Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wireless PCIe To Enable Remote Graphics Cards

Posted by timothy on from the no-cat-involved dept.

J. Dzhugashvili writes "If you read Slashdot, odds are you already know about WiGig and the 7Gbps wireless networking it promises. The people at Atheros and Wilocity are now working on an interesting application for the spec: wireless PCI Express. In a nutshell, wPCIe enables a PCI Express switch with local and remote components linked by a 60GHz connection. The first applications, which will start sampling next year, will let you connect your laptop to a base station with all kinds of storage controllers, networking controllers, and yes, an external graphics processor. wPCIe works transparently to the operating system, which only sees additional devices connected over PCI Express. And as icing on the cake, wPCie controllers will let you connect to standard Wi-Fi networks, too."

181 comments

  1. I must admit... by magsol · · Score: 1

    That is coooooooooooool.

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:I must admit... by parlancex · · Score: 1

      Although interesting, I imagine it will be impractical for many devices that would be adversely affected by the latency, even if the bandwidth was suitable. Additionally, wireless networks come with a certain amount of packet loss, which means even if they are encapsulating the PCI bus protocols over a TCP stream with large enough buffers to queue up lost packets, the huge burst in latency would most certainly cause strange behavior for many devices as modern OS's probably assume that if a PCI device does not respond quickly something horrible has gone wrong.

    2. Re:I must admit... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd better get used to your computer experience looking like thaaaaaaaaat if your display has to be sennnnnnnnt over a wireless linnnnnk.

    3. Re:I must admit... by inKubus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention security. I mean, you thought Tempest was bad before, now I can wirelessly sniff and alter PCI traffic, which is a direct conduit into the RAM.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    4. Re:I must admit... by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      Can't they develop a really high-bandwidth external graphics port designed for this sort of thing? I'm thinking along the lines of eSATA, but for graphics. Maybe ePCIe?

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    5. Re:I must admit... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      What would that other e stand for?
      Express PCI Express?

    6. Re:I must admit... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      There have been various ad-hoc solutions to the problem, nothing standardized has yet hit the field, though the PCI-SIG has an initial standard. These guys are representative enough of the sort of products actually available, usually break-out boxes to allow laptops or undersized desktops to run a few more cards. A few more specialized instances, for the laptop market, have consisted of basically your usual docking station; but with a cable that plugs into an expresscard port, rather than a proprietary connector.

    7. Re:I must admit... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Does the PCI bus really work that way? Are you sure that the device controls where the data goes into memory? I would have thought that the destination is safely set up in software to point somewhere harmless like a raw data buffer, and then the device dumps into that spot.

    8. Re:I must admit... by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      External PCI Express. Like I said, similar to eSATA

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    9. Re:I must admit... by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      External PCI express... I know I know ... "woosh" or something.

    10. Re:I must admit... by morcego · · Score: 1

      Is it ? From the specification, you can read:

      Support for beamforming, enabling robust communication at distances beyond 10 meters

      So, the standard range is less than 10 meters ? This is anything but awe inspiring.

      Maybe the text is misleading, and it is not a standard 10m range. But that is the impression I get ...

      --
      morcego
    11. Re:I must admit... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      They did.
      And no one used it.

    12. Re:I must admit... by Rivalz · · Score: 1

      I just hope Apple isn't behind this technology.

      You'll get degraded signal if you hold or sit next to your computer. And if someone using a microwave within 100meters you lose signal completely. But that is a feature so you know when your food is done cooking.

    13. Re:I must admit... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What did you expect at 60Ghz?
      This signal will not penetrate a sheet of paper.

    14. Re:I must admit... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Some recent systems have IOMMUs which provide privilege separate between hardware devices much like normal MMUs govern software. However, unless this sort of IOMMU device is active, PCI and PCIe hardware is generally capable of transferring data to or from any other connected device, including any area of system RAM. Sometime this can even extend to external interfaces; for example, people have been known to take advantage of the DMA capabilities of the Firewire protocol to read the contents of RAM on an active system.

      In general, non-hotpluggable hardware has been granted the same level of trust as the OS kernel, so no one worried very much about it. IOMMUs were more about protecting against faulty or corrupted software (device drivers) than malicious hardware. However, more and more hardware is hotpluggable these days. Also, some software interfaces are becoming too complex to really trust—consider, for example, the interface to a modern GPU, which must transfer data to and from RAM, and perhaps other GPUs, under the control of code provided by user-level application software (shaders, GPGPU). Without an IOMMU it is up to the driver software to prove that such code is perfectly safe, which is an inherently hard problem.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    15. Re:I must admit... by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not that bad -- I've done it before.

      X Windows over plain old wifi.

    16. Re:I must admit... by tatsu69 · · Score: 1

      Yes it really does work that way. Any PCI device in your system can read/write to any location it can address. If the device only has 32-bit PCI then it is limited to the lower 4G of memory space, if it is 64-bit PCI then it can go anywhere.

      There is an IOMMU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOMMU) but I am not very familiar with it. More modern machines than I was working with would probably implement this for protection from the device.

    17. Re:I must admit... by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well.

      My second thought was "I wonder how they're going to handle security and authentication?" Which rather took the shine off my first thought, I'm afraid.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    18. Re:I must admit... by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're unlikely to be able to *alter* PCI traffic, though you could perhaps *insert* PCI traffic.

      Still, people figured out properly encrypting wireless links some time ago. Tempest is primarily interesting because the signals you're looking at are unintentional (and often unknown) side effects and they often deal with links that are impossible or unreasonable to encrypt.

    19. Re:I must admit... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Informative

      "I imagine it will be impractical for many devices"

      You're right, and the summary is wrong and the article's a bit misleading.

      "... will let you connect your laptop to a base station with all kinds of storage controllers, networking controllers, and yes, an external graphics processor."

      Sorta... PCIe 16x is 16 GB/s, that's with a big B for bytes. They're hoping for 7Gbps, or 875 MB/s. "the spec should move "quickly" to 7Gbps (875MB/s)." That's 1/20th the speed of 16x PCIe. They might be able to do PCIe x1 but that's it.

      If they would have read the whitepaper that is all explained:

      "A reliable wPCIe connection can be maintained with a relatively low data rate channel. However, to achieve meaningful performance between local and remote devices, the data rate needs to be on the order of 2 Gbps, or that of a single lane of PCIe. The only practical wireless channel that can support this capacity is 60 GHz."

      So basically this can transfer wirelessly at ~500+ MB/s, so you can have wireless BD-ROM, wireless hard drives, and yes even wireless displays, since it's fast enough to transfer 1080i without any compression, but I'm sorry to dash the hopes of anyone that thought they could someday upgrade their laptop's video card by simply buying a wireless external Radeon HD 5970 or Geforce GTX 480, you will still need a GPU connected by 16x PCIe to process the video and then stream it similar to what OnLive Remote Gaming Service offers now.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    20. Re:I must admit... by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 1

      Yes. All low level devices are wired to the CPU by the memory bus. Writing data to a PCI card is simply a matter of writing to a certain memory address. The PCI card will see a specific address on the memory address bus and know the data on the data bus is intended for it.
      It's not like x86 CPUs have one bus for devices and one for memory.

    21. Re:I must admit... by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Not to mention security. I mean, you thought Tempest was bad before, now I can wirelessly sniff and alter PCI traffic, which is a direct conduit into the RAM.

