Back to Article

  • jjj - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt adoption can't skyrocket if they keep it proprietary. Reply
  • ahmedz_1991 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    look at NVidia's PhysiX !!
    everybody would love to taste it even me the AMD fan!
  • A5 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    No one cares about PhysX. Reply
  • Cannyone - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    ...some of us do enjoy PhysX. And it can make a difference in most games. Of course, you're still free to tell yourself that its worthless.

    But whether Thunderbolt is really that much better than USB3 remains to be seen. The one thing in its favor is that Microsoft is probably more willing to pay Intel royalties, than they are to pay Apple. ;-)
  • kanabalize - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    "Integrated Thunderbolt"....

    so... i think might be support for thunderbolt only... not integration...
  • kanabalize - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    Why cant people design a notebook similar as showed on the slide...

    the illustration looks elegant plus sleek and clean... no extra crap...
  • quillaja - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    It looks like a macbook to me. Reply
  • Izliecies - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    so thunderbolt is the new firewire? faster than the same gen usb, yet used by a few people.. Reply
  • Targon - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    I've had Firewire support on my motherboards for ages now, yet have seen so few devices designed to work with it that I wonder why space is taken up for the connector(s). Thunderbolt may follow the same route where it is THERE, but no one will bother using it due to very few devices with that connection. So, perhaps Intel feels that just because many systems will come with Thunderbolt support, that means adoption is high.

    If they build it, that does NOT mean that people will come. Microchannel was a case where a dominant player came up with something new and "better", and no one wanted it, so it died. This is Intel, so we will see Thunderbolt on many Intel based systems, but it will be like Firewire and never get used.
  • cactusdog - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    The difference is Firewire wasnt developed by Intel. Most people run Intel chipsets and CPUs so companies have more faith and long term confidence in Intel technologies. Reply
  • B3an - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    Lol you dont understand Thunderbolt at all. It's nothing like Firewire, or USB. It's PCI-E in cable form. It can replace nearly all current cable types including HDMI as it can also carry DisplayPort and pretty much any type of data. It would be possible to run an external graphics card off of thunderbolt, or connect multiple HD displays from one port by daisy chaining them. Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    LOLing just as hard since you're missing why USB crushed firewire. USB was a simpler protocol that allowed for dumber controllers to be used keeping costs down. Firewire only held onto the small fraction of the market that could needed one or more of it's additional capabilities (generally QoS/latency) over what the cheaper USB2 connection could offer.

    The same constraints will apply to TB, enthusiast class systems will have one or two ports as checkboxes; but most of us will never actually use them. Mainstream boxes will rarely have them since they're just an extra expense. Meanwhile boxes of both types will have more USB3 ports than almost anyone could use since they're silly cheap to add and almost all devices will have USB support.
  • bernstein - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    LOLing even more because :
    a) thunderbolt piggybacks the (mini)DP port which most notebooks (the more expensive ones) nowadays all have built in.
    b) with integration into the chipset in 2012, all intel notebooks can come with thunderbolt at ZERO additional cost for the notebook/aio manufacturer (well, the 2cents for the miniDP)
    c) intel has ~90% of the notebook market.
    d) there is almost ZERO additional cost & technical expertise involved in making thunderbolt devices. just pick any existing pcie chip & combine with a thunderbolt chip.
    e) thunderbolt is pcie in a cable. as such it is immediately compatible with as may chips as usb.
    e) thunderbolt does not have to replace usb3. and it won't. but it is a formidable threat to dock connectors, expresscard and integrated lan. by making pcie available in the monitor connector notebooks will only have to come with usb3 & dp and have a cheap, fast enough, high latency connector and a slightly more expensive high performance link suitable to drive screens, external graphics, 10gbit lan, ...

    thunderbolt is aimed at power/enterprise users not mainstream. in a nutshell it's todays firewire and it costs nothing.
  • quillaja - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    Are the 3D processors also coming in ivy bridge? I thought I read something to that effect. Reply
  • hyvonen - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    If you mean "3D" tri-gate transistors, then yes - those are used on Ivy Bridge CPUs. Reply
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    Is this for all 7-series chipsets - I.E. it includes X78 this year with SNB-E - or is it only for P/H7x next year? Reply
  • Casper42 - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link


    I was kinda pissed Intel called the X-next chipset the 79 when the only major change from the H/P is the PCIe 3.0 inclusion.
    Would be nice if they could squeeze USB3 in there as well.

