Slashdot Mirror


Why Thunderbolt Is Dead In the Water

adeelarshad82 writes "In the same way that Apple championed FireWire for the replacement of parallel SCSI, Thunderbolt is meant as the next big thing in video and audio peripheral interfaces. Plus, it's Apple's move to beat USB 3.0. However, Thunderbolt is off to a slow start, for a number of reasons — from cost to the technology's features in comparison to USB 3.0 — which is why it may be dead in the water."

24 of 568 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Bishop923 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    New technology is expensive and uncommon a couple months after release. News at 11.

    1. Re:Really? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That much is obvious, yes. But if you read the article, you will see that the author's primary problem with Thunderbolt is that it offers practically no improvement over USB3, while cutting out the backwards compatibility that was originally intended in the LightPeak demo. Combine that with the high cost of entry, and why would anyone want to switch to the new technology? Without high volume, the price will never come down. THAT is what the author meant.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:Really? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My understanding is that USB3 has a max theoretical transfer rate of 4 GB/s while Thunderbolt is at 10 GB/s per channel giving 20 GB/s total. Also overhead limits USB3 having a peak of 3.2 GB/s. Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Really? by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still have a Mac with HDI-45 connector for Apple's AudioVision 14 display. The monitor died years ago (Florida thunder storm) but was nice, having ADB connections on it. And I'm currently using 4 Apple ADC monitors, each on $100 adapter box that allows me to connect their single cable connection up to a modern Intel Mac.

      Do I like the idea of single cable monitors? Hell yeah!

      Do I think they'll take off? Eh... not likely. And I'm still bummed Firewire never took off as AV equipment interconnects. Would make my home theater setup a lot cleaner.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:Really? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The author is an idiot. Comparing USB and thunderbolt just proves it. Thunderbold will expose pci-express lanes to external devices. USB does not even have DMA.

    5. Re:Really? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean no improvement other than basically making the PCI Express bus available to any device that wants to use it?

      No improvement other than running TWO bi-directional 10 Gbps channels through a single connector? (4x USB 3.0)

      No improvement other than allowing manufacturers to build Firewire, eSATA, USB, and even USB 3.0 adaptors and docks connecting to a single port?

      No improvement other than (in the future) allowing you to snap in a MagSafe power cord and get power AND Thunderbolt connectivity?

      No improvement other than letting you run multiple monitors simultaneously? (new iMac)

      Those "no improvements"?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    6. Re:Really? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, that's not true. Thunderbolt provides a significant win over USB 3 in nearly every way. The author just doesn't get it.

      First, Thunderbolt is based on PCIe for transport. That means that it's a very lightweight protocol, unlike USB, which is very heavyweight. For things like audio interfaces, USB 3 is dead in the water because it offers no advantages over USB 2 (because throughput doesn't matter past a certain point). Thunderbolt, by contrast, should offer a significant advantage in latency over FireWire (and a huge advantage over USB 2), while requiring less CPU overhead than USB or FireWire.

      Second, it's entirely unclear to me why anyone supports USB 3 at all. For hard drives and similar, USB 3 offers no advantages over eSATA. For almost all other devices, USB 3 offers no advantages over USB 2. So ignoring portable devices that only have room for one port, USB 3 is a solution in search of a problem.

      Third, the author doesn't know what he's saying about copper being "crippled". It's not crippled at all. Thunderbolt is intended to eventually be supplemented with new cables that have an optical PHY (transceiver) inside the cable instead of on the logic board. Such a design provides exactly the same advantages as LP (distance), but without all the problems that optical interconnects inherently suffer. To describe thunderbolt as "crippled" because it uses wires is to fail to understand the technology at all. It's exactly as fast as Light Peak was originally intended to be for its initial rollout.

      Fourth, using LP in a USB connector turns out to be a bad idea in general. USB is a great interconnect for low bandwidth devices. It's not so great for talking to displays. With desktops tending to go under the desk, and with more and more people using laptops with external displays at home, there's good reason for wanting all of your external devices to be plugged into your display. Sharing a single data connection for your display cable and your peripherals is a tremendous win—so much so that support for transport of USB data was actually built into the original DisplayPort specification. Thus, Thunderbolt shouldn't be thought of necessarily as a replacement for USB, but rather as a replacement for other display technologies. With Thunderbolt, you could trivially build a monitor that provides full-performance, low-latency FireWire, USB, and eSATA connectors on top of your desk. Try that with USB 3.0.

      Finally, the cost of Thunderbolt hardware is probably greatly exaggerated. Sure, it probably does cost $90 to add TB into a motherboard design right now, but that's because A. it isn't integrated into the motherboard chipsets yet (wait for Ivy Bridge), and B. it likely requires a significant board redesign to free up enough PCIe lanes to support the metric crapton of bandwidth involved.