      Yep. Can't wait. Endless fun and games at the next Powerpoint presentation by Corporate.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    22. Re:I must admit... by ThreeGigs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What are the possibilities of channel bonding, though? WiFi has 11 channels, is it possible to build a sender/receiver pair that can move data over multiple channels at once? Perhaps soon there will be 7Gbit, then 14Gbit, then 21Gbit, etc implementations. Need more bandwidth? Add more radios.

    23. Re:I must admit... by SilentSandman · · Score: 1

      heh, my second thought was, "Oh wait, yet more kinda cool tech I'll never use."

      Wireless is interesting and all, but personally I prefer my data to arrive at the other end. I'm more of a fan of the good old ethernet cable all things considered. Will be interesting to see when we start putting more data over those cables (ie: the 'new' idea of plugging your screen into an ethernet cable), avoids a great many of the issues something like this brings up. (Security, packet loss, expected transfer rates, expected transfer distances.)

    24. Re:I must admit... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      What are the possibilities of channel bonding, though? WiFi has 11 channels, is it possible to build a sender/receiver pair that can move data over multiple channels at once? Perhaps soon there will be 7Gbit, then 14Gbit, then 21Gbit, etc implementations. Need more bandwidth? Add more radios.

      We're already crowding the spectrum enough with wireless standards. Do we need more waste crowding in on an already crowded space?

    25. Re:I must admit... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Good analysis, though one caveat: fast enough to do 1080i is really just fast enough to do 720p. And 720p is really only adequate for very small laptops. Anyone attempting to do 1080i on a PC (instead of 1080p) either has no idea what they're doing or they don't need my validation.

      Wireless disk readers and HDD's, though, are an interesting application. Inter-device networking at 500 MB/s might be fast enough for Avatar-style fast swapping of files between base stations and laptops. And 500 MB/s might also be fast enough to connect your laptop as a screen, keyboard, and hard drive to a stationary computer with a lot more umph (and a faster graphics card). You know, the way the old Powerbooks used to behave like SCSI drives if you plugged them into other computers ( I really miss that feature ). The base station would have the brains and would be tapping the resources of the laptop in that arrangement, rather than vice-versa.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    26. Re:I must admit... by blankinthefill · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're talking about using the 60GHz bands, which are heavily limited by line of sight, and have extremely poor to no penetration of physical objects. Those facts make it perfect for this kind of high bandwidth, short range application, without further cluttering the spectrum for those around you.

    27. Re:I must admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good catch! So it should be possible to have a wireless GTX 480. To be honest, I'm not sure how many milliwatts it consumes, I sold mine when neighbors compained of their lights dimming whenever I fired up Crysis Warhead. But clearly, the future is Wireless

    28. Re:I must admit... by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True, but consider this possibility:

      Right now everyone's looking at the traditional model. That is, a portable CPU connected to a GPU connected to a display, and adding in a wireless form factor to it.

      What if, instead, the base station contained the CPU AND the GPU connected directly together - much like a desktop system now - to do all the hard math and 3D rendering? - which then outputs a wireless PCIe signal, which is then picked up by the portable device, like a netbook, with a basic GPU, a small processor, and little to no HD space? It's only job would be, much like a thin client - would be to provide you access to the computing power in the "main" section of the house.

      It would be like having a docking station for your netbook that turns it into a desktop powerhouse - only you could walk around the house with it. And, when the time comes that you want to take it outside, you still have the basic capabilities of a netbook.

      That might be a product worth selling to, say, a family of four. "You can pay for four notebooks, or four netbooks and this powerful base station".

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    29. Re:I must admit... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Wireless disk readers and HDD's, though, are an interesting application. Inter-device networking at 500 MB/s might be fast enough for Avatar-style fast swapping of files between base stations and laptops.

      I am surprised that the tech for wireless expansion is here. I would appreciate the missing link: a docking station using eSATA or something new (USB3 or 4?) for laptops and PC's alike to sit more RAM, new CPUs and graphic cards that my laptop / PC is too crowded to place inside. I think wireless anything is too lossy/gimmicky for prime time (my old Lexmark can take 5 minutes to spool 1 page on a 30 second wired print job --I disabled the feature the day I bought it.) But disk readers are probably not a bad idea, though we're doing well with USB.

      What I'd really wish for is a PC to PC USB connection bus, instead of relying on crossover setups, router-dependent or temp master-slave backups.

      You know, the way the old Powerbooks used to behave like SCSI drives if you plugged them into other computers ( I really miss that feature ).

      Not sure if you mean "plugging into potentially Windows computers as a browsable SCSI drive" (this would be new to me,) or only Macs. Anyway, it's neat that beyond the OS 9 era, macs have a "Target Disk" boot mode (Apple + T) to show the internal drive on another desktop without having to physically extract anything. I wish PC's had this because iMacs, small-form-factor PC's, eePC's and laptops are hard to disassemble and reassemble to salvage files on a non-booting OS.

      I'm saddened that AGP, PCI-express, home-PC RAID, [whatever the name for our Windows-less BIOS web-ready OS boot] and the eSATA-era have invaded motherboards and Operating Systems, without bringing Target disk mode to Windows XP, Vista and Seven while the hardware-functionality upgrades were shoved down our throats.

    30. Re:I must admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically this can transfer wirelessly at ~500+ MB/s, so you can have wireless BD-ROM, wireless hard drives, and yes even wireless displays, since it's fast enough to transfer 1080i without any compression, [...]

      That statement is true, but your link doesn't provide the evidence to support it. It only lists the data rates used by various cameras to store compressed YUV data (note the "Data Compression" column). Presumably, most people would prefer their displays to work in a lossless RGB 4:4:4 space, not a lossy YUV 4:2:0. However, the highest common consumer display format, 1920x1200p RGB24 at 60 Hz, requires only 396 MB/s to transfer, so your statement is still valid.

    31. Re:I must admit... by flatulus · · Score: 1

      The 11 WiFi channels (in the 2.4 GHz band) overlap each other such that there are really only 3 non-overlapping channels possible (1, 6, 11). Remember that WiFi (actually pre-WiFi 802.11) started out with 1 Mbit/s transmission speeds. At that time, 5 MHz channel spacing allowed 11 non-overlapping channels. But with 802.11b (which was the first "WiFi" version) and ever since, channel widths have been at least 22 MHz - hence only 3 usable channels.

      At 60 GHz, I think they're going for speed in a single channel vs. multiple channels. So a single 60 GHz transmitter/receiver pair take up the entire spectrum. No room for multiple overlapping transceivers in the same physical space.

    32. Re:I must admit... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Mostly because ExpressCard is entirely too slow to match what we have in a desktop machine.

      Which is a shame -- I have wanted that product pretty much since I saw it, though I'd much rather have it integrated into a standardized docking station of some sort.

      Every time I think that through, though, I basically decide that I want my docking station to be either a desktop or a server -- spare CPUs and RAM, extra disks, separate monitor/keyboard/mouse, and of course, PCI, PCIe, USB, FireWire, etc.

      I think next time around I'm going to get a lighter laptop and a beefy desktop, and keep the server I've got. The server, among other things, functions as a NAS, so it could share files easily between desktop and laptop.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    33. Re:I must admit... by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      The FCC has set aside 57-64GHz for high speed unlicensed wireless use. If the IEEE 802.15.3c standard is followed, then this is divided up into 4 channels.

