us usb3 support , culling the prospective greatness of any intel chipset board not good they should have implemented onchip usb3 AND light bolt peak thunderbird multi connector thats just 1????? not rant over
should push a few more AMD's way tho


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 25, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> You can daisychain them =.="



That is really, really dumb.  I don't wanna connect my mouse to a printer.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 25, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> thought this story was a tad interesting.



certainly is, id expect a very high retail price on them 

do you think well get to a point where storage speed dosnt really matter because for my needs at the min sata 3 plus an pciex ssd works well enough


----------



## JerryTsao (Feb 25, 2011)

It seemed that after paying 1.6 billions to NVIDIA, Intel did sth. on their graphics processors.


----------



## timta2 (Feb 25, 2011)

> We will need to wait for 5 years before we actually know whether this is a success or destinied to fail like Firewire.



Failure? Firewire might not be as widely used as USB but that doesn't really make it a failure. And except for being cheap, Firewire is superior in several ways. It's still very much alive. The Gigabyte motherboard that I bought a few months ago has Firewire.

Would you say that Ford is a failure because they didn't have the US auto sales that Toyota had last year?


----------



## SvB4EvA (Feb 25, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Given they created USB, they are free to do whatever they wish, if they wanted they could never officially support USB and there isn't a thing anyone could do about it.
> 
> You can't force a company to create or support a technology if they do not want to.



This is absolutely true. Tho, I think if Intel abandoned USB, they would really lose serious market share. Actually, maybe mobo manufacturers would just pick up the slack with 3rd party controllers, kinda like they have with USB 3.0 thus far...

Any way, I hope "Bulldozer" bulldozes Intel's face in and gets some serious competition going again.

PS-Im kinda drunk.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 25, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> This is market abuse!



That's what those IDE-lovers said, when Intel began to propagate SATA.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Feb 25, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> and there certainly is a debate but it is indeed possible. when we will see or if companies can agree on a standard it is another question.



I would be happy to have 1 cord from the wall for power and 1 cord that plugged into a hub of sorts where I would get my data and connect my wireless periphreals (mouse, keyboard, monitor, ect.) to.



timta2 said:


> Failure? Firewire might not be as widely used as USB but that doesn't really make it a failure. And except for being cheap, Firewire is superior in several ways. It's still very much alive. The Gigabyte motherboard that I bought a few months ago has Firewire.
> 
> Would you say that Ford is a failure because they didn't have the US auto sales that Toyota had last year?




Firewire may have more speed than USB 2.0 and a higher constant transfer, but the fact you have to daisy chain devices to make it work was the deal breaker to people, it's market share is less than 5% that's a failure given Apple was billing it as the superior product over USB.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 25, 2011)

Ports, ports everywhere.  The future of computing, from the perspective of Intel, and your future motherboard:


----------



## Taer (Feb 25, 2011)

btarunr said:


> That's what those IDE-lovers said, when Intel began to propagate SATA.



You can't compare that.

IDE was going nowhere in terms of bandwidth. It had a large, outdated, annoying data connector and required an entire 4-pin molex for half an amp of power.

This isn't IDE to SATA.

This is SATA 1.5Gbps vs SATA 3.0Gbps.

And I specifically don't compare between SATA 3.0Gbps and SATA 6.0Gbps, because back then no one had a single HDD that topped 187MB/s read/write, and now, I seriously, seriously doubt that anyone would care that they're only getting 600MB/s via an external connector.


----------



## Taer (Feb 25, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Ports, ports everywhere.  The future of computing, from the perspective of Intel, and your future motherboard:
> 
> techPowerUp! Forums



I wholeheartedly agree with that message.

There should only be ONE port for external devices.

We need to have one connector that has latency of SATA, the bandwidth of Thunderbolt, and the longevity of the horrendous serial port.

Instead of creating Thunderbolt, Intel should have just made USB faster.

Btw,
As of right now, you'd to be a cable-phobe or have a self-built 1TB SSD in an external enclosure that supports Thunderbolt (which may or may not come out), to gain ANYTHING over USB 3.0.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 25, 2011)

Taer said:


> There should only be ONE port for external devices.



The idea is that Thunderbolt will be the only port for connecting every device. I believe there will be a converter from Thunderbolt to USB, but I am not sure. 

PVT, they way it is, you connect your printer to your PC, then KB to your printer, and mouse to your KB. Works out fine, no?


----------



## Taer (Feb 25, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> The idea is that Thunderbolt will be the only port for connecting every device.



I think we already have a connector for that.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 25, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> ETA:  2 years.
> 
> Think of how fast USB 3.0 came onto the market, oh wait, it is still not mainstream yet.