      Thunderbolt will become a lot more interesting when Intel starts integrating it into their chipsets in Ivy Bridge. Until then, it's really not feasible to most folks to start using it yet. Thus, it's not at all a surprise that adoption has been slow. Right now, it's basically at the developer preview stage, with AFAIK exactly one working motherboard implementation (Apple's).... The author should at least wait until Ivy Bridge before making predictions about the technology....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Really? by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      External DMA is extremely useful - it dramatically reduces system load when accessing storage devices (whether single drives or drive arrays). This lets a notebook be used for data-intensive work (like video and photo work) with minimal overhead. DMA makes the difference between a pleasant experience and whimpering in the corner.

      Claiming that external DMA is horrible idea is disingenuous; winlockpwn (or FireWire, or Thunderbolt) requires physical access to the machine, at which point security becomes a non-issue because there is none - DMA has nothing to do with it. If an attacker has physical access to a machine, the game is over.

      More to the point: Winlockpwn is not a weakness of DMA, but in how Windows uses DMA. Windows has enough remote security problems; we don't need to go into the problems it has when an attacker has physical access.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      USB 3 offers no advantages over eSATA

      The power is in the connector.
      Everything has a USB port.

      Therefore it Just Works.

    9. Re:Really? by toriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Back when USB was introduced the same could be said versus the serial/RS-232 port. And interestingly Apple was one of the first manufacturer to support USB, too...

      Business success means selling the consumer what they did not know they wanted, e.g. the iPad or the Roomba.

    10. Re:Really? by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or to send the video data back to an AJA or Avid outboard at the same time.

      I have seen some Avid Thunderbolt prototypes, they do away with internal PCI Express boards.

    11. Re:Really? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      USB 3 offers no advantages over eSATA

      Did they deprecate hubs in the USB3 spec?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:Really? by d3vi1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically speaking Firewire also tops at 3200Mbps. Unfortunately most products don't actually implement that. Exceptionally, the Mac Pro supports 3200Mbps and has done so for quite some time. However, the rest of the Apple products offer only 800Mbps. That is OK because I haven't yet seen any consumer products that actually use a 3200Mbps link over FW.
      With Thunderbolt it's not about external disks. Except for a few users (think movie editing), most people will end up having a reasonably fast NAS at home. It is however about Thunderbolt based port replicators/docking stations, since it extends the PCI bus, thus being able to add USB controllers, NICs, FW cards and other devices physically to the computer by a single cable. They missed a great opportunity by not including also power over Thunderbolt. It could of been the single cable required to charge, dock and extend the screen of a Mac.
      It's not the speed of Thunderbolt that matters, it's the PCI-E part that matters. Being able to extend the PCI-E bus has a lot of applications. Imagine an ultra-high density mac mini tray that extends the mac minis to add a second NIC (for redundancy), display and a LOM. That would make the Mac Mini the best server out there for hosting websites. In the width of a rack you can put 12 mac minis. In 800mm of depth plus 200 for cable routing you can put 4 rows of Mac Minis. That means 48 mac minis in 5u. That equals 384 mac minis in 40u. Simple math tells you that you can get at under $700/core a total of 768 cores with 4GB of RAM/core (including UPS and switches) in under $500k and under 33W/core in 2 racks (one with UPSs and one with the actual Mac Minis. No blade solution out there can beat that and even the cheapest ones are still at over $1000/core.

      --
      UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
    13. Re:Really? by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do realize that Thunderbolt isn't Apple's "proprietary" tech, right? It's Intel's. Furthermore, while Thunderbolt may not see heavy adoption on desktops, you will be seeing it used far more on laptops. You don't get a bunch of PCIe slots on a laptop. No RAID cards for that disk array so you can use your laptop to edit some uncompressed HD video. Heck, you could even put an external video card on a Thunderbolt port. It'll be much faster than the ExpressCard (1x PCIe) adapters. Got a slim, small laptop? TB = one small port for a desktop docking station.

      People calling Thunderbolt dead are idiots jumping the gun. Will it take off? Time will tell, but there are DEFINITELY good uses for it.

  2. Article reads like a big Apple bash by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article reads like a big Apple bash, even though Thunderbolt is Intel's tech. The points about cost are probably valid but the whole thing comes off as a big unsourced bitchfest.

  3. Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, it comes from Intel, and is the former LightPeak they've been showing off for the past few years. Apple is simply the first OEM to pick it up in their hardware.

  4. Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is it possible this thing's major failing is that few people have heard of it? (ignoring that if it comes from Apple, it's probably a proprietary standard with licensing fees to match...)

    Well, it used to be called Light Peak, and it's an Intel technology that Apple is championing. It's all Intel. It's basically DisplayPort plus x2 PCIe.