    34. Re:I must admit... by yuhong · · Score: 1

      If the device only has 32-bit PCI then it is limited to the lower 4G of memory space, if it is 64-bit PCI then it can go anywhere.

      More correct: If the device only support Single Address Cycle then it is limited to the lower 4G of memory space, if it support Dual Address Cycle then it can go anywhere.

    35. Re:I must admit... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      No thank you. I can see their argument WiGig does a few cm and is a cable replacement tech. You cannot even send across the room with it. It is however yet another "microwave your brain" in the house.

      I'd rather have PCIe over optical and a standard dockable optical connector that can tolerate at least a few thousands dock/undock cycles on my laptop. Is it that difficult?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    36. Re:I must admit... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      1080p is 1920x1080 at 60 Hz. That's 1,179,360 pixels per frame, or 70,761,600 pixels per second. With 24-bit colour, that's three bits per pixel, giving 212,284,800 bytes per second, or about half of what this spec allows. Of course, you'd want some error correction, so that might bloat the signal up to 300MB/s, but even that's less than the available bandwidth, giving you 200MB/s to use for audio, disk, and anything else you might want in the docking station.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    37. Re:I must admit... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      So if you use this for a certain OpenGL demo on an external GPU, is that a tempest in a teapot?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    38. Re:I must admit... by wgoodman · · Score: 1

      WiFi has 11 channels, but of those, only 3 don't actually overlap.

    39. Re:I must admit... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      Wireless hard drives sound cool, but what about latency and lag?

      I'm on the internet wirelessly, I do get latency problems from time to time due to the extra "hop".

      As far as I'm concerned the internet is like a wireless hard drive to me. :) Ok, a wireless network of networks.

      Graphics at a decent FPS rate does require huge amounts of bandwidth at a decent screen resolution. Just look at how online video (eg Youtube) is buffered before it starts.

      A wireless network at speeds whereby wireless hard drives and wireless displays sounds very interesting, especially in say a university library where the units people use would just need to be basically a display, keyboard and mouse if they could access the servers quickly enough wirelessly. How many computers could or would be supported with wireless hard drive access (and/or wireless displays) before the available bandwidth would be used up?

      Wired networks have their downsides (especially if damaged or cut accidentally), but I've generally found them to be faster and have a lower error rate.

      So what are other people's experiences of the issues?

      --


      Video Game cheats, hints a
    40. Re:I must admit... by Joeseph64 · · Score: 1

      I just thought I'd point out how tech history tends to repeat itself.... You're describing a new time-sharing system.

    41. Re:I must admit... by the_womble · · Score: 1

      like a netbook, with a basic GPU, a small processor, and little to no HD space? It's only job would be, much like a thin client - would be to provide you access to the computing power in the "main" section of the house.

      You mean like you can do right now by using the netbook as an X terminal?

      That might be a product worth selling to, say, a family of four. "You can pay for four notebooks, or four netbooks and this powerful base station".

      Much as people use old PCs as X-terminals (I have done it in a small office), except with the advantage of portability. I was thinking of buying a netbook to use in just this way.

    42. Re:I must admit... by theun4gven · · Score: 2, Informative

      But you couldn't walk around the house with it. You could walk around the same room. Next room, maybe, but certainly not two rooms over nor even another floor.

    43. Re:I must admit... by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      This also provides work for multi-core CPUs. What better task for a central, 16+ CPU machine than to serve separate applications to each member of a family? Everybody runs their own portable client and the big box in the basement does all the heavy lifting.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    44. Re:I must admit... by neiko · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be VNC over wifi as X Windows transmits a lot more than just a raster image of what is currently visible.

    45. Re:I must admit... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      What if, instead, the base station contained the CPU AND the GPU connected directly together - much like a desktop system now - to do all the hard math and 3D rendering? - which then outputs a wireless PCIe signal, which is then picked up by the portable device, like a netbook, with a basic GPU, a small processor, and little to no HD space? It's only job would be, much like a thin client - would be to provide you access to the computing power in the "main" section of the house.

      Unless you're thinking of GPU as what you find in your TV, I think you're asking for more than is required. But this is something I've been waiting for for a long time, too. Laptop form factor with keyboard, track pad, screen, and sound, with all the horsepower of my desktop running it. And if I want to sit at my desk and have the benefits of a bigger screen, better sound, and a mouse, that's just a click (or less) away.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    46. Re:I must admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. I'm getting 373MB/s by 1920x1080x3x60, which is about what other people have said for uncompressed video feeds. Add in audio, signal overhead, and error correction for the audio, and you're probably up at around 400MB/s.

      That's a 20% buffer below the standard's theoretical max. I don't know about you, but I've never seen 802.11abg or n do more than 1/2 of their theoretical max transmission rate without resorting to funky extensions. Is 20% enough of a safety buffer for potential signal degradation? I guess time will tell.

    47. Re:I must admit... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?
      External PCIe uses the PCIe bus on the motherboard.
      It simply pulls the wiring out of the case via ports on the back.

      Its job is to pull the giant, hot, power-hungry GPUs outside of the case.

      You wouldn't use Express Card for it.

    48. Re:I must admit... by andrikos · · Score: 1

      1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame
      x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second
      * 3 / 8 = 44.49 MB/s

      I think that your calculations are a bit out

    49. Re:I must admit... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame
      x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second
      * 3 / 8 = 44.49 MB/s

      I think that your calculations are a bit out

      I'm sorry, but it's your calculations that are a bit out.

      1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame
      x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second, this I agree with.

      But then you made a mistake. A pixel is represented by 24 bits, or three bytes. When you multiply by 3, you're converting pixels to bytes - but then you divide by 8 because you think you still need to convert bits to bytes.

      The actual numbers are:

      (124,416,000 pixels / second) * (24 bits / pixel) * (1 byte / 8 bits) = 373,248,000 bytes/s = 355.96MB/s

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    50. Re:I must admit... by andrikos · · Score: 1

      So I guess in the end, 2 wrong (post)s make one right (post) :D

      Thanks for the correction!

    51. Re:I must admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not any area of system RAM ...

    52. Re:I must admit... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Could you be more specific? My understanding is that PCI/PCIe devices have the same access to system RAM as the CPU(s), unless an IOMMU is present and programmed to prevent it.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    53. Re:I must admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As one example, you can't access the SMRR protected region using DMA regardless of IOMMU.

  2. Finally! by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    A solution to all of OnLive's problems! Now they'll be able to put an access point in every neighborhood!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Finally! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      At 60GHz those homes better be very close together and very small. Is your house wider than 10m?

    2. Re:Finally! by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      At 60GHz those homes better be very close together and very small. Is your house wider than 10m?

      640k... er,
      60Ghz should be enough for the Smurf village I share my parents' basement with :)

  3. hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if I don't read Slashdot?

    1. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then it won't make a sound.

  4. Question by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To those in the know, why will this succeed where UWB/wireless USB failed in the market?

    Remote graphics seems like an even more esoteric need than the remote mass storage, printing, cameras that UWB would have offered?

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    1. Re:Question by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have no idea whether it will go anywhere; but I'd assume that the one major strike in its favor is that, unlike wireless USB, wireless PCIe addresses use cases that basic boring ethernet/wifi do not.