 LaCie Introduces Little Big Disk, Featuring High-...

summer (american summer, ofc) 2011


light peak aint far off.


sorry, 'thunderbolt' (crap name)


----------



## Taer (Feb 25, 2011)

Mussels said:


> sorry, 'thunderbolt' (crap name)



I couldn't agree more.

We're going from USB to.. Thunderbolt. Unbelievable.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 25, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> That is really, really dumb.  I don't wanna connect my mouse to a printer.



you can choose where to chain them. get hubs, etc.



look at it this way: you could have your PC 30 meters away, run a cable through the wall cavitys and have audio, video, input (mouse/KB), network and data connections) all via the one cable.


----------



## inferKNOX (Feb 25, 2011)

I thought that's supposed to be a "don't open this device or you'll get zapped" symbol that Intel has apparently trademarked there. Intel... you plagiariser!!
Is there a shortage of design ideas for simple logos for connectors? Seriously though, that means something like 'electric shock'.





I wonder how many n00bs are going to get zapped thinking it's "thunderbolt" and how soon after the law suits will come. I mean... if you can sue Nintendo (Wii) for throwing your control through the TV, then Intel is in for some fun with this...


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 25, 2011)

I think we will have to wait for 5 years before we know for sure whether Thunderbolt will be a success or not. My definition of successs: Get all the major producers to use Thunderbolt, from AMD to ZTE.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 25, 2011)

yeah, thunderbolt only wins out if intel lets everyone use it, much like how third party board makers used addon cards for USB 3.0.



i want magic like the following:

PC is connected to HDTV via DP/TB.
TV is connected to speakers, games consoles, and all else shiny via DP/TB.

i want them to link up like HDMI can these days - so that those devices can all control each other. the consoles get internet acess via the networked DP devices (PC, in this case). the PC, TV and consoles can all control the volume on the speakers.


 I WANT A MAGIC ALL IN ONE CONNECTION THAT TRULY INTEGRATES DEVICES. If TB doesnt deliver this, i'll just have to wait another 15 years or so, i guess...


----------



## SvB4EvA (Feb 25, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> I thought that's supposed to be a "don't open this device or you'll get zapped" symbol that Intel has apparently trademarked there. Intel... you plagiariser!!
> Is there a shortage of design ideas for simple logos for connectors? Seriously though, that means something like 'electric shock'.
> http://www.safety.vanderbilt.edu/training/hazcom/images/symbol_electricshock.gif
> I wonder how many n00bs are going to get zapped thinking it's "thunderbolt" and how soon after the law suits will come. I mean... if you can sue Nintendo (Wii) for throwing your control through the TV, then Intel is in for some fun with this...


LOL, so much this...


----------



## inferKNOX (Feb 25, 2011)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> That is really, really dumb.  I don't wanna connect my mouse to a printer.





PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Ports, ports everywhere.  The future of computing, from the perspective of Intel, and your future motherboard:
> 
> techPowerUp! Forums



Ahhh... ha ha ha ha!!  You've given me a good laugh today!
On a serious note though, at least this will help Displayport 'infiltrate' the market at last.
However, if Intel intends to drive this in a direction as to challenge Ethernet, they're going to make Cisco and the like go ballistic!


----------



## OneCool (Feb 25, 2011)

Screw all this high speed wired shit.


I want high speed WIRELESS connections please!! 





The technology is there why their not utilizing it is beyond me


----------



## Taer (Feb 25, 2011)

OneCool said:


> Screw all this high speed wired shit.
> 
> 
> I want high speed WIRELESS connections please!!
> ...



This is mostly for people who want the extra bandwidth.

The maximum you'd get with wireless is 300-500Mbps. That's slower than USB 2.0.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 25, 2011)

Taer said:


> It's called theorizing. Intelligent people can do it.



Its called deluding oneself. Helpless fanboys and lunatics does that all the time.



OneCool said:


> I want high speed WIRELESS connections please!!



Plenty of reason for that, reliability and convenience being the top 2. And also, we have not found a way to efficiently transmit power wirelessly, even though Tesla once tried to do it.



Taer said:


> The maximum you'd get with wireless is 300-500Mbps. That's slower than USB 2.0.



Use MIMO. Your point is invalid.


----------



## OneCool (Feb 25, 2011)

Taer said:


> The maximum you'd get with wireless is 300-500Mbps. That's slower than USB 2.0.



Yeah now. What would happen if Intel would have invested all this "light peak" money into it.

I think we would be a little further along than 300-500Mps


----------



## freaksavior (Feb 25, 2011)

Taer said:


> Hey, I'm new here. I just don't want to get picked on.



Not trying to be a jerk to ya man, and if you thought I was, I really am sorry.Rarely is btarunr, that's all i'm saying.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 25, 2011)

freaksavior said:


> You are the one who said this
> 
> 
> There is no Firewire at 6,400Mbps
> ...



accept would be the correct word there



Taer said:


> This is mostly for people who want the extra bandwidth.
> 
> The maximum you'd get with wireless is 300-500Mbps. That's slower than USB 2.0.



well to use your words i theorize i could get 400-700Gbps you know smart people can do that


----------



## btarunr (Feb 25, 2011)

Taer said:


> Okay, I see who I am talking to here.



