AMD Dismisses Intel's Thunderbolt
Print
Intel's hoping Thunderbolt, the spec formerly known as Light Peak, will change the world. So is Apple, which introduced Thunderbolt with its recently retooled MacBook Pro computers. That's fine and dandy, but AMD doesn't get what all the hoopla is about. After all, what's the point of Thunderbolt if we can get this whole USB 3.0 thing rolling? That's basically how AMD put it, CrunchGear reports.
"Existing standards offer remarkable connectivity and together far exceed the 10Gb/s peak bandwidth of Thunderbolt. These solutions meet and exceed the bandwidth utilization of many peripherals," an AMD spokesperson said.
According to AMD, if given a choice, consumers would rather ride it out with USB rather than futz around with daisy chaining devices to their monitors. On top of that, aren't mini DisplayPorts fast enough already?
"The DisplayPort 1.2 standard offers up to 17Gb/s of peak bandwidth for displays...Many AMD based platforms support USB 3.0 which offers 4.8Gb/s of peak bandwidth, AMD natively supports SATA 6Gb/s with our 8-series chipsets. The total bandwidth stated for a Thunderbolt channel is only 20 percent higher than one PCi Express 3.0 lane and about 52 percent higher than a single USB 3.0 port," AMD's talking head added.
Interesting choice of words, because 52 percent sounds pretty significant to us, though AMD's other points are well taken.
More like this
16
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
Talcum X
March 05, 2011 at 7:09am
LightPeak is a better name than Thunderbolt.
We will see if it get odopted into mainstream. Hard to beat a still evolving, well established USB market.
LatiosXT
March 04, 2011 at 9:27am
If there's one thing that kills Thunderbolt as a true peripheral device interface: 7 devices max. USB supports 127, Firewire supports 63. I already have a total of seven USB devices plugged into my computer: Mouse, keyboard, Wi-Fi adapter, Printer, Hub, Zune HD, and my Droid. Oh look, now I can't plug in my external HDD if I were on Thunderbolt. And before you go saying add more Thunderbolt controllers... do consider the motherboard real-estate they take up (on the MacBook Pro, it's about as big as the chipset itself).
Also it's only good for stationary peripherals. Otherwise serious planning would be needed to ensure two wires aren't coming out of your mouse.
Caboose
March 03, 2011 at 9:54am
USB 3.0 is backwards compatible with every single USB device on the market today. LightPeak is backwards compatible with... nothing. So, someone buy's a new PC that has USB 3.0 ports on it, and they plug in their USB printer, USB mouse and keyboard, iPod or Android phone. They'll plug in their USB camera. Maybe a card reader or a drawing tablet. And everyone is happy.
ditchbeast
March 03, 2011 at 1:06pm
So could lightPeak lol Just because one end of the cable has to be the lightpeak connector doesnt mean the other end does. Having LightPeak would allow for backword compatibility just as easily with another cord.If thats your argument for not liking the technology then you kinda of burn your self with that comment.
LightPeak while suporting backwords connectivity would support "forwards" connectivity as in new tech that comes out as it supports double the speed of 3.0. So by your same rationale this would be better as it offers what you want and more..
You could argue, well there will be a USB 4.0 but thats going to require an entirely new standard, from USB 1 to 2 it took 4 years. 2 to 3 took another 8. the mainstream adoptation of 3.0 hasent even taken hold yet so you'll be waiting at least another 4 years for another standard and who knows how long after for adoptation?
Caboose
March 03, 2011 at 1:28pm
So LightPeak and USB are interchangeable? I've not read that anywhere, could you provide your sources?
schneider1492
March 06, 2011 at 1:31am
It would be easy to build a usb hub with a Lightpeak controller. You could also make an adapter with a pci-e 3.0 controller and lightpeak controller to make an external video device. That would remove a lot of heat from the case and allow for better cooling. If nvidia built native lightpeak video cards you could daisy chain them so they each have there own box.
stradric
March 04, 2011 at 6:47am
I'm inclined to hate anything Apple does, but I actually think Thunderbolt is pretty cool (despite having a stupid name. WTF is a thunder bolt?).
http://www.gizmag.com/thunderbolt-macbook-pro/17977/
It is compatible with USB via adapters.