      The performance of early wireless USB hardware was pretty shit, and it was uncommon and ill standardized, so you usually still had to plug a dongle in, just to get performance worse than plugging in a cable. Plus, basic NAS/print server boxes had become really cheap and fairly easy to use. Anybody who wasn't a technophobe or living in a box(and thus not the target market for pricey and sometimes flakey wireless USB) already had his mass storage and printers shared over a network, wired or wireless, and his human interface devices wireless via bluetooth or proprietary RF, if he cared about that. Wireless USB didn't really enable any novel use cases that anybody cared about.

      On the other hand, there is basically no way of plugging in "internal" expansion cards over a network(in the home context, I'm sure that some quite clever things have been done with I/O virtualization over infiniband, or whatever). Particularly with the rise of various "switchable graphics" technologies, I assume that the use case is basically this: User has nice thin, light, long-running laptop. They come home, sit within a dozen meters of a little box(containing a graphics card or two, with one head connected to their TV), and suddenly their laptop has a screaming gamer's graphics card supplementing the onboard card, either usable on the built-in screen, or via the second head connected to the TV, or both.(Analogs could be imagined for professional mobile workstation applications, where simply sitting near your desk connects you to a quartet of CUDA cards and an SAS controller with 4Us worth of drives hanging off it.

      Will the market care, enough to bring the volume up and the price down? I have no idea. However, it at least has the advantage of allowing things not otherwise possible, unlike wireless USB, which pretty much covered the same ground as a mixture of bluetooth peripherals and resource sharing protocols over TCP/IP; but years later and without the standardization..

    2. Re:Question by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but remote graphics is much more difficult to do over WiFi. When you already have a router, why buy wireless USB or UWB devices, which you need a special dongle or card for, when you can just buy one with WiFi and be done with it. Plus, if you're doing wireless, you're likely using it for multiple PCs, which is even more reason to go with something you already have. Who's going to buy a separate $20-$50 dongle for every computer they want to print from, for example, when they don't need to? 802.11g offers plenty of speed for printing, cameras, and while it's a far cry from USB2.0 for remote storage, I would imagine that 54Mb/s is good enough for a large portion of users.

    3. Re:Question by johnhp · · Score: 1

      I disagree that the need for this kind of thing is esoteric.

      I live in a house where there are three computers and three people who use them to play games. As it is, if we're all going to play the newest games (which we don't) we would need to keep three computers upgraded. If the graphics processing was shared by all three from some kind of household graphics server, it would certainly be cheaper to meet everyone's needs.

      Hardware graphics acceleration is definitely catching on for general use. Windows 7 and Ubuntu both use it in their regular desktop environment.

    4. Re:Question by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      This is all about hooking up to your TV without requiring a bunch of setup from your laptop or a dedicated computer. Instead of fucking around with cables every time you want to hook your laptop up, you just have to plug a box in permanently and enable it on your laptop when you want to. I don't know if it'll catch on, but it's definitely aiming for a different niche.

    5. Re:Question by flatulus · · Score: 1

      Not completely sure, but I think one problem with UWB is that the power levels had to be set SO low to appease those *licensed* operators of the spectrum it overlaps that performance just ain't all that great.

      Then again, it could be that UWB was torpedoed by the Osborne Effect of having 60 GHz coming "in the near future." Honestly, electronics evolve so fast it's hard to understand how anybody makes a buck in "latest/greatest technology" anymore. I was looking at hard drives this morning. Seems the new price point for 1 TB drives is $75. Sheesh!

    6. Re:Question by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Wake me when they have remote memory, or even remote CPU. Hell, they could have a fully remote computer that has just air space between me and it. Oh, wait...

    7. Re:Question by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      The best use case I can think of for this is when my laptop finally shrinks into my phone. I don't have to attach a zillion wires to the phone to get it to operate as my computer.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    8. Re:Question by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Unless Mr. Fusion has come on the market by then, you'll probably be attaching a power cable in any case, so having a standardized combination of power cable/high density PCIe connector would presumably be even easier..(except, of course, that the cellphone guys will standardize shortly after hell freezes over).

    9. Re:Question by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Yep, power + Wireless PCIe sounds good. Kinda like nouveau bluetooth.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  5. Good news, everyone! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'll soon have ONE MORE wireless signal to keep track of, when all those we already have work so well together!

    1. Re:Good news, everyone! by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Even better, no more holding your balls in the microwave to get cancer! Getting that medicinal marijuana prescription will be easier than ever.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Good news, everyone! by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this'll be awesome for early adopters and then start to suck as soon as their neighbors get it, kind of like how 802.11g sucks but N is still OK (for now).

      Also, people getting pwned in online games will stop saying "fucking lag!" and start saying "goddamn microwave!"

    3. Re:Good news, everyone! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      As if it were not already embarassingly simple to obtain.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Good news, everyone! by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, the 60 GHz spectrum is unlikely to get that polluted. It has severe penetration problems. If you have a cup of water (or a screaming child) between your laptop and a base station, the signal would likely be interrupted. Having a few walls between you and your neighbors should be fine.

      This is in stark contrast to 802.11*, which can pollute for 1/2 a block.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    5. Re:Good news, everyone! by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to learn the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation...

    6. Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whosh... its called South Park.

    7. Re:Good news, everyone! by darthdavid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      South Park sucks anyway...

    8. Re:Good news, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This tech uses the 60GHz band. The signals probably won't even pass through paper let alone walls. And microwaves certainly won't affect it.

  6. Watch out! by beaviz · · Score: 1

    This could take rickrolling to a whole new level.

  7. "Band"-aid by Ostracus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nice but what's the range, and is the spectrum licensed or will we end up dealing with a "tragedy of the commons" much like the 2.4 Ghz band?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:"Band"-aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait, are you saying that not requiring a license for 2.4GHz was a bad thing? That's the only reason wifi took off.
      What sucks about wifi is the minuscule width of that unlicensed band.

    2. Re:"Band"-aid by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      It's unlicensed. If it were wider, wireless phones and stuff would just use the entire wider band. We've seen this before with 802.11n: "Why let different carriers broadcast simultaneously on different bands when we can just take the entire spectrum and make our network super fast?"

    3. Re:"Band"-aid by balbus000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very short. It has a hard time going through air; walls - forget it.

  8. Just skip the video card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beam it into my brain.

  9. Want, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For an external graphics card, I have to wonder if its 7gbps throughput going to be limited by the time necessary to transform wireless packets into FSB data streams on either end. I suspect the bottlenecks there might be substantial.

    That said, if it works as advertised, this could be the new holy grail for laptop gaming: no more would graphics power be limited by soldered-in cards and upgrades requiring a replacement laptop; just add a few more wireless graphics cards.

    1. Re:Want, but... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Just change a few physical constants to open up some more bandwidth.. emacs has a command for that right?

    2. Re:Want, but... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Just change a few physical constants to open up some more bandwidth.. emacs has a command for that right?

      Yes. Ye olde
      M-x pipe-to-level-3-backbone-core-switch
      ;)

    3. Re:Want, but... by johnhp · · Score: 1

      So you don't know how to use an ellipsis? Is this the vaunted middle school education you spoke of in your other comment?

  10. Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by Revotron · · Score: 1

    That sounds like a wonderful idea and the thought of having a wireless graphics card for a laptop is very tempting.

    But how much performance can we really squeeze out of it? I mean, for a power user who wants a higher resolution than his integrated card can offer, it's a godsend. But for gaming? No way.