So do I. So long, weer.


----------



## hellrazor (Feb 25, 2011)

I wonder if the HTC ThunderBolt will work with this?


----------



## TAViX (Feb 25, 2011)

Does it have fiber optics cables made with copper wire???


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 25, 2011)

TAViX said:


> Does it have fiber optics cables made with copper wire???



lol, they decided to use copper cables to start with to simplify the adoption. I think they will migrate to fibre once demand starts to kick in.


----------



## TAViX (Feb 25, 2011)

Demand? lol. Even cheapo USB 3.0 is not even 50% used today, what do you need that extra bandwitht for?? External graphic cards??



OneCool said:


> Screw all this high speed wired shit.
> 
> I want high speed WIRELESS connections please!!
> 
> The technology is there why their not utilizing it is beyond me



High speed wireless exist from a long time. Just not for average user. Sure, you can have a 10Gbps wireless router in your house, but in less than 2 year you would develop cancer, leukemia, impotence, hear loss, and other nice "effects" from the nice electromagnetic radiation. Hehe. Trust me, I work in the field and studied all those e.m. effects.
No thanks. I'm not even using a 802.11n router in house, not near the baby anyways.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 25, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> lol, they decided to use copper cables to start with to simplify the adoption. I think they will migrate to fibre once demand starts to kick in.



The optical and electrical variants are incompatible (because ports on the devices and connectors on the cables have conventional electrical contacts). Once the electrical one is spread across the industry, Intel would have to redo everything all over again to get the optical variant out. Maybe Intel is sand-bagging, maybe the optical variant is better suited for enterprise IO for now, or maybe they got very close to achieving optical-like performance on electrical medium, and opted for electrical since it's more durable.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Feb 25, 2011)

Taer said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> We're going from USB to.. Thunderbolt. Unbelievable.



I'm sure Intel will come up with an acronym for it perhaps LIC (light based interface connector) or some such, which will lead to string of sexual harassment lawsuits in the work place because IT personal will be telling people "hmmmm your LIC port seems to be malfunctioning I will have to play with it a little".


----------



## f22a4bandit (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, apparently one SSD company is in this game.

Click to read article


----------



## Loosenut (Feb 26, 2011)

f22a4bandit said:


> Well, apparently one SSD company is in this game.
> 
> Click to read article



 For not linking one of Btarunr's news articles


----------



## hellrazor (Feb 27, 2011)

So we're all agreed that there is no reason for thunderbolt to exist?


----------



## btarunr (Feb 27, 2011)

I continue to disagree. USB 3.0 is already bottlenecked. The evolution of USB 2.0 to USB 3.0 (10x increase in bandwidth) was way too late, and 10 Gb/s sounds like the ideal device interconnect bandwidth for a 2011~2015 setting. 

I also don't buy into the "but USB 3.0 is a familiar-looking port with backwards compatibility" argument. If your devices need 5 Gb/s bandwidth, you're anyway going to create a hardware environment around it (i.e. buy a USB 3.0 controller card and compatible devices). So Thunderbolt is no more "unique" than USB 3.0. Besides having 10x less bandwidth doesn't make backwards compatibility a big factor. So USB 3.0's backwards compatibility isn't a huge plus.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 27, 2011)

i just look at TB as a replacement for E-sata, and it fits nicely with that idea. the extra stuff is just a nice bonus.


----------



## laszlo (Feb 27, 2011)

nice tech. but as i see i won't be thunderbolted in the next years...


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 27, 2011)

btarunr said:


> The optical and electrical variants are incompatible (because ports on the devices and connectors on the cables have conventional electrical contacts). Once the electrical one is spread across the industry, Intel would have to redo everything all over again to get the optical variant out. Maybe Intel is sand-bagging, maybe the optical variant is better suited for enterprise IO for now, or maybe they got very close to achieving optical-like performance on electrical medium, and opted for electrical since it's more durable.



They can always add a dongle in front to convert the electrical signal to optical. I think that's possible anyway. Still, once you have the framework to deal with the Thunderbolt, there is relatively little to change from electrical to optical, just some signalling parts.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Feb 27, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> They can always add a dongle in front to convert the electrical signal to optical. I think that's possible anyway. Still, once you have the framework to deal with the Thunderbolt, there is relatively little to change from electrical to optical, just some signalling parts.



omg Intel will put LAZORZ inside your PC!!!  Now you only need to add a fish tank and a trained shark and presto you've got yerself a shark with lasers! You're one step closer to becoming an evil scientist


----------