    Though I dont know how they will implement TB seamlessly into a platform with ONLY Discrete Graphics. Alot of what TB does is related to Video.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    You'll still have the external PCIe link option for high performance devices (probably audio/video related); you just won't be able to use the TB-DP port adapter on it (unless they can provide software to reroute the GPUs output). Reply
  • DanaG - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    Another lame thing about (current) Thunderbolt: it's only Displayport 1.1, so you can't chain multiple displays off an ATI card if you route it through Thunderbolt. Reply
  • StormyParis - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    is see TB as a dock interface, allowing us to use one connector to link laptops to a monitor, keyboard, mouse, lan, and whatever else (2 monitors would be nice).

    FireWire and MCA, mentionned in other comments, where at a relatively high extra cost. If TB support is in the chipset, support is going to be very cheap, cheaper than USB3 right now.
  • vkristof - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    "FireWire and MCA, mentionned in other comments, where at a relatively high extra cost. If TB support is in the chipset, support is going to be very cheap, cheaper than USB3 right now. "

    USB3 will soon cost very little extra because it is integrated into AMD's just-coming-out-now A75 FCH (Fusion Controller Hub). The Llano/A75-USB3 combo should be appearing in laptops/etc real-soon-now.

    The "very little extra cost" would be due to the more complicated USB3 connector which has to contain the original USB2 contacts AND the second set of contacts for the high speed USB3 signals.

    I don't know what Thunderbolt requires, besides an extra connector.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    If TB is built into the chipset it won't cost much on the mobo makers part, assuming enough PCIe lanes are available (unless intel bumps the southbridge from 8 to 12 to compensate for dropping legacy PCI I'm not sure there will be). Implementing the significantly more complex PCIe protocol on the attached device will add to costs there, and keep mainstream stuff on USB. Reply
  • AmdInside - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    I could care less about Thunderbolt. Leave the PCI-E lanes to the graphics card. But I'm glad they are finally including USB 3.0. Even if I get an Ivy Bridge system, chances are I will not buy a Thunderbolt hard drive or other peripheral for a long long long time. And I am generally an early adopter. Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    thunderbolt is going to be using southbridge lanes; excepting the x4 slot on some mobos these are never available for the GPU. Reply
  • danjw - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    It will result in the same fate. It uses the outdated concept of daisy chaining items, it isn't an open standard, and it will be more expensive then USB 3.0 so it won't catch on with consumers. It may have a place with the workstation crowd, but that is about it. Reply
  • fluxtatic - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    What killed Firewire was the ridiculous royalties Apple demanded for it. Competing against a royalty-free (IIRC, anyway) USB protocol, Apple mis-played it hugely. Yes, it is arguably a better interface, since it has its own controller and therefore doesn't suck CPU cycles to perform tasks. However, with the huge cost difference, Firewire got relegated to niche status. Even today it's mostly found only in the domains of pro audio and video, where the lower latency over USB makes a big difference. The premium in cost to manufacturers and consumers made it a no-go for things that were good enough in a USB flavor, eg, everything with a USB interface today.

    If LightPeak (Thunderbolt, whatever) is really that good, Intel would open it up to any and all, and keep royalties low. By itself, it won't be enough to sway people to Intel. It might help a decision along with other factors taken into consideration, but it isn't compelling enough alone. Let's see what the peripheral makers come up with (and how richly Intel starts lining pockets to push it.) It would be a huge mistake to go all in with peripherals that only support Thunderbolt if Intel is the only player with it. Why wouldn't I stick with USB? Even my car stereo has USB...with (at worst) a couple adapters, I can plug a USB flash drive into damn near any electric-powered device around (except a bunch of Apple products, lulz)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now