    Also, I'll admit I'm not very wise on the technical details of PCIe, but if you're putting all of the above-mentioned devices in contention for 7Gbps of bandwidth, there's really not a lot you can milk from it in terms of real horsepower. One PCIe 2.x graphics card would shut out everything else, or be severely lacking in performance. If you want PCIe 3.x, forget about it.

    OTOH, anyone gaming on a laptop and expecting "performance" comparable to a desktop is daft.

    1. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by geekoid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      " But for gaming? No way."

      "I'll admit I'm not very wise on the technical details of PCIe,"

      well, at least you didn't let your ignorance stop you from making up your mind.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I also forgot, you can get laptops, right now, that are comparable to the desktop. I condier them a complete waste, but that's besides the point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I only paid around $1k for my laptop recently and there are no games currently available that I can't run on at least medium settings. And that's even opting for a better screen than graphics card when I made my purchase. Can I game at super hacker leet graphics levels? No, but I can play all modern games with decent settings and a decent framerate.

    4. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by Revotron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      At least your arrogance is actually assisting you in being an asshole.

      When I say technical details, I mean highly technical details above even most of the Slashdot crowd. I know bus speeds, versions, bandwidth and what the fuckin' connector looks like. And that combined knowledge is enough to tell me that 7Gbps isn't enough to effectively run a modern PCIe 2.0 graphics card on all 16 lanes at full blast. (which would take 8Gbps, and sometimes even that's not enough, hence PCIe 3.0 running at 16Gbps)

    5. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the main factor is not the price premium associated with powerful laptops(which is much more modest than it used to be, though still nonzero); but the heat/weight/battery life penalty.

      A screaming gamer laptop is actually pretty reasonably priced these days, and only a bit slower than the screaming gamer desktop. However, it is still hot, heavy, and loud, and doesn't get thrilling battery life.

      The convenience would be being able to buy a thin-and-light with excellent battery life, that can become a screaming beast if plunked down within range of a supplemental card...

    6. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by geekoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It wasn't an asshole statemnt. Based on YOUR post, you didnt know the technical details of PCIe.

      And you made up your mind about the technology YOU said you didn't know.

      " I know bus speeds, versions, bandwidth and what the fuckin' connector looks like."
      well you didn't say that in your post now, did you?

      Many games, if not most, don't need it to run at 'full blast'

      It's in no way arrogant to point out that, based on your post, you didn't know about it but still made up your mind.
      You are being arrogant in making the assumption every knows you and know what you know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can a desktop with a $100 card, your point being?

    8. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      since I am still fuming from my flaimebait mod and your arrogance to assume I should have known everything you know, there is more.

      pcie 2.0 actually data transfer is 5G plus 20% due to over head. A significant portion of the 3.0 speed increase comes from scramble. much less over head. So you could get more speed then the PCIe 2 in terms of real data using PCIe3 Overhead model. Meaning if it uses PCIe 3, you could probably get 6G prior to overhead; which is more the PCIe 2 in terms of usable data delivered. Granted, to get to pcie 3 speeds, they would need to do some channel magic.

      But hey, since you can recognize the connector, I guess you know that... see, NOW i'm being an asshole.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I bought one of those a couple years ago, mostly because I planned to do video editing on it; gaming was a nice bonus.

      It's a piece of shit. Runs so hot that everyone who uses it comments on the heat, but if you throttle it any it feels crazy-slow. The heat's so bad that if I don't make some sort of special arrangement for it to sit up where it can get airflow, it'll overheat and shut down during games (or sometimes just while playing back a video!). The damn rear vent points down and to the back at a 45 degree angle, meaning that it heats any surface it's on until it's no longer cooling efficiently. Worst. Design. Ever.

      TL;DR: I'm sticking to netbooks from now on, and leaving the heavy lifting to desktops and consoles.

      Hell, these days I could buy a decent netbook and a decent gaming desktop (by which I mean a brain transplant for my existing, old as hell desktop) for the $900 I paid for this thing. $400 netbook, $500 for parts, done.

      For the record, it's an HP Pavillion from the dv6000 series.

    10. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by cgenman · · Score: 1

      It helps a lot that recently PC game developers have been targeting the Xbox 360 and PS3 as their main platforms. These platforms are unchanging, effectively locking developers to the state-of-the-art circa 2005. This keeps PC builds to a lower visual standard, which gives mainstream laptops a chance of actually keeping up.

      Once we see new consoles launched (possibly 2012 or 2013), we'll see developers targeting Poly / RAM budgets of those machines. The PC build requirements will then go through the roof, and laptops will no longer be able to keep up... for a few years, until computers catch up again.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    11. Re:Great Breakthrough, Limited Performance by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      So can a desktop with a $100 card, your point being?

      That the day the [Russian?] GP has to leave his desktop Command Center behind and go on the run from justice, there'll be no performance penalty for roaming while playing Call Of Duty against you :-)

  11. Satan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stalin! Vade retro!

  12. Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until the public interest groups find out. Given some of the other uses for the 60 GHz wavelength it's only a matter of time until WiGig gets accused of promoting child porn...

  13. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wi-pi anyone?

  14. Pci-e x1 is to slow for all of that video will suc by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pci-e x1 is to slow for all of that video will suck at that speed and then you want to add more io to it?

  15. what will this buy you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    render and then encode the video. Many games can already be played like this. It seems like offloading the video card would only add latency to the process.

    1. Re:what will this buy you? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Why encode? The link is fast enough to transmit HD video unencoded.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  16. hmmmm...... by anexkahn · · Score: 1

    Can I use this with my phone?

    --
    Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
    1. Re:hmmmm...... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Yes... if you don't mind your battery life being measured in seconds instead of hours.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  17. I must admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...i am terrified by the security implications of that...and would be totally annoyed if my basic computer devices stopped working when the microwave was running.

  18. Very practical by ultramk · · Score: 5, Funny

    The best feature of this proposed standard is that if you place a ceramic mug directly between your CPU and the external graphic processor, it will keep your (coffee, soup or whatever) steaming hot, all day long! Those days of long WoW raids with only cold beverages and snacks are over!

    --
    You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    1. Re:Very practical by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Those days of long WoW raids with only cold beverages and snacks are over!

      Um, that's what Mom is for. Can't you just put in an intercom?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Very practical by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I “read the book” (as they used to say), and that will only work if you put it on a rotating platter. Or just use a spoon.

      Hmm, from what I know, this should actually work (using a spoon to make the fluid rotate in the mug in the field). But I doubt you can buy a 800W wireless transmitter in your normal electronics shop. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  19. Something wireless I might not hate? by starslab · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will admit some incredulity when I read the title. "Wireless what?!"

    Very cool stuff if it materializes.

    Imagine a small lightweight machine with say an ULV i3 or i5 CPU, small-ish screen and weak-ass integrated graphics. Place the machine on it's docking pad (No connectors to get bent or boards to break) and suddenly it's got (wireless?) juice and access to kick-ass graphics, and a big monitor, as well as whatever else is in the base-station.

    A desktop replacement that remains light and portable for road warriors, with none of the fragility associated with docking connectors. With those transmissions speeds I presume this is going to be a point-blank range affair, so snooping shouldn't be (much?) of a problem.

