POST A COMMENT

20 Comments

Back to Article

  • MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    Same thing as always. Intel pushes a new standard, then waits a few chipsets to integrate it. That way even the board you haven't even bought yet will be outdated. Considering how little today's chipsets actually do, this is even more obsurd. I admire Intel for their CPU designs, but I loathe their chipset schedule. Reply
  • Hrel - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    I agree Reply
  • jeff11 - Sunday, July 10, 2011 - link

    yes Reply
  • gevorg - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    Sadly this is true, which is why I will avoid Thunderbolt as much as possible and use USB 3.0 Reply
  • michael2k - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    How are you going to avoid Thunderbolt if the platform you want happens to have Thunderbolt? Reply
  • Exodite - Thursday, June 02, 2011 - link

    Many motherboards today still come with Firewire ports, that doesn't mean you have to buy devices to plug into those ports just because.

    Unless Intel integrates Thunderbolt natively in the chipset I doubt we'll see that many devices making use of it.
    Reply
  • softdrinkviking - Thursday, June 02, 2011 - link

    yeah, and wasn't intel hinting that they are going to actually push the optical implementation of lightpeak/thunderbolt sometime next year?
    maybe intel is holding off on integration until they get closer to the optical implementation.

    i guess we might hear about it at IDF later this year if intel so chooses to grace us with that info.
    seriously starting to get tired of intel's secrecy tactics.
    Reply
  • gevorg - Thursday, June 02, 2011 - link

    Let me guess... hmm.... Oh yeah, I won't use Thunderbolt connection even if its there! Reply
  • MobiusStrip - Friday, June 03, 2011 - link

    Why would you "avoid" it? It's not like it detracts from any other aspect of the computer.

    WTF?
    Reply
  • MobiusStrip - Friday, June 03, 2011 - link

    Good job, Intel. Compound the widespread ignorance and FUD already surrounding Thunderbolt with this stupid maneuver.

    They never learn. Last time around, Intel reps literally pretended not to know what Firewire was. When asked at SIGGRAPH when they were going to integrate it into their motherboards, they smugly retorted, "Isn't that some Apple thing?" This was about a decade ago, when there was no alternative to Firewire.

    Now there is, and it's from Intel. But there simply not going to put it out.

    Pathetic.
    Reply
  • MobiusStrip - Friday, June 03, 2011 - link

    That should be: THEY'RE simply not going to put it out. Reply
  • epobirs - Saturday, June 04, 2011 - link

    Perhaps you've forgotten but FireWire WAS some Apple thing. There is a reason why it's known as 1394 most places. And it wasn't Intel that made FireWire an also ran outside of niche applications. You can look to Steve Jobs, another Apple thing, for that. He demanded absurd royalties per port for FireWire implementations that guaranteed nobody was going to put it in their chip sets except Apple. Job eventually relented on the price but by then work was well underway on USB 2.0.

    The fact is, the bulk of PC buyers don't know yet what to do with Thunderbolt. Building up interest and applications with it as a PCI-e card or motherboard subsystem is a perfectly fine way to get the standard into the market. Until there is real market demand it would just serve to drive up the price of chip sets for little benefit to most.

    Think about it. If you had Thunderbolt in your system tomorrow, what would you do with it that you cannot achieve by other existing means? It improves things and opens up some new possibilities but the world needs time to react. Intel doesn't want a repeat of the 90s when millions of machines went out with USB 1.0 ports that never saw any use.
    Reply
  • AmdInside - Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - link

    I don't mind. I wasn't going to go out of my way to get a motherboard with Thunderbolt. USB 3.0 yes. Thunderbolt meh. Reply
  • MobiusStrip - Friday, June 03, 2011 - link

    and up with underperforming, processor-burdening USB. Reply
  • Wwhat - Saturday, June 04, 2011 - link

    You might want to read up on what USB3 brings new in its specs, they were aware of the issues with USB2 and that it was not a matter of just raising the numbers/frequencies and they added modes to it. Reply
  • jb510 - Thursday, June 02, 2011 - link

    I was wondering how this could be possible based on how big the thunderbolt chip in the MBPs is, seems like a lot of extra silicon to include... maybe I'm naive though and this isn't really an issue. Reply
  • OneArmedScissorB - Friday, June 03, 2011 - link

    That was my first thought, as well, but if it's currently 65nm, they could easily cut it in half, along with the current 65nm southbridges, and merge them together for a fairly normal size chip.

    If they really wanted, they could even build just the southbridges with Thunderbolt at 32nm and charge more for them, while the rest stay a node or two back.

    It's entirely possible, but they just don't seem to care to make anything of the silicon they are saving as of late.
    Reply
  • jb510 - Friday, June 10, 2011 - link

    Nice to know I wasn't completely alone in that thought :)

    Thanks for the extra info too.
    Reply
  • qqgoodhao - Sunday, July 17, 2011 - link

    http://www.ifancyshop.com

    Women's fashion, men's personality + shoes

    Travel bagthat eye-catching jacket + super pack free shipping
    Reply
  • zgoodbbb - Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - link

    http://www.ifancyshop.com

    Women's fashion, men's personality + shoes

    Travel bagthat eye-catching jacket + super pack free shipping
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now