Friday, April 29th 2011

Thunderbolt Successor to Boast of 50 Gbps Bandwidth

For the greater part of the last decade, PC device connectivity was limited to the 480 Mbps bandwidth of USB 2.0. The pressing need for more bandwidth to run external hard drives and disk racks was alleviated by eSATA, but eSATA lacked the versatility of USB. After quite some delay, came the next big version of USB, the USB 3.0 SuperSpeed, with its massive 5 Gbps bandwidth, plenty for fast and capacious flash drives, and external storage devices.

There was, however, a potential bottleneck lurking with running SSD-based RAID boxes in USB 3.0, as many SATA 6 Gbps SSDs are getting close to the bandwidth limit of USB 3.0. There has also been the need for an interconnect faster than USB 3.0 for high-bandwidth applications such as lossless ultra high definition video streaming in professional environments, and hence came Thunderbolt, which is a copper-electric variant of a fiber-optic interconnect Intel had been working on, codenamed Light Peak. The successor to Thunderbolt is reportedly already under development at Intel Labs.

Thunderbolt delivers 10 Gbps of bandwidth over copper wire, but there's no guaranteeing its market longevity with the ever-increasing demand for bandwidth with applications in the future. As early as 2015, Intel will have developed a new device interconnect standard to replace Thunderbolt. The new interconnect will be able to deliver a [currently] mind-boggling bandwidth of 50 Gbps over distances as long as 100 m. The announcement came from Jeff Demain, strategy director of circuits and system research at Intel Labs, at a company event in New York.

Thunderbolt is able to make use of its 10 Gbps bandwidth to drive high-bandwidth video encoding applications in environments with external storage, as well as connect high-resolution displays over the DisplayPort protocol. The future 50 Gbps interconnect will build on Thunderbolt's applications by upscaling the bandwidth. There is, however, no definitive word on whether the future interconnect will maintain any kind of compatibility with Thunderbolt. "We see them as complementary. It's the evolution of these connectors and protocols as they move forward," Demain said.

It is likely that Intel will have developed silicon photonics to a greater degree by 2015. At least it should be able to put optical transmitter and receiver into a single chip, small enough to be fitted into smartphones and tablets.Source: PCWorld
Add your own comment

39 Comments on Thunderbolt Successor to Boast of 50 Gbps Bandwidth

#1
yogurt_21
tigger said:
It seriously makes me laugh when i see 2TB usb2 drives, how long would it take to dump a TB of stuff on it, at least an hour i reckon. Usb2 is now only for peripherals and not usb hdds. Now a usb3 external hdd thats a differant matter :)
17.73 hours is how long it would take to write 1.87TB (max capacity after formatting) to my external 2TB drive. Last I clocked it was maxing at 30MB/s write.

now compare that to the 2MB/s transfer I get over wireless from my primary pc to my nas and you'll see why even at usb 2.0 the drive is still a faster solution for what I use it for.


odd to see them tout a thunderbolt successor by 2015 when we probabally wont see thunderbolt being used widespread until 2014 lol. And the article makes it seem like they aren't compatible.


usb successors are nice and all but I'd still like to see fiber become more mainstream in networking before an addon cable replacement.
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
thunderising said:
LOL I was just trolling, like

"I'm 1st to comment" and "Intel your pricing Sucks" kinda post..

but ended up with random non-sensical gibberish..

what really made my day was reading you guys reply, top class +1000
Thanks for letting me know that you've made a habit out of pulling off such things. Next time I'll send you on a vacation as a token of appreciation of your "top class +1000" trolling skills.
Posted on Reply
#3
digibucc
thunderising said:
what really made my day was reading you guys reply, top class +1000
lol that made your day?

your life sucks! hahaha!
Posted on Reply
#4
OneCool
They changed the name to from Lightpeak to Thunderbolt do to the fact Intel had/having problems with the fiber optics so they went with copper strands instead for now.
Im guessing the successor to Thunderbolt will actually use fiber optics?

Loving the USB 3.0 speeds though :D
Posted on Reply
#5
Completely Bonkers
TBH, I would rather have any or all of the following "standards" before I get excited about fibre-bolt:

1./ 10G ethernet in practice at consumer prices
2./ "Real" wireless N and G that can truly deliver 54/300 Mbs. I dont know about you, but no matter what the connection says the theoretic value is... I get nowhere near those speeds. Nowhere near, and possibly due to...
3./ More, wider, wireless 802.11 channels. Depending on your country, there are 9-14 channels available. OK in 1999. But not in 2011. And because of channel "spread", use of one channels interferes with the neighbouring 2 channels. Even worse for 300N where the spread covers 5 channels.