    1. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by Gazoogleheimer · · Score: 1

      Connectors bending and boards breaking are the result of bad design--and not an excuse to use a wireless system where a wired system excels. Well-designed interconnects allow higher speed, significantly greater security, lower cost, and less interference--like wireless charging, WiFi compared to wired Ethernet, and a FM transmitter on your iPod compared to a straight cable--there's no reason to use a wireless system when you don't have to. It's just a waste.

    2. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Your imagination is not going far enough. Imagine just merely placing wPCIe enabled PC components on a desk, getting power from an inductive pad even. Your rig is a cluster of bits with no connecting wires. wPCIe really means that your system southbridge chip is going to be a kind of wireless access point to whatever devices are a metre or two away.

      wPCIe enabled hard drives will completely erase the need for both 'internal' and 'external' HDDs.

      You'll have small flat box with a motherboard + CPU and Ram. You'll just have a pile of GPUs, HDDs, SSDs, and other add-in cards heaped up on your desk. That's your system. No technical expertise is needed to reconfigure a computer for whatever needs - anyone will be able to do it.

      Much like my desk now, except it'll all be able to work at once.

      Me: "Hey Dude could I borrow your nVidia card I just want to try SLI here?"

      Dude: "Yeah here you go" *enables wireless*

      Me: *wPCIe connected* "Sweet it's working."

      So join me in thinking this is truely awesome. They say the PC is dying because of iPads, Netbooks, the alignment of the planets, but this kind of thing will bring desktop hardware back into relevancy.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    3. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by Gazoogleheimer · · Score: 1

      sadly, as I just mentioned, however, that's a simple waste of money and electricity.

    4. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a small lightweight machine with say an ULV i3 or i5 CPU, small-ish screen and weak-ass integrated graphics. Place the machine on it's docking pad (No connectors to get bent or boards to break) and suddenly it's got (wireless?) juice and access to kick-ass graphics, and a big monitor, as well as whatever else is in the base-station.

      Wow, so I can now use wireless to go the WHOLE TWO INCHES to the docking station? Fucking retarded.

      Light Peak will slap this around so hard bits will fly out.

    5. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or... you could just walk over to your 'base station' and switch on a faster computer. Transfer any data you need to the faster computer.

    6. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a small lightweight machine with say an ULV i3 or i5 CPU, small-ish screen and weak-ass integrated graphics. Place the machine on it's docking pad (No connectors to get bent or boards to break) and suddenly it's got (wireless?) juice and access to kick-ass graphics, and a big monitor, as well as whatever else is in the base-station.

      Hmm, so you've got a base station with a strong processor, a high-end graphics card, and plenty of storage, connected to a large monitor and a full-size keyboard. ....wait a moment....isn't your "base station" just a regular desktop computer?

    7. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by jhfry · · Score: 1

      With those transmissions speeds I presume this is going to be a point-blank range affair, so snooping shouldn't be (much?) of a problem.

      But even at point blank ranges, you still need to worry about interference.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    8. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Do remember, practically speaking that's 500 MBps for all of your devices. If you have 3 hard drives, a monitor, a card reader, a keyboard and mouse, that's about 100 MBps left for each of them. And when this finally comes out, 500 MBps will seem even smaller.

      I remember similar claims about Bluetooth. It was going to be the universal standard, trivial networking between everything, yadda yadda. Ultimately, it's kind of a pain to connect bluetooth devices. "Is this my mouse? No, it's not showing up. Oh, it's paired with you. To un-pair, I have to get a paperclip, hold this button down for five seconds. Now hold this other button for ten until it blinks. Now go into the bluetooth monitor, and look for it again. Is it under HDD's, HID's, HUD's... what are these things?"

      When it comes right down to it, give me old fashioned dead simple cables with old fashioned dead simple connectors. If it's plugged in, it's working. There are some great applications for wireless technology, but removing all the wires from everything doesn't seem to be it.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    9. Re:Something wireless I might not hate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great dream but, how many components would you realy be able to swap out before windows decides you are doing more than microsoft wants you to and locks you out of your computer? this could easily turn into a night mare for all us tech guys when your average computer user thinks that adding hardware to a machine is a easy as setting the component near the other components and hsi computer suddenly starts asking him for the driver disk. For that matter the current way things are done kinda keeps everything in a neat package, I have two children and I would hate to try to figgure out which one thaught my graphics card looked like a nice toy whatever, and took it off my desk. This may be nice for the hobyest but I think for the most part our curent hardware paradime ( ie. everything on one box) is not going away any time soon.

  20. Yes please by pckl300 · · Score: 1

    I've been wanting an external graphics card for my laptop for a while now, unknowing that the technology was in development. This is awesome.

    --
    In the beginning, there was null.
    1. Re:Yes please by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      We've already had external GPUs for laptops. They failed horribly. That is why you don't see them.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  21. Not for me by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Seriously?!! With timing issue and precision required by the GPU to interface with the rest of the system, do we really want it bridging over WiFi (60Ghz)? Of all the devices, this is one peripheral I'd want to leave with physical bus access (electron flow). That, and the CPU and RAM.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Not for me by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      I think the fun part is when the video card is disconnected or the signal strength drops. Bus dropouts should be especially fun when the GPU is running some kind of program code...

    2. Re:Not for me by geekoid · · Score: 1

      well if you can't see how it would be useful, then clearly it's no good~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So suggest a use. While you're absolutely right, you aren't going to convince anyone merely by contrarianism alone.

  22. Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PCIe over Wireless at 60GHz sounds like a security nightmare. Of course, not one seems to think about tha... oh shiny!

    1. Re:Security? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      What kind of transmission range are you envisioning 60GHz to have? Because from my understanding, you'd be lucky to get a couple feet at best.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  23. wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they wanted to bring the GPU *closer* to the CPU for performance's sake.

    So this seems counter-intuitive.

    1. Re:wait, what? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      But can't you smell the per-monitor pricing scheme coming up?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  24. Everyone keeps thinking GPUs by Irick · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking wireless monitors. There is more then enough bandwidth there to drive some really high resolution screens. Just pop your laptop near your desk setup and poof, about ten times the functionality. Not to mention popping this sucker into a smartphone would allow another large degree of mobile computing.

    1. Re:Everyone keeps thinking GPUs by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Not to mention popping this sucker into a smartphone would allow another large degree of mobile computing.

      Yeah, that was the thought that popped into my head. It would be cool to wirelessly and effortlessly connect my super-powered smartphone to a keyboard, mouse, and monitor. With all the computing power being crammed into smartphones, that would be a really awesome way to set up home and office workstations. I'm not talking about running Crysis, but for web surfing and document editing this would be a cool application.

  25. Just great! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Now hidden cameras will be able to stream up-skirt videos in HD!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  26. like cable vod? wait having it at the headend soun by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    like cable vod? wait having it at the headend sounds like a better idea then what they have now.

  27. This is really supprising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about thinking, ahem, out of the box!

    1. Re:This is really supprising! by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

      http://instantrimshot.com/ :-)

  28. Good luck with that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The choice of the PCI bus being wireless is interesting. Essentially they are turning every peripheral into a hot-swap device. Good luck getting ATI/NVidia drivers for that one. The amount of state stored on the GPU is just astronomical (1GB texture memory! not to mention the entire register space, maybe some context switch information). The corner cases on that one would be brutal... Seems like they would be better off using a more stateless interconnect for wireless graphics, such as DVI/TMDS. Overall practical considerations would seem to relegate this to a secondary display, which is useful, but definitely not "killer".

    Same concept applies to any PCI peripheral over this sort of interface (well, any PCI peripheral with state on the peripheral itself).

    1. Re:Good luck with that.... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      I would bet it would be for a overhead display or something like that, not Crysis.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  29. Not exactly... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    Wilocity told us that wPCIe can push bits at up to 5Gbps (625MB/s), and that the spec should move "quickly" to 7Gbps (875MB/s).

    If you consider that PCIe 16x is 16GB/s (128Gbps), this is very underwhelming. Call me a sceptic but I don't see a real-world application of "wireless PCI-E" that is slower than a 1-lane PCI-E. Well, at least a real-world application regarding graphics...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Not exactly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that PCIe 1.0 has more than enough bandwidth for all but the most recent, top-end video cards, right?

    2. Re:Not exactly... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      You do realize that PCIe 1.0 16x is still 4GB/s, right? The point is, would the integrated graphics of a laptop be slower than a card limited to less than 1GB/s? I bet the answer is no.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:Not exactly... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      PCIe Scaling analysis. It's three years old, though.

  30. Neat idea but it'll suck where it needs to shine by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's say I've got even a little building with 50 people who want to use this. Will I be able to pack 50 of these point-to-point units into a building and have all of these systems perform at peak capacity without stepping all over each other? That would be amazing.

    And, aside from the technical issues of getting it to work well in a dense environment, there's still one cord that needs to be connected to the laptop. Power. If I have to plug that in, I may as well snap the laptop into a docking station and skip the wireless connection entirely. One connection is one connection and I won't have to worry about interference, security, bandwidth, etc.

  31. RF bath anyone? by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

    As a skeptical person who usually maintains a scientific 'prove your crazy theory if you expect my buy in' ideology...

    I have to say if you had to bet money on what wireless technology actually WILL cause cancer and your options are cell phone, wireless access point or wireless PCIe sounds, I think wireless PCIe would win.

    1. Re:RF bath anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a skeptical person who usually maintains a scientific 'prove your crazy theory if you expect my buy in' ideology...

      By this do you mean "I'm too lazy to learn anything about this, so I'll just assume its bad, and it up to you to convince me otherwise"?

      I have to say if you had to bet money on what wireless technology actually WILL cause cancer and your options are cell phone, wireless access point or wireless PCIe sounds, I think wireless PCIe would win.

      If I had to make that bet, could I not choose "none of the above"? Any other choice is a guarantee I'll lose my money.

      You might as well ask me to bet on which insect is most likely to build their own independent transport to the Moon.

  32. What Killer App? by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

    The diagram shown at TFA indicates a single PCIe lane (x1) is provided. What PCIe devices would benefit from being wireless?

    • Graphics Card? 1x is hardly the cutting edge in graphics card bandwidth. Modern mainboards often have x16 slots for graphics cards. Decent if you must do *wireless* video, but inferior to say HDMI from a laptop.
    • Wired NIC? Maybe, but 802.11n has similar bandwidth with actual range.
    • USB host controller? Seems kinda silly given the ubiquitous ultracheap wireless mice and keyboards everyone already has.
    • Wireless NIC? Head assplode.
    • small niche items don't seem worth the massive investment to develop the technology
    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
    1. Re:What Killer App? by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Graphics Card? 1x is hardly the cutting edge in graphics card bandwidth.

      And yet, it's all the bandwidth I need to attach a less-powerful video card (such as the Matrox G550, which can run off a PCIe x1 slot) to my laptop, allowing me to dock onto another monitor or two on my desk quickly and easily.

  33. Graphics isn't so interesting-- storage + network by Animal+Farm+Pig · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be so interested in running a graphics card. I'd be more interested in an enclosure/docking station with hardware raid controller that could accept a couple of 3.5" disks. Give me a couple of PCIe slots, so I could plug-in, for example, a quad port NIC. Built-in battery in the docking station would be nice.

  34. I like this though by sea4ever · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this allow huge server-like GPU-farm-like devices to be wirelessly hooked up to any extremely lightweight machine that's nearby via wireless? Of course the wireless latency would be horrendous, but if it could be improved somehow then I imagine this would be amazing!
    In other news, why don't they work on using cables first? A fibre-optic link to an external GPU sounds brilliant. (since GPU's introduce a lot of heat, and size is a problem, this will eliminate those problems)

  35. Re:Neat idea but it'll suck where it needs to shin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 60GHz this will behave more like free space optics than radio waves... just hope nobody holds a sturdy sheet of paper between a pair of endpoints :P

  36. Re:Neat idea but it'll suck where it needs to shin by geekoid · · Score: 1

    what are you doing where all the people need to be pushing 7G constantly across the bus?* If that's the case, the it's probably not for that situation. Most people in most office don't need to be using that kind of data all the time.

    You could create a reliable system so you could take your laptop anywhere and have it display on a large screen or projector. so you walk into a meeting room and it links up. You want to display something on your TV, it links up.

    Perhaps you have a hand held device and want to share on a bigger screen? and so on

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  37. Could Revitalize Desktop Market by Fartypants · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this has the potential to revitalize the desktop market.

    While the wireless docking application for laptops sounds like it has great potential, the promise of using this technology to supercharge low-cost tablets, netbooks and mobile devices when in range of a desktop seems too good to pass up. This would provide a strong incentive for me to buy everything in that ecosystem.

    1. Re:Could Revitalize Desktop Market by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Agree. My immediate thought upon reading the intro was "use with virtually tethered tablet for use near a base station, like in the house."
      The speed of the connection allows for an ultralight tablet with "unlimited" supportive stuff off the tablet and located at the base.
      Doesn't appear to do anything I can envision for the true classic desktop itself; perhaps improved server connection at home? Dunno.

      And it will introduce another wireless standard with which to confuse the masses.
      And to add to phones.

  38. "Nutshell" by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    In a nutshell, wPCIe enables a PCI Express switch with local and remote components linked by a 60GHz connection. The first applications, which will start sampling next year, will let you connect your laptop to a base station with all kinds of storage controllers, networking controllers, and yes, an external graphics processor.

    I don't know about you, but I don't want to have something operating at 60GHz sitting in my lap, thanks... I'll stick to super-long HDMI or DVI cables if I need to route a monitor signal.

    --
    Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
    1. Re:"Nutshell" by mx_mx_mx · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you now sit right next to something that operates at 400-700 THz??

      --
      Linux forever
  39. Awesome, I will own you now. by pclminion · · Score: 1

    Wireless PCI Express? Awesome. I'll just walk by with a specially designed device, master the bus, and DMA the entire contents of your RAM over to a laptop. Then I'll change some interesting bytes here and there, and DMA it back.

    This sounds like the dumbest attack vector since FireWire came out with physical DMA support.

    1. Re:Awesome, I will own you now. by Animats · · Score: 1

      This sounds like the dumbest attack vector since FireWire came out with physical DMA support.

      Yes. As I once pointed out on the Linux kernel mailing list, the FireWire driver enabled external access to physical memory by default, via an un-commented line of code. Only for the first 4GB, though; nobody had updated that backdoor for 64-bit. (There are hardware registers which control the address range for which that feature works. The Linux defaults were to allow 0..4GB-1)

    2. Re:Awesome, I will own you now. by butlerm · · Score: 1

      The whitepaper is silent on the subject, but presumably there is some sort of secure authentication, if not encryption scheme. If not this protocol is more or less worthless.