Caboose
March 04, 2011 at 9:11am
Thunderbolt is just Apple's name for an Intel invention. The real name is LightPeak.
As for your question, "what is a thunderbolt?" Well, the dictionary can help you there.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Thunderbolt
thun·der·bolt [thuhn-der-bohlt]–noun 1. a flash of lightning with the accompanying thunder. 2. an imaginary bolt or dart conceived as the material destructive agent cast to earth in a flash of lightning: the thunderbolts of Jove. 3. something very destructive, terrible, severe, sudden, or startling. 4. a person who acts with fury or with sudden and irresistible force.
ditchbeast
March 03, 2011 at 1:46pm
I have nothing that directly says it however there seems to be reference on the intel website and would make sense, as long as you have a lightpeak connector on one end then you can have whatever connector on the other, drivers pending.
- Electrical or optical cables
Why would electrical cables be referenced in optics tech? And as per the above if shouldn't be that difficult.
Caboose
March 03, 2011 at 4:02pm
Ok, so then I should be able to put an eSATA end on a USB cable (and vice versa). It can't be that difficult. They're both using copper wires, and both have a rectangular shaped end. Should be possible right? I don't have anything that says that it can be done either, but they both use similar cables.
Mighty BOB!
March 03, 2011 at 5:14pm
Well they have VGA to DVI adapters and DVI to HDMI adapters, I don't see why they couldn't have a Thunderbolt to USB adapter. It works with video streams and data, which to me sounds like they want to replace the existing cable/port types (HDMI, DVI, eSATA, USB, FireWire, etc.) and have everything run Thunderbolt. Adapters would be a logical transition if someone wanted the tech but didn't have the hardware in their computer, but had a peripheral that uses Thunderbolt.
ditchbeast
March 03, 2011 at 9:08am
USB 3.0 is more of the transitional step and not for Large scale adoptation.
USB 3.0 Supports up to a maxuimum of 5Gb/s tranfers, Thunderbolt is up to 10Gb/s, thats double the potential speed and its only a first gen product... that being said, the current copper connectors on devices can only handle up to 2Gb/s so you there isnt really an advantage until devices are built to support the Thunderbolt connector.
USB 3.0 will have a place for the next year, maybe year and a half and will still be useful for a few years but Thunderbolt or a similar tech will dominate.
ditchbeast
March 03, 2011 at 9:08am
USB 3.0 is more of the transitional step and not for Large scale adoptation.
USB 3.0 Supports up to a maxuimum of 5Gb/s tranfers, Thunderbolt is up to 10Gb/s, thats double the potential speed and its only a first gen product... that being said, the current copper connectors on devices can only handle up to 2Gb/s so you there isnt really an advantage until devices are built to support the Thunderbolt connector.
USB 3.0 will have a place for the next year, maybe year and a half and will still be useful for a few years but Thunderbolt or a similar tech will dominate.
Scootiep
March 03, 2011 at 12:31pm
So you're assuming there will never be a USB 4.0 or higher? When introducing new standards, backwards compatibility is HUGE. That's what makes USB so appealing. People can still use their USB 1.0 devices if they simply can't let go of them. Lightpeak doesn't offer that. Also, in it's current copper form, lightpeak is inferior to USB 3.0. Depending on how long it takes them to implement true fiber-optic lightpeak, USB may have matched or even exceeded the 10Gb/s speeds of lightpeak.
ditchbeast
March 03, 2011 at 1:04pm
USB 3.0 does not fully support the theoretical bandwidth of 4.8GBps, it doesnt even come close. I did some searches and the best that could possibly be gained is like 50% of the max speed for USB 3.0? And why do you automatically assume current USB devices would not be supported because of the connector, as outlined in a previous post, just because one end of the connector is strickly lightpeak does not mean the other has to.
Also, look at the adoption time lines for USB, it took double the time to get from USB 2 to USB 3 that did from 1 to 2. Based on this and adoptation rates you'll be waiting a few years before a revised spec even comes out! then you need to wait for companies to decide when it becomes financially viable before they start adding it directly to their boards.
All im saying is dont start holding you breath, you might be holding it a while...
Jesterace
March 03, 2011 at 8:22am
Personally I'll stick it out with USB3 even though I have an intel board and chip.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy12 hours 33 min ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj12 hours 42 min ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E2 days 10 hours ago