    The Thunderbolt name is actually trademarked by Intel, so they're probably going to promote it heavily.

    And Intel is promoting it heavily - the Intel chipsets all have Thunderbolt controllers built in. Whereas, if you wanted USB 3.0, the manufacturer will have to throw in a separate chip and supporting components for that - USB 3.0 isn't coming to Intel chipsets until next year.

    This is an issue as laptop manufacturers who want USB 3.0 have to throw in a separate chip (lots of $$$) and its support components, while Thunderbolt comes "for free". At least, if the laptop runs Intel chips with an Intel chipset.

    As for dead in the water - it's hard to tell. A lot of manufacturers have thrown their hats into the ring of Thunderbolt accessories - hard drives, capture carts, etc. It can provide up to 10W of power (4x USB, but short of FireWire power), plus with daisy chaining and the like.

    The best answer is that it's really to replace FireWire moreso than supplant USB 3.0. FW3200 is pretty much dead.

  5. Apple didn't build Thunderbolt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Intel did. Intel designed and developed the tech, and Apple just came to them and said "Hey, here's some ideas for the final implementation, and we'd like to put it in our devices soon." It is an Intel technology, and one in development for quite awhile.

    It is targeted at something of a different market from USB3. It is more expensive for devices to implement, and less secure, since it is really just an external PCIe port. However that means full DMA, low latency and so on.

    They are complimentary technologies.

  6. Re:Bullshit. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.

    A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.

    That is a bad analogy. The 3.5mm jack is easy to use because there is no wrong way to plug it in. Now the USB connector on the other hand is crap because a lot of people probably have to make two or three tries before then can plug something in. It is a really poor design which is only marginally better than those stupid PS/2 keyboard/mouse ports.

    Now the Thunderbolt connector, on the other hand, has just one right way that you can try to even plug it in. It is easy to see which side is up.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  7. Re:Sensationalist article with no substance by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

    You just spent 3 sentences telling people why anyone who argues differently from you is wrong, yet you provided not a single reason. The only fact you provided is easily disproven:

    Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards, so it seems to be a wash in that regard.

    Most certainly not! I see 29 USB 3.0 motherboards less than $100 at newegg.. The $500 HTPC I bought this year has 2 USB 3.0 ports, as does my 8 month old laptop. By next year even the low-end will have it because manufacturers will have unloaded their USB 2.0 chipset boards.

  8. Re:Sensationalist article with no substance by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 3

    Right now, on newegg, im only seeing USB3.0 on highend multi-hundred-dollar motherboards

    Newegg says you're wrong.

  9. Re:What the hell is Thunderbolt? by C_Kode · · Score: 3, Informative

    yes, about two years ago. Thunderbolt is EXACTLY like LightPeak, as they are the same thing. LightPeak was the project codename, Thunderbolt is the formal product name.

    No, Thunderbolt is an offshoot of LightPeak. LightPeak actually used light (fiber), Thunderbolt is LightPeak over copper with some other differences. Thunderbolt was created because fiber switching is way to expensive for consumer use.

  10. Re:Excuse me? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The USB logo goes "up", Brainiac.

    Neither of my Flash drives have a USB logo on them. I've no idea about my other USB devices.

    In any case, even if that was true it's a piss-poor substitute for a properly designed connector.

  11. Standardizing is a big win by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thunderbolt is designed more to replace eSATA and FireWire than USB.

    Neither one of which has taken the world by storm... Frankly we don't really need a replacement for either of those. They're fine but niche. There is more to having a successful interface than transfer rates. Cost to manufacture, legacy hardware compatibility, current equipment needs, licensing terms, customer demand and more all play a role. The opportunity for Thunderbolt is if it can combine the video (usually VGA/DVI/HDMI) and peripheral ports (usually USB) into a single interface. USB replaces several types of cables but it isn't quite capable enough to replace dedicated video cables. It's not clear that USB3 will be fast enough either. If Thunderbolt is cheap enough to manufacture and has a performance advantage that lets people further reduce the number of different cables they need, then it will have a chance.

    What is wanted is something that is fast, cheap, compatible, reliable, easy to configure and minimizes the number of different cables we need. Frankly most PCs should ideally have no more than two cable types - one high power cable to power the device (when needed) and one type of data cable that can also handle low voltage DC power needs. Nothing wrong with using specialized cables for specific performance needs but that doesn't apply to most of us most of the time. I don't really care if the data cable is USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt or something else entirely but there is a lot to be gained by standardizing on a suitable general purpose data cable. USB comes closest to this ideal right now. (Yes Firewire could do the job but it's too expensive and lost that battle with USB long ago) Perhaps Thunderbolt will take it the next step. Only time will tell.