A quick search using inSSIDer reveals 51 WLANs that my laptop can "see" from my apartment. So many overlapping, contending channels. And of course those 300N channels are hogging/stealing 5 channels at a time. No wonder my WLAN speeds are so lousy. We need at least 21 channels... CLEAR the radio space and put N+ in a new range. I HATE that the faster N is creating the contention and is blocking the already slow G channels. Big BOOH! to those technicians that designed N in the B/G space.
Posted on Reply
#6
cheesy999
Completely Bonkers said:
Even worse for 300N where the spread covers 5 channels.
disagree with that, in our house our wireless g router manages to take up channels 1-5 so its not just 300N

my neighbour takes up 8-12 and my other neighbours house is too far away for it too matter
Posted on Reply
#7
slyfox2151
Completely Bonkers said:
TBH, I would rather have any or all of the following "standards" before I get excited about fibre-bolt:


2./ "Real" wireless N and G that can truly deliver 54/300 Mbs. I dont know about you, but no matter what the connection says the theoretic value is... I get nowhere near those speeds. Nowhere near, and possibly due to...
Wireless G hits 54mbps in my house....
54mbps.... is both combined upload/download, so devide it by 2 you get
27mbps max download speed or 3.375MBps... now of course when you download, you also need to upload at the same time to tell the other end you are receiving the information.

now there is also overhead to deal with as well such as wireless security.
this works out to be around 2.5MBps effective speed for wireless G... im fairly certain most people can get that from there wireless G connections within 10 meters of the devices.
3./ More, wider, wireless 802.11 channels. Depending on your country, there are 9-14 channels available. OK in 1999. But not in 2011. And because of channel "spread", use of one channels interferes with the neighbouring 2 channels. Even worse for 300N where the spread covers 5 channels.
im also very confident you can operate wireless N in the 5Ghz range instead of 2.5 that B/G are in..... these other devices should have no effect.
Posted on Reply
#8
Completely Bonkers
cheesy999 said:
disagree with that, in our house our wireless g router manages to take up channels 1-5 so its not just 300N. My neighbour takes up 8-12 and my other neighbours house is too far away for it too matter
Cheesy, by design, N uses more channels than g. So while you agree g "uses" more than just the one channel due to channel spread/interference, a N Access Point spoils so much more of the available channels. You are lucky you have only 1 or 2 other "foreign" APs in your airspace. I have 51! Now imagine THAT for a noisy congested wifi network!

slyfox2151 said:
Wireless G hits 54mbps in my house....
54mbps.... is both combined upload/download, so devide it by 2 you get
27mbps max download speed or 3.375MBps... now of course when you download, you also need to upload at the same time to tell the other end you are receiving the information.

now there is also overhead to deal with as well such as wireless security.
this works out to be around 2.5MBps effective speed for wireless G... im fairly certain most people can get that from there wireless G connections within 10 meters of the devices.

im also very confident you can operate wireless N in the 5Ghz range instead of 2.5 that B/G are in..... these other devices should have no effect.
sly, please remember my usage-scenario, 51 visible Access Points! Now remember channel contention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention-based_protocol I can only/send receive on my channel when the "air is clear". Work that into your numbers! And I can't change the operating channels of OTHER people's APs. And anyone with an N Access Point that wants g compatibility needs to stick in the regular g band!

Please, anyone wanting to comment further on wifi then do read up a bit and also try Metageeks inSSIDer. You'll gain a lot of insight! You guys are lucky to operate in non-congested airspaces. I invite you to try it here, where some of those N networks with boosters, are business networks with multiple people operating on it, and are consequently saturating the available channels.

The legacy 802.11 channel spectrum is a nightmare.
Posted on Reply
#9
micropage7
thunderising said:
LOL I was just trolling, like

"I'm 1st to comment" and "Intel your pricing Sucks" kinda post..

but ended up with random non-sensical gibberish..

what really made my day was reading you guys reply, top class +1000
sorry man if you trolling you better prepare to get banned. you know thats kinda annoying just place post and just write '1st reply' '2nd reply' like other forums, if you wanna do that please not here
Posted on Reply
#10
Over_Lord
News Editor
btarunr said:
Thanks for letting me know that you've made a habit out of pulling off such things. Next time I'll send you on a vacation as a token of appreciation of your "top class +1000" trolling skills.
dont sweat dude chill, why u so serious. i havn't trolled before, wont do it again. ok?
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
thunderising said:
dont sweat dude chill, why u so serious. i havn't trolled before, wont do it again. ok?
Random forum members hardly make me sweat. It takes just a couple of clicks to get rid of the erratic ones.
Posted on Reply
#13
Funtoss
Imsochobo!! YOUR INTERNET IS THE BOMB! OMG!!!! DO WANT! which isp? ^__^
Posted on Reply
#14
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
Funtoss said:
Imsochobo!! YOUR INTERNET IS THE BOMB! OMG!!!! DO WANT! which isp? ^__^
Did I not just link to the guidelines? Stay on topic please. PM him about his ISP and then conclude you can't get the same interwebz at home.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment