GIGABYTE Launches World's First Fully Certified Dual Port Thunderbolt Motherboards

[Steven B]

You're not correct.
Thunderbolt lanes are like this:

10Gb is for DATA
10Gb is for Video, 2560x1600 requires 7Gbps

so... only 10Gb for data (which is twice that of USB 3.0)

What I'm more interested in is where they're getting their bandwidth from. they either need to tap off PCI Express lanes from the CPU (reducing graphics performance (NO SLI!) or utilize PCI Express lanes from the PCH which are, honestly, already in short supply on Z77 (DMI 2.0 is 4x PCI Express 2.0 or 20GB/s)

COme on man, you know a PLX8606 bridge is used, how else would anyone do it? You need one lane for any NIC or even Intel PHY, Audio Codec like ALC898 doesn't need a lane, but a creative IC like CA202K or CA0132 needs a lane. Then USB 3.0 controllers use a lane, an extra marvell controller uses a lane. I think they perhaps feed the PLX8606 which is a 6 port PCI-E IC which can take 1 input and give 4 or 5 output ports, or take in 2 and gie out 4 which is what GB is using. That would give them two more device connections like for PCI-E 1x slots or extra SATA or USB3. But also In any case you only need 4 PCI-E links, GB doesn't take them from the CPU, that would be suicide(who would buy a Z77 board with less than 16X lanes for the CPU?) and not needed.

At the demo at computex they used those RAID controllers with a lot of drives, i think those devices are very expensive. I am unsure how well thunderbolt will do, i am sure some MAC users will like them.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Neliz, you're actually wrong for a change.
No bandwidth is reserved for graphics, however, IF you use a DisplayPort monitor, a chunk of the bandwidth will be used for the display data. Otherwise you have access to the full 20Gbps.

As for where Gigabyte gets the bandwidth from, well, just like MSI, they're connecting to the chipset, as the DSL3310 and the DSL3510 both uses four lanes on bandwidth, except the DSL3310 only gives you half of the available bandwidth
And as per the post above, they use a PLX bridge for the other chipset connected third party controllers.

Time to read up on your Thunderbolt tech mate

You're not correct.
Thunderbolt lanes are like this:

10Gb is for DATA
10Gb is for Video, 2560x1600 requires 7Gbps

so... only 10Gb for data (which is twice that of USB 3.0)

What I'm more interested in is where they're getting their bandwidth from. they either need to tap off PCI Express lanes from the CPU (reducing graphics performance (NO SLI!) or utilize PCI Express lanes from the PCH which are, honestly, already in short supply on Z77 (DMI 2.0 is 4x PCI Express 2.0 or 20GB/s)

 

[neliz]

COme on man, you know a PLX8606 bridge is used

A bridge or switch doesn't "generate" bandwidth, they still need to go straight to the CPU over reserved links.

 

[Syborfical]

Well, almost all the machines I administer at work are Macs and for all of those that have ThunderBolt, I would love to re-image those machines using TB. Firewire 800 is quick but TB could have a machine imaged in a matter of minutes, rather than half an hour.

You would probably find the hard drives would be the limiting factor then not the network interface.

Unless you had SSD's in the MAC's and a decent server to get the image off it would be point less.


Is there any practical use for thunderbolt? other than display?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Is there any practical use for thunderbolt? other than display?

Promise has a pretty cool Thunderbolt to Fibre channel adapter which is handy if you need access to really fast storage...

There are some pretty nifty video capture/editing solutions from BlackMagic Design and a few others as well as some high-end audio creation hardware.

I guess it depends on what you do, but for your average consumer, no so much.

 

[Elmo]

A bridge or switch doesn't "generate" bandwidth, they still need to go straight to the CPU over reserved links.

Burn

 

[Steven B]

A bridge or switch doesn't "generate" bandwidth, they still need to go straight to the CPU over reserved links.

The standard would be Thunderbolt Controller TO PCH TO DMI TO CPU just like it is on your Z77A-GD80 and Z77MX-D3H Thunderbolt.

