
Where is Thunderbolt Headed? - srikar
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8529/idf-2014-where-is-thunderbolt-headed
======
josteink
To illustrate how bad a job Intel has done on the marketing of this
technology, I for a long time thought that display port was a closed mac-only
thing, and until today I thought the same of thunder port.

If they want to increase adaptation, maybe they should consider marketing it
more, and outside of sanfran's macbook-based hipster blogger circles.

~~~
mullingitover
> and outside of sanfran's macbook-based hipster blogger circles.

Man, this is a really tired trope. At the last conference I attended, ~9/10
engineers were running macbooks (and pretty much 10/10 engineers under 40).

~~~
pjmlp
It all depends to which conferences one goes to.

If you attended a Games Developer Conference than it would be Windows
everywhere, even on the MacBooks. Except maybe for the engineers that only do
iOS games.

On the other hand, it saddened me to attend FOSDEM and see people bashing
Microsoft about OSS practices, while walking around with a MacBook running Mac
OS X. Talk about dysfunctional behavior.

~~~
blueskin_
Don't make them think too hard about it or their head might explode.

------
nailer
As the article comments note, Thunderbolt is also not taking taking off
because Intel demands all Thunderbolt peripherals have OS X drivers.

Companies like Asus/Silverstone (and more who don't spring to mind right now)
have created Thunderbolt GPU enclosures to allow laptops to do 3D work.
However Intel won't let them go to market because they don't have OS X
drivers, and Apple has no interest in supporting Thunderbolt GPUs when they
cold be selling people additional Macs instead.

~~~
mwfunk
You are vastly underestimating the amount of work that would be required to
support Thunderbolt GPUs on OS X. Its lack of support has nothing to do with
any nefarious plot to make people buy more computers. Hot-pluggable GPUs are a
Hard Problem and the alternative (requiring anything with a GPU to remain
connected while the OS is up, and requiring a reboot if somebody wants to
connect such a device) isn't worth doing, at least not for them it's not.

~~~
nailer
I understand support eGPUs on OS X a lot of work, but you misunderstand my
position: I don't care if that work happens or not: I'm quite happy using
Windows / SteamOS for games.

------
metafex
Damn, a Thunderbolt 2 PCIe card with two ports costs ~55€. That would make for
one hell of a replacement for 10G Ethernet. Double the speed _and_ cheaper.
Does anyone know how the linux support for this is?

~~~
4ad
10GbE cost is dominated by expensive switches, not by the cost of ethernet
cards.

This aside, Thunderbolt is not switched, so comparison is meaningless. There
are _very few_ opportunities where you use either Thunderbolt or Ethernet for
the same application. The topology is very different.

~~~
kijiki
If you're willing to leave the cisco/Arista/etc cocoon, NIC costs are actually
the big ticket items.

[http://whiteboxswitch.com/collections/10-gigabit-ethernet-
sw...](http://whiteboxswitch.com/collections/10-gigabit-ethernet-
switches/products/edge-core-as5600-52x)

$5595 for the switch, $699 for the software. You can split the 4 40G ports
into 16 10G ports using splitter cables, giving a total of 64 10G ports:
(5595+699)/64 = $98.34 per 10G port.

A 1M cable is $30 from here: [http://www.fiberyes.com/sfp-cable-
cab-10gsfp-p1m-30](http://www.fiberyes.com/sfp-cable-cab-10gsfp-p1m-30)

So $122.34 for switch and cable.

I've never seen a 10G NIC that cheap per port.

(disclosure: I co-founded Cumulus, who is behind the software in this price
comparison)

~~~
wmf
The problem for hobbyists is that they usually want to buy more like 8 ports,
not 64.

------
jws
Windows users are not going to like Thunderbolt until Microsoft fixes the
Windows drivers. (Hint: Thunderbolt is 5 years old, the drivers still don't
work. Don't hold your breath.) If you can't plug in a device reliably on an
external connection it is pretty much useless. Maybe sometime after that
motherboard vendors will stop hobbling the interface chips.

Thunderbolt pretty well rocks on OS X.

I wonder what the state of Linux is. And I mean _really_ is. I still have
corrupted MP3s in my library from Linux's firewire support. It almost always
put the blocks in the right spot on the disk. (This was in the 90s or early
00s, must be better now, probably.)

------
chronid
Until thunderbolt stop being a proprietary technology, I hope it will stay
where it is right now: ready to disappear into irrelevance when OCuLink
(finally) comes out.

~~~
threeseed
I can't see that happening.

For one Thunderbolt sharing the DisplayPort connector is critical for many
laptop makers who simply don't have the space to fit any other ports. And
secondly Apple has a strong presence in the content creation markets which
will be hard to overcome.

But the biggest issue of all is that there really isn't any benefit for the
mass consumer in any of these technologies. USB is more than capable for
storage and many other needs.

~~~
mmastrac
Apple's strong presence in content creation didn't help Firewire. It's tough
to see if their newer, stronger position might help, but I think we'll see
history repeat itself and find that USB3.x will eventually support high-
performance graphics. Alternatively you'll just see PC makers shipping
4k+-capable HDMI ports.

~~~
chronid
I doubt it's even possible for USB3 to support high-end graphics. The bandwith
for intensive applications is just not there, and not having direct access to
memory (like with PCI-E) could be another obstacle. Everything is possible,
sure, but...

I don't see thunderbolt-like technologies to be an USB replacement, though.
More like a definitive standardization of docks for laptops with interesting
side effects.

~~~
Dylan16807
I'm not sure if you're talking about connecting a monitor or connecting a
graphics card. Graphics card is easy, USB is only a small multiple slower than
thunderbolt, and as long as you have room for the textures 4Gbit/s is fine.

Uncompressed 4k is trickier. It looks like thunderbolt 2 has barely enough
bandwidth, and USB 3.1 has barely not enough. No reason to expect they won't
have a 3.x that supports it.

~~~
0x0
Is it still the case that USB causes heavy CPU usage? Even if there was enough
bandwidth for 4k video, it'd be a drag if it meant pegging a CPU or two to
100%...

------
MWil
The only thing I would use Thunderbolt for is to add an eGPU to something like
a Macbook Air or something else with an integrated graphics chipset

~~~
sounds
There are some who claim Intel is trying to kill eGPUs (external GPUs) and
dGPUs (discrete GPUs) [1].

You're actually spot-on with the one killer use case of a thunderbolt
connector. It's the same question dock connectors have also answered -- what's
the need for a dock connector? A better GPU.

Thunderbolt is simply Intel's way of killing a good idea before it gains
enough traction to threaten their hegemony with USB.

[1] [http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/17/intel-slams-the-door-
on-d...](http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/17/intel-slams-the-door-on-discrete-
gpus/)

------
blueskin_
Nowhere, very fast.

