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
Thunderbolt is leaving some people feeling burned. Rather than drive a new interface into the market, they say, the chip giant should give its full attention to an existing, successful one: USB.
Thunderbolt’s critics say the interface brings new costs and complexity to deliver two bidirectional 10-Gbit/second copper links that won’t open up any major new applications. USB 3.0 is already available at data rates up to 5 Gbits/s over copper and, like Thunderbolt, can also ride optical links in the future.
Simply put, Thunderbolt “is a mistake,” said one big Intel customer.
Their arguments—not generally being aired in the public—are why some of the biggest PC, display and hard drive vendors have yet to throw their support behind Thunderbolt.
The technology will clearly carry a price premium, although Intel won’t say how much. The cost of the controller, currently made only by Intel, will be roughly in line with that of today’s 10-Gbit/s Ethernet chips. That represents a premium over the cost of a USB 3.0 chip.
Further, Thunderbolt requires a unique, five-wire active cable, thus far supplied only by Apple, and modified mini DisplayPort connectors from an unidentified source. Other costs are hidden in the complexities of mastering a new technology, potentially with new supply chain partners.
 |
| Thunderbolt detractors warn of the difficulty of making room for one more connector on space-constrained systems |
Apple is the only system maker to have adopted Thunderbolt thus far. Apple, of course, has a business model based on selling generally upscale products, typically with higher-than-average PC profit margins. Most PC and display makers compete primarily on cost in higher-volume markets with thinner profits.
Companies not yet publicly backing Thunderbolt say there are no compelling applications that need more than the
5-Gbit/s links USB 3.0 can offer. Intel managers say Thunderbolt is unique in supporting display resolutions greater than high definition, but that’s a very limited niche.
Thunderbolt will let OEMs have one port that can support either a display or a high-speed data link, potentially simplifying designs, said Intel. But opponents said systems will still need to support existing interfaces, such as USB, and making room for one more connector on space-constrained systems such as ultrathin laptops will be difficult.
Intel argues Thunderbolt will let OEMs build systems that put previously internal resources, such as fast disk drives or graphics, outside the box. Opponents counter that such designs are already possible with a cabled PCI Express spec—and that no one, thus far, has found those compelling.
In the end, Thunderbolt’s detractors want the industry to put the full weight of its collective effort behind USB—a relatively low-cost, well-understood technology that’s already shipping billions of ports across computers, peripherals and consumer devices.
The USB 3.0 version, much like Thunderbolt, was architected in a way that supports its extension to optical links and higher speeds. Intel has not backed USB strongly enough and has delayed plans to support the interface in its PC chip sets, Thunderbolt’s critics say.
Thunderbolt will no doubt get more backing from top-tier PC, display and disk drive makers. But it remains to be seen whether it will provide sustained impact or, like FireWire, flame out.
|
|
|
|
|
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