A thunderbolt motherboard, if you used direct 4X lanes from the PCH, would have 4 extra PCI-E lanes. So at best you could do 1 NIC, Maybe an extra SATA controller or USB 3.0, as the native PCH only has 4 of them, so there goes another. And then depending on how the motherboard maker feels, they could toss in a PCI-E to PCI bridge and then have a PCi slot. However then you have to realize all of those 1X slots need their own PCI-E lanes as well! Holy crap right? There goes any chance of a 4X slot direct to the PCH, any chance of a PCI slot, any chance for more USB and SATA at the same time, as the issue also is that the 1X slots need their own lanes(of course most boards put them on a switch).

The whole thing about how chips like the PLX8747 and NF200 are making magical lanes for the user is kind of funny considering most everyone uses a router which uses the same technology/concept and hooks up maybe 1 or two computers to it at minimum. The PLX in that case would be able to consolidate lanes and bandwidth to where it is needed, it isn't just stagnant, you gotta realize PLX bridges cost money. However using the PLX would allow for more controllers for things like 1394A, USB 3.0, all the extra SATA, and NIC(s), maybe a special audio chipset that requires a PCI-E lane like a creative CA0132 or CA20K2. Basically more features. Also you cannot ignore the fact that many very high-end boards rely on PLX bridges to provide all the connectivity.

IMO I don't know how to react to a technology which Intel brings out yet doesn't integrate a connection for directly into the PCH. In my opinion Intel should have provided an extra 4X PCI-E lanes directly from the CPU, such as was on X79 for SAS which was removed. Intel is greedy with PCi-E lanes, no reason everyone should suffer.

BTW it isn't like MSI doesn't use PLX bridge such as the one used here, you guys use one on your X79 BigBang X-Power II (which is a great board BTW)

 

[YogurtMaster]

Can I ask - what's the point of Thunderbolt?

If you create a USB 4.0, you'll have backwards compatibility with practically every device ever created.

I thought the days of Firewire and the like are over. Back when Firewire was popular, it was far better. Now, the difference between 5Gbps or higher seems a poor reason to create a completely new system that has no compatibility with any device on the market..

Thunderbolt is not really meant for one off devices such as USB.

It does two major things...

1) It acts as an extension of the PCI Express bus, so you can extend it outside of the computer. For example lets say you had a monitor and on that monitor you had four USB 3.0 ports, a Gigabit Ethernet port, 2 eSata ports, and a TV Turner. It could do all of that plus point #2 using just ONE cable.

2) It can do video as well as all the stuff on point #1. So the thunderbolt port is actually a mini display port that can be hooked up to a monitor (such as the monitor on point #1 above, but do all of this with just one cable).

It's a daisy chained connection, so if you have one thunderbolt port you can plug it in and then another one to extend out to something else.

If you were to look into the Device Manager you would see a ton more devices that you don't even have on your computer, because it actually extends out the PCI Express bus outside of your own computer.

With USB 3.0, it's fast, but thunderbolt is much faster because it has to carry a whole bus + the highest video port on a modern computer. USB 3.0 just carries one cable for one device which can be a lot of cables.

So, in reality it's very much worth it and it is a standard that has been created by Intel and adopted by Apple and the rest of the industry as well.

The downside right now is price, the cables are expensive and the ports are as well.
Intel's Thunderbolt is available in copper wire, but will go to optical in the future.

I hope this helps, at least from a standard point of view this has nothing to do with Firewire. Firewire was mainly created from Apple and it was mainly for Video and that is all, well USB got faster and started to do video as well and the port became redundant.

 

[Mussels]

Can I ask - what's the point of Thunderbolt?

If you create a USB 4.0, you'll have backwards compatibility with practically every device ever created.

I thought the days of Firewire and the like are over. Back when Firewire was popular, it was far better. Now, the difference between 5Gbps or higher seems a poor reason to create a completely new system that has no compatibility with any device on the market..

because USB is USB. thunderbolt is PCI-E.


you cant hook up a graphics card over USB 3.0.

 

[Disparia]

Wake me when there's an actual reason for Thunderbolt's existence outside of niches like Ultrabooks.

