Intel Launches Light Peak Tech as ''Thunderbolt''

[hackintoshpro]

[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]Wait, so if Light Peak (or Thunder Bolt) supports PCIe, and can basically function as a PCIe cable, then wouldn't that allow to you do stuff like have external graphics cards. You could even break a PC into multiple parts and have each part connected by this interconnect. Probably not practical or likely to happen, but it's an interesting idea.[/citation]

This idea's been around a while man: http://www.cubixgpu.com/

 

[bto]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]I don't think you got my "initial point" at all. Optical connections have been around for a long time, and are MUCH less vulnerable to common interferences such as EMI, but that isn't to say they'll get your data from A to B with ZERO interference. The article says LOW latency, not ZERO latency. My point is that it's better to have the graphics on board rather than on a different device connected by any cable, even an optical cable. Gamers cannot tolerate any latency between the GPU and CPU.I doubt the maximum bandwidth of PCIe 3.0 will be necessary, but I also don't think that TBolt can replace having an onboard GPU. It's meant to extend the PCI bus out of the machine, which COULD eliminate all PCI/PCIe x1 slots onboard, making a much more compact mobo, but it isn't intended as being a replacement for PCIe bus, which will still be necessary to communicate between the TBolt interface and the processor.Offboard sound cards, TV tuners, network and even SSD interfaces? Sure.Offboard graphics competing with onboard graphics? Probably not. That's where GPUs on the CPU chip come into play.[/citation]
You missed my point as well, for laptops that come with onboard graphics, it would be possible to seriously bump the performance with an external, the only latency is the optical transceivers and circuit.

 

[bto]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]I don't think you got my "initial point" at all. Optical connections have been around for a long time, and are MUCH less vulnerable to common interferences such as EMI, but that isn't to say they'll get your data from A to B with ZERO interference. The article says LOW latency, not ZERO latency. My point is that it's better to have the graphics on board rather than on a different device connected by any cable, even an optical cable. Gamers cannot tolerate any latency between the GPU and CPU.I doubt the maximum bandwidth of PCIe 3.0 will be necessary, but I also don't think that TBolt can replace having an onboard GPU. It's meant to extend the PCI bus out of the machine, which COULD eliminate all PCI/PCIe x1 slots onboard, making a much more compact mobo, but it isn't intended as being a replacement for PCIe bus, which will still be necessary to communicate between the TBolt interface and the processor.Offboard sound cards, TV tuners, network and even SSD interfaces? Sure.Offboard graphics competing with onboard graphics? Probably not. That's where GPUs on the CPU chip come into play.[/citation]

The latency is 8ns (yes nanoseconds, not milliseconds) which is fast enough to run external RAM, plenty fast enough to run a pci-e video card.

 

[iamtheking123]

My guess is this is going to go the way of the X-25 SSDs intel churned out with their own controllers ie very good technically, but too expensive to implement vs the alternatives.

 

[Alex-G]

But 10GB/s is plenty for a PCIe 2.0 GPU.

You mean 10Gbit/s, right? How is it enough if Thunderbolt is sitting on a 4-lane PCIe while decent graphics cards require a minimum of 8 lanes?