    3. Re:Awesome, I will own you now. by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      If anyone's transmitting that kind of sensitive data over an unencrypted wireless link, then they're as ignorant as you.

    4. Re:Awesome, I will own you now. by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Whether it is encrypted doesn't matter. I'm a PCI device on your wireless bus. I can access all of your system RAM. The fact that the data is encrypted as it is transmitted to me is irrelevant. Authentication is what's necessary here.

      Refer to the FireWire phys-DMA problem. I can take a firewire-capable video camera, hack the firmware, and create a device that, when plugged into any computer's firewire port, can read and write any value in RAM. Without OS involvement, without anybody even knowing I'm doing it. That's what I'm worried about here.

  40. Re:Neat idea but it'll suck where it needs to shin by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    Did you miss the part where they're talking about docking stations with video cards built in, USB3, network, etc.?

    "The first applications, which will start sampling next year, will let you connect your laptop to a base station with all kinds of storage controllers, networking controllers, and yes, an external graphics processor."

    I don't know how your company works but, around here, we expect people to show up at roughly the same time every day and...erm...work. Like simultaneously. And, yes, many of our laptop users prefer docking stations to plugging and unplugging power/network/video/keyboard/mouse/monitor every time they come and go. And, yes, quite a few people use their laptops exclusively. In fact, very few people have both a laptop and a desktop. What would be the point?

    So, yeah, the scenario described as the first application of this new technology that we can expect to see involves people pushing lots of data across the connection for long periods of time.

  41. well it's about time by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

    they came up with something like this. I just got a new graphics card and the damn thing barely fit into the case(standard ATX). I'd be interested to see how they expect to power an external graphics card and onboard wireless. I recently upgraded my old 8800gtx to a new 250gts(x?)and I had to upgrade from a 450 to a 700 watt psu. I'm not running any high end stuff (quad core, 2 hdd's and the 250)but imagine if I were. I'd be surprised if you could run a serious card remotely but it would be nice. lrick has the right idea, wireless monitors are the right way to go with this.

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  42. You still need another box by zogger · · Score: 1

    There's really no point to it, because you still need another box, a "computer" to wirelessly attach to that has the kick ass graphics and so on..we have that already, called a desktop, and they are cheap now, too. You would still be plopping down your integrated graphics lightweight netbook next to what would basically have to be another full computer, or dang close to it, something that houses the big graphics card and the assorted other stuff it needs to function. You aren't eliminating a box at home, so there's not much of a point to it. If it would completely eliminate a box, sure, but it can't by default, and if it can't, might as well just use your desktop when at home. The freq this proposed system works at only works at extreme close distances, like a few feet at the most, you won't be running this from server two floors away in the basement, so really...just use your ethernet cable then.

  43. um... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Let me think about this... 10lb computer in my lap, $500 wireless video card across the room by the screen... OR... Computer across the room by the screen and 10oz, $30 wireless keyboard in my lap. What am I missing here? Oh wait, I want my neighbors to not only steal my internet connection, I'd also like them to be able to stream everything I do on my desktop live.

  44. Retro Tech by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait, so you're saying they'll be able to send a continuous color video stream THROUGH THE AIRWAVES??? Wow, that's so incredible! I bet they wish they'd had this technology back in the middle of the last century...

  45. Wireless WiFi by mldi · · Score: 1

    "Yo dawg, I heard ya like being wireless, so we made a wireless bus so you can be wireless while you go wireless."

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  46. Yo dawg by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    I herd, you like Windows drivers, so we have put a low-level low-latency bus protocol supported by Windows driver on top of a low-reliability high-latency protocol supported by Windows driver, so you can use Windows drivers while you use Windows drivers.

    Seriously, there is no excuse for this, other than providing this kind of illusory compatibility. Properly engineered systems have protocols optimized to efficiently use media throughput while taking latency into account. This thing can be best described as DMA over Jenga.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Yo dawg by yuhong · · Score: 1

      It isn't just Windows, it is any OS that supports PCI.

    2. Re:Yo dawg by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The only imaginable goal of this is to provide driver-level compatibility without writing any new software. What would be utterly pointless on anything but Windows.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  47. So... by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

    Now all we will need is wireless power!

    Though I think this already exists, based on some of these supposed Office freak-out videos where some bloke goes crazy and tosses a monitor, which mysteriously does not have any cables connected! One might assume that it was staged, but it's wireless power and wireless graphics!

  48. If that's the case by Whyzzi · · Score: 1

    I suppose we could do away with the tracers on the mainboard completely. Minaturize the chip so that it can be embedded in the greatest of the required technologies: RAM, CPU, GRAPHICS, SSD. All of these devices would have the range of a few feet - the standard size of a full size atx case. Increase power draw for longer ranges for the display, keyboard and mouse/joystick/gesture pen. Include AES 256bit encryption and aconvient reset button for rematching components. Include a "volunteer" acknowledgement packet wherein if no other device is in range it automatically mates with the closest of components.

    Now all I have to figure out is how to include multiprocessor situations, and a negotiation technique for automatic server farms with cloning and failover.

    Dang.. I'm sure I'm forgetting something!

    --
    "BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
  49. Wireless Dicking Station! by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Put a wireless power charger for the laptop batteries and you may have created the world's first fool proof and universal docking station for laptops and the dumb ass fools who use them.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  50. Vulcan mind-meld for laptops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Slightly off topic) Now what I'd like is to be able to either wirelessly or via a snap-in dock have my laptop do a 'Vulcan mind-meld' with my desktop PC and be able to all of a sudden use the processing power and storage of both. That is for them to appear as a single and more powerful computer but for them to be usable separately and then merge my home directory and installed software when they come back together.

    Has anybody done this?

  51. Re:Neat idea but it'll suck where it needs to shin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree. Its easy enough to move around my house connecting to power as I have power outlets all over. I don't have docking stations all over nor is it nearly as convenient to carry the docking station around. So if you're always at your desk, you may have a point; otherwise, this does have an advantage. Is it enough of one? I'm not convinced, but it would be cool.

  52. Wired? Only one cable more! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Even 60hz has a very limited transmission range, I am preferring the wired option above the wireless; because anything which gets sent to the air can get intercepted and influenced by any nearby devices or transmitters.

    I like the idea to separate elements from a your PC and start to wire(lessly) connect them together; so not only your pc can be used at your office, but also in your living quarters, bedroom or anywhere where you got a station with a monitor. Security has to come in mind and a wired option should be provided.

    One network cable, a power cable and the cable towards the screen would be only one cable more for more speed, reliability and security. Wireless tends to get freaky with certain factors.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  53. I already have a wireless display by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a TV, all i need is a DVB transmitter attached to my PC and i'm set

  54. Re:Neat idea but it'll suck where it needs to shin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect the use cases for this are a bit different that what you want. What you quoted says base stations, not docking stations, because if you actually dock the laptop in a station, why do you need wireless. So they are talking about situations where you want to access the peripherals without physically docking the computer.

    This tech operates at 60GHz, which effectively restricts it to line of sight. Although this will restrict where you could place the laptop in relation to the base station, it will mean you wouldn't get interference from a neighbouring cubicle (if that was where you used it) let alone adjacent rooms.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of this tech, but if it can be made cheap enough that it gets included in most laptops it will probably be used for something.