 

[Mussels]

Wake me when there's an actual reason for Thunderbolt's existence outside of niches like Ultrabooks.

you must be another one of those 'normal' people with less than 10 external hard drives XD

 

[Disparia]

you must be another one of those 'normal' people with less than 10 external hard drives XD

Yawn, you got me up for that? Aussie please.

For $650 I'd be sitting pretty with an PCIe x8 SAS controller and external 24-bay case connected at 24Gbps ready to accept drive after drive. When filled, time to chain another, then another, and so on until I reach the controller's limit.

Even where it's useful it's hard to get enthusiastic about it. I mean really, "the versatility of vendor-neutral docking stations realized in our lifetimes" is a hardly a rallying cry. Thunderbolt isn't bad, but when someone asks "Where do we go from here?" you shouldn't stop at "Let's combine PCIe and DP".

 

[YogurtMaster]

Yawn, you got me up for that? Aussie please.

For $650 I'd be sitting pretty with an PCIe x8 SAS controller and external 24-bay case connected at 24Gbps ready to accept drive after drive. When filled, time to chain another, then another, and so on until I reach the controller's limit.

Even where it's useful it's hard to get enthusiastic about it. I mean really, "the versatility of vendor-neutral docking stations realized in our lifetimes" is a hardly a rallying cry. Thunderbolt isn't bad, but when someone asks "Where do we go from here?" you shouldn't stop at "Let's combine PCIe and DP".

What else would you want to do? I don't mind Thunderbolt I mean you can control everything with one cable and with that one cable carry an entire PCI Express Bus with all kinds of ports and features and even add in video if you like.

I have been using computers since 1982 and I just built a new ivy bridge with thunderbolt so that it's built for the future and I don't have as many ports on the back as I want and with this I can add a lot of stuff with one cable. I don't see where the problem is.

If you want a 4k HD webcam use USB 3.0, if you want more ports and more features without taking up all your PCI Express ports, bam now you can.

If you are looking for a 100 gigabit pipe that's nice, but I don't know what I would use it for. At least Thunderbolt has some purpose. A 100 gigabit pipe is just an epenis.

 

[Zubasa]

because USB is USB. thunderbolt is PCI-E.


you cant hook up a graphics card over USB 3.0.

You actually can hook up a GPU via USB, but the problem is the bandwidth is crap compare to even pci-e x4.

 

[Elmo]

^ what you say is true ive seen some people do it before lol but its really bulky coz it needs to be on the outside :S but yeh its still better then hd 3000 lol or even the stupid optimus ... seriously

 

[olstyle]

With TB you could do things like a desktop screen for you notebook which not only attaches to the NBs computing power but brings its own, more powerful graphics unit and also connectivity for mouse and keyboard(or be a touchscreen). All by connecting one cable to your notebook. I'm pretty sure apple will do something like this in the not so far future.

Having said all this I'm still not sure how TB helps on a desktop motherboard except from saving a few cables(which don't really bother me on an non mobile system).

 

[Mussels]

With TB you could do things like a desktop screen for you notebook which not only attaches to the NBs computing power but brings its own, more powerful graphics unit and also connectivity for mouse and keyboard(or be a touchscreen). All by connecting one cable to your notebook. I'm pretty sure apple will do something like this in the not so far future.

Having said all this I'm still not sure how TB helps on a desktop motherboard except from saving a few cables(which don't really bother me on an non mobile system).

external hard drives will benefit.

 

[olstyle]

As others already pointed out E-SATA and USB3 do just fine. Always connected drives(or whatever else) are still best build internal.

 

[Mussels]

As others already pointed out E-SATA and USB3 do just fine. Always connected drives(or whatever else) are still best build internal.

no, they dont. they can handle one drive per cable/port at full bandwidth, and that doesnt take into account the bandwidth limitations of the controllers themselves. (a 4 port controller cant handle 4 drives at full speed at the same time)


once you add in multiple drives on the same cable, E-sata and USB3.0 are laughably slow.

 

[olstyle]

So why do I need multiple(read >2) external drives connected at the same time? If I don't plan do disconnect a drive I build it into the tower and connect it to the internal S-ATA Ports. No problem there.

