Thunderbolt smokes USB, FireWire with 10Gbps throughput

Yeah I read the MyBB article. I wonder how long this will take to reach PCs
 
I see the same problem that Firewire had - Apple royalties. It will probably die the same slow death. I mean when firewire came out, it was running against 12Mbps USB1.1, so it was 33 times faster. This is only twice as fast as USB3, which already exceeds the bandwidth capacity of most storage devices buy quite a margin.
 
I honestly don't see point of this product. Hardly any consumers need that kind of throughput or even have hardware that can support it.

10GBit ethernet exists already so any hardware other than networking that would require that kind of BW must have escaped my mind but it seems like such a pointless product.
 
Gnome said:
I honestly don't see point of this product. Hardly any consumers need that kind of throughput or even have hardware that can support it right now.

10GBit ethernet exists already so any hardware other than networking that would require that kind of BW must have escaped my mind but it seems like such a pointless product.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

I agree with the ethernet point though. It's ubiquitous, proven and has enough bandwidth. Why can't we run video/audio signals through the good old RJ45?
 
viven said:
Why can't we run video/audio signals through the good old RJ45?
Click to expand...

then intel,etc. will not get royalties :)
but I am sure someone must be getting royalties on it though ....
I think this has more to do with DRM and this seems to be building on display port, which if I remember correctly has a lot to do with DRM as the driver .... but I could be wrong
 
viven said:
Why can't we run video/audio signals through the good old RJ45?
Click to expand...

HTC_guy said:
GOOD question!!

:confused:
Click to expand...

RJ-45 is just a connector (and not it's official name either) which is not the import thing. The important thing is that it is mainly used for Ethernet and the Ethernet spec as designed way back in the day by the IEEE made no provision to be used for other purposes. They have extended the spec to include a few things like firewire for example though.

Lol, people always complain. We need faster X, we need more Y. Manufacturer comes along and says "Hey look at this we got a multipurpose 10GB interface for you guys, something you were all begging for." Crowd goes, "Fsck yeah, we don't need that, we can just make Z perform the same function"
 
I guess ponder's right. Also about the RJ-45, I've used the RJ-45 to dump a NAND chip from an XBOX 360 so it's not only used for Ethernet.
 
Gnome said:
I honestly don't see point of this product. Hardly any consumers need that kind of throughput or even have hardware that can support it.

10GBit ethernet exists already so any hardware other than networking that would require that kind of BW must have escaped my mind but it seems like such a pointless product.
Click to expand...

Displays. A single 1920x1080 monitor at 60hz would use 3.3-3.5Gb/s (depending on timing), and this jumps alarmingly when you jump up to 2560x resolution or increase monitor refresh rate. This, however, doesn't change the fact that Thunderbolt is useless in this regard, because native DisplayPort is already at 21Gb/s in raw throughput, and Thunderbolt would only really be useful to daisy chain 2 monitors or a single monitor plus another device at not that much better than USB 3.0 speeds.

The rationale behind Thunderbolt seems to be daisy chaining devices, but daisy chaining does not seem like something that would be popular with consumers or manufacturers. For consumers, it means having to ensure that the preceeding devices in the chain stay connected, and for manufacturers it means having at least one additional I/O connection per external device, and if that is a proprietary connection, paying a royalty for it. I can only see it being useful in laptops, maybe, but only really because less space for I/O connectors is desirable. Thunderbolt, however, can't reduce the number of cables in total, because every device that is connected must have its own cable. The only thing it can reduce is the number of cables plugged into your PC, which really doesn't seem to be a big enough problem to warrant a whole new tech, imo.
 
I can see the point of 10gigabit lan.... most who've lanned before should.

Also saw the news article. But was reading about it on apple's website, and intels website long before both....
 
xera said:
I can see the point of 10gigabit lan.... most who've lanned before should.
Click to expand...

I think everyone here can see the point of 10GBit LAN and it seems to be taking off quite quickly actually... But not sure why you would want 10GBit at a LAN? If it is for transferring files, that would be pointless because most copy operations can't even saturate 1GBit (and the few devices that can won't hit 2GBit)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X