News & Analysis
Comment
AllyOops
Toad.
I think markhahn has it about right. Without some new technology to hang on the ...
Thunderbolt interface rattles placid PC landscape
Rick Merritt
3/7/2011 1:07 PM EST
The new interconnect could leapfrog work on USB 3.0, which aims to deliver about 5 Gbits/s max and has no capabilities for flexibly supporting multiple protocols.
USB is assured a long life based on its broad adoption across computer and consumer peripherals. If Thunderbolt is successful, however, it could eclipse USB as the new high-end interconnect—as many market watchers once expected FireWire would do.
For that scenario to play out, Thunderbolt would have to establish a broad ecosystem of chips and supporting systems and peripherals. Intel said companies planning to support Thunderbolt include Aja, Apogee, Avid, Blackmagic, LaCie, Promise and Western Digital. Intel aims to enable the interface for use on other computers, displays, storage devices, audio/video devices, cameras, docking stations and more.
The company demonstrated Thunderbolt sending video files at rates up to 800 Mbytes/second between one of the new MacBook Pro notebooks and a prototype storage array from Promise Technology. Intel also showed a nonworking mechanical prototype of a LaCie device supporting Thunderbolt; the portable flash storage array had two Thunderbolt ports and two solid-state drives.
 |
| Intel showed a nonworking mechanical prototype of a LaCie portable flash drive using two Thunderbolt links and two solid-state drives. |
 |
| Intel demonstrated Thunderbolt on a new MacBook Pro notebook linked to a storage array from Promise Technology. |
Apple does not have exclusive rights to Thunderbolt for a set period. But it remains unclear which other OEMs will support the interconnect or when they might sign on.
“There is significant interest with other PC OEMs, but it’s not across the board,” said Jason Ziller, who manages the Thunderbolt program for Intel.
“We have talked to CE manufacturers, and there is some interest in having [Thunderbolt for its support of] high-def display and data carried on the same cable,” he added.
Intel owns the Thunderbolt trademark and will set up an interoperability verification program for using it. The program will be offered at no charge, Ziller said.
For its part, Apple has a mixed history of embracing new system interconnects. It was among the first to champion FireWire, which for a time appeared to be a shoo-in as the high-end computer and consumer interface of choice. But USB quickly eclipsed FireWire, which never gained traction beyond a niche of professional A/V systems and high-end disk drives. On the other hand, Apple was also among the early adopters of Wi-Fi, now standard across all notebooks.
How Thunderbolt might avoid FireWire’s fate is perhaps the biggest unanswered question. FireWire initially had broad backing from chip and systems companies and was far ahead of USB in throughput and latency. Apple took the lead in building FireWire into its systems, courting its users in publishing and media creation.
But FireWire’s proponents rolled out a somewhat long and confusing road map, leaving some to question whether they wanted to support the interface from its first iteration or wait for a future generation. A battle over intellectual property rights further chilled the market. Meanwhile, USB made steady progress getting design wins for its royalty-free technology and regularly updating its speeds, closing the gap with FireWire.
Indeed, USB 3.0 was poised to leapfrog FireWire when Thunderbolt struck.
Thunderbolt had its genesis as Light Peak, first announced by Intel as a tech demo in September 2009 as an optical interconnect positioned as a successor to USB 3.0. Last September, Intel said it had accelerated its work and would deliver a controller chip by the end of 2010.
Then Intel went quiet about its plans. Reports emerged it had revised its work to focus on a copper-based implementation. The adoption move by Apple, which apparently sought an exclusive deal to be the first OEM to use the I/O, likely required Intel to keep its plans quiet.
Despite bloggers’ best attempts to break the silence, the secret remained fairly well kept, until the Apple announcement shook things up.
Next: Why not USB?
|
|
|
|
|
markhahn
3/7/2011 2:49 PM EST
three pages in this article, and still no real explanation of why TB exists. is there any evidence at all that Intel intends something more ambitious than yet another peripheral interface? I had hopes they were trying to do a sort of "IB without the pretenses". but the coverage so far makes it look like a "decommoditization" effort (against USB).
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
3/7/2011 7:24 PM EST
Intel's rationale is that the dual, bi-directional 10 Gbit/s links open up possibilities for faster synching, video transfer and Express outside the PC box--things it says are not possible with the single 5 Gbits/s max USB 3.0.
Sign in to Reply
Warren
3/8/2011 1:14 PM EST
Rick, would you agree the Intel explanation is generally accurate; the technology looks to do what they say and that no other single solution does?
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
3/8/2011 12:25 PM EST
Can we get someone from Intel marketing to comment here? Kris
Sign in to Reply
hm
3/8/2011 2:03 PM EST
I also request Apple application expert to highlight more into their visage as applications for end user.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
3/8/2011 2:04 PM EST
@ Warren: I think Thunderbolt does what Intel claims, but the other side suggests there are real costs and no killer apps for the 5-10G space it has exclusive claim to in PC I/O. @Iniewski: I will try to ping Intel to jump in here.
Sign in to Reply
AlunWang
3/10/2011 4:45 AM EST
To survive in the interconnect market, Intel will need to open the spec in the end.
Sign in to Reply
jaybus
3/11/2011 3:29 PM EST
The ability to encapsulate PCI Express in a low latency way could very well make or break TB, particularly when they graduate to full Light Peak. USB can go optical too, so won't be bound to 5 Gbps, but will still be USB only. There is a big difference between a high speed i/o, like USB 3.0, and actually extending a system bus out of the box. Consider, for example, long range chip-to-chip interconnects. A cluster system would be much less like a bunch of computers networked together and much more like a single machine that just so happened to have its chips spread out amongst several different physical boxes.
Sign in to Reply
docdivakar
3/21/2011 6:38 PM EDT
@AlunWang: You are right, the specs need to be open if Intel wants others to join.
@rick.merritt: the 10Gig PHY/controllers can do the same today although their costs and power/thermal problems are still lingering. But volume adoption and better designs are forcing innovations there any way. Today you can AV-Bridge over RJ45. So there are cost effective existing solutions for faster synching and video transfer today!
Some advantages I see for TB is in displayport in lieu of USB. I don't buy the latency argument (where it matters, financial markets for round trip execution times, InfiniBand is firmly entrenched any way!); even Ethernet can reach microsecond latencies with offload engines.
Dr. MP Divakar
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
3/21/2011 6:52 PM EDT
@docdivakar, interesting comments on latency...would you be interested in expanding them to a short book chapter? (say, compare TB, USB, InfiniBand etc)...if so pls let me know, kris.iniewski@gmail.com
Sign in to Reply
Toad.
7/4/2011 10:48 PM EDT
I think markhahn has it about right. Without some new technology to hang on the end of a TB cable I can't help but remember Yogi Berra's infamous words "It's FireWire Deja Vu! All over again."
Sign in to Reply
AllyOops
8/7/2011 5:37 PM EDT
The key statement is;
"Apple has a mixed history of embracing new system interconnects. It was among the first to champion FireWire, which for a time appeared to be a shoo-in as the high-end computer and consumer interface of choice. But USB quickly eclipsed FireWire, which never gained traction beyond a niche of professional A/V systems and high-end disk drives. On the other hand, Apple was also among the early adopters of Wi-Fi, now standard across all notebooks".
TB is a (calculated) gamble on part of Apple and Intel. That is their business ethos. Leaders lead.
I am investing my hard earned £'s (while they are still worth something) in this Apple/Intel collaboration, including Mac Air, Mac-Mini, TB-Display, and soon I hope, a few Tbytes of LaCie's TD HD Drive's (when they do finally appear). Couple this with the imminent arrival of 'ICloud' and I for one can't wait for all the bits to fall into place.
'Firewire deja-vu', hmmm. Significant advances in technology always (and will always) involve necessary stepping stone upgrades to reach those ground-breaking leaps. I'm betting that TB will be a bit of a leap. Yes, TB will need to become open-spec. In order to survive, it must. Even TB will be a relatively short-lived stepping-stone to high-speed wireless data transfer between devices.
End-user perception of TB will be absolutely critical to the success of TB and not what manufactures take-up of the interface is. If the end user wants TB, then TB they will get. That niche of professional A/V types has recently exploded into a plethora of the amateur A/V types. We are all film makers, garageband musicians and sound engineers now. Apple / Intel are right on the button with TB. For me, it is the right interface at the right time. Speed of data transfer is everything to pseudo-directors and producers.
It all seems to be happening right now. It all seems to be 'Apple' right now. What is that noise? Oh, the LION is roaring. Where is PC?
Sign in to Reply