(a 4 port controller cant handle 4 drives at full speed at the same time)

An S-ATA/SAS Controller can do full speed on all ports. Some add-on controllers are held back by the number of pci-e lanes they are connect to, but this is a limitation thunderbold controllers have to live with,too.

 

[Mussels]

So why do I need multiple(read >2) external drives connected at the same time? If I don't plan do disconnect a drive I build it into the tower and connect it to the internal S-ATA Ports. No problem there.

An S-ATA/SAS Controller can do full speed on all ports. Some add-on controllers are held back by the number of pci-e lanes they are connect to, but this is a limitation thunderbold controllers have to live with,too.

and can you get SAS controllers that do multiple drives off one external cable, without speed linitations?


just because you personally dont use multiple external drives, doesnt mean other people dont.

 

[olstyle]

No, but you can just use multiple ports.

You always need the same number of cables and drives, just the connection scheme differs.
As long as one doesn't plan on removing the source I don't see the benefit in daisy chaining.
It's more work to remove one part in the chain(3xunplugging + 1x repluggin; the connection to all following drives is interrupted in the meantime) then removing one drive which is directly connected to its port(2x unplugging; all other drives keep there connection).

btw.: What do these "other people" need their many external drives at the same time for?

 

[Disparia]

What else would you want to do? I don't mind Thunderbolt I mean you can control everything with one cable and with that one cable carry an entire PCI Express Bus with all kinds of ports and features and even add in video if you like.

I have been using computers since 1982 and I just built a new ivy bridge with thunderbolt so that it's built for the future and I don't have as many ports on the back as I want and with this I can add a lot of stuff with one cable. I don't see where the problem is.

If you want a 4k HD webcam use USB 3.0, if you want more ports and more features without taking up all your PCI Express ports, bam now you can.

If you are looking for a 100 gigabit pipe that's nice, but I don't know what I would use it for. At least Thunderbolt has some purpose. A 100 gigabit pipe is just an epenis.

So... you'd like to keep those internal PCIe ports free and instead spend more money on external versions of those items? Some of which may need extra power bricks (more cables), and all of it channeled through the Thunderbolt controller to the PCIe bus which could be directly tapped by internal versions.

It's not so much about what I want it to do, it's that I don't want to see more BS added to computers for no reason other than to milk consumers. So far Thunderbolt is very much an old wine in a new bottle solution.

and can you get SAS controllers that do multiple drives off one external cable, without speed linitations?

just because you personally dont use multiple external drives, doesnt mean other people dont.

One mini-SAS cable is 4 connections at the speed of the controller (3Gb, 6Gb, or 12Gb in the near future). Norco has a pretty cheap 24 bay chassis with cascading SAS expander. Could chain several of them.

 

[Mussels]

No, but you can just use multiple ports.

You always need the same number of cables and drives, just the connection scheme differs.
As long as one doesn't plan on removing the source I don't see the benefit in daisy chaining.
It's more work to remove one part in the chain(3xunplugging + 1x repluggin; the connection to all following drives is interrupted in the meantime) then removing one drive which is directly connected to its port(2x unplugging; all other drives keep there connection).

btw.: What do these "other people" need their many external drives at the same time for?

because not everyone uses just one hard drive. i have 14 on my desktop, most external.

So... you'd like to keep those internal PCIe ports free and instead spend more money on external versions of those items? Some of which may need extra power bricks (more cables), and all of it channeled through the Thunderbolt controller to the PCIe bus which could be directly tapped by internal versions.

It's not so much about what I want it to do, it's that I don't want to see more BS added to computers for no reason other than to milk consumers. So far Thunderbolt is very much an old wine in a new bottle solution.


One mini-SAS cable is 4 connections at the speed of the controller (3Gb, 6Gb, or 12Gb in the near future). Norco has a pretty cheap 24 bay chassis with cascading SAS expander. Could chain several of them.

at least you're making a valid argument, but your SAS argument falls apart in one area only - availability. you need SAS controllers and drives. this will be available on mid range netbooks, let alone desktops and servers.

 

[babash*t]

Well I see some motherboard makes are working on it but this thunderbolt tech wont matter until we see peripherals made to work with it