Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Rolls Out XConnect For External Graphics Via Thunderbolt 3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
    So, if my understanding is correct, we have XConnect trough Thunderbolt3, which is PCIe over USB C?
    Seems a bit complicated, I can't imagine the complexity of the system that needs to be built into the motherboard to support all this. Add to this USB 3;& power delivery system, DVI over USB or whatever the data line reallocation permits, you have a fairly complex system in the end. But granted, you then only have one connector for everything.

    The complexity of the system is ... wait for it ... Thuderbolt 3! Thats it. Thunderbolt 3 is designed to do exactly this. USB Type C connector was designed to be used this way as well. It was part of the spec to repurpose the USB 3 data lines for other protocols, while the USB 2 data lines provide the backwards compatibility.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
      Thunderbolt 3 uses the USB-C connector, for starters.

      Also, USB3.1 actually isn't fast enough for PCIe 3x4 transfer speeds, while Thunderbolt is. I forget the technical reasons behind why Thunderbolt is faster, but iirc it revolves around some data checking and other things that Thunderbolt doesn't do.

      USB 3.1speed is 10 Gb/s vs Thunderbolt 3's 40Gb/s per second. I asure you, there is not 30 Gb/s of data checking going on. Thunderbolt adds more logic than USB does, and uses a more expensive wire to get the 40 Gb/s speed. (It can do 20 Gb/s over a regular USB 3.1 cable, however.) It actually is putting PCI-E protocols over the wire, which are designed for different purposes than USB.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by rabcor View Post

        Right cus laptop monitors are sturdier than other monitors? Also this is less practical exactly because of the laptop form factor; working from a laptop is hell. Slightly mitigated if you get the right kind of laptop stand, but still hell; compared to a nice keyboard and monitor anyhow. where you're not forced to have your monitor at the same level as your keyboard; which might of course be ok if you're a hunchback.

        Anyhow besides that point; all you will tend to need to lug around with you is the case and keyboard/mouse or some form of HIDs, just go for places where you can use a TV as a monitor and forget about the whole laptop thing.


        Ah, I get it now. But they were actually plugging in graphics cards, routing a monitor through a USB port to a graphics card is another thing entirely, and I'd be surprised if intel's thunderbolt supports doing it on anything else than an iGPU...

        Since Thunderbolt 3 essentially extends a PCI-E 3.0 X4 through USB Type C cable, it supports any compatable GPU. AMD showed this off using their R9 390 card, and mentioned their Fury line is supported.

        If you meant it wouldn't be supported on laptops with a dGPU already on board, it would depend on the specific implementation, mainly which GPU the internal display is connected to, but it shouldn't affect its use on an external display.

        I am more excited about this for these NUC sized devices. Imagine carrying one of these with a NUC to go travelling. With Vulkan needing less CPU than OpenGL and DX11, gaming on such devices could be quite nice.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by chimpy View Post
          The first thing that came to my mind was just how underpowered laptop CPUs are in comparison to desktop CPUs; desktop i3s routinely beat mobile i7s. I guess this would be alright with like a mid to low range graphics card.

          With Vulkan and DX12, these anemic CPUs should be able to play quite a few more games that come out.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by rabcor View Post

            Right cus laptop monitors are sturdier than other monitors? Also this is less practical exactly because of the laptop form factor; working from a laptop is hell. Slightly mitigated if you get the right kind of laptop stand, but still hell; compared to a nice keyboard and monitor anyhow. where you're not forced to have your monitor at the same level as your keyboard; which might of course be ok if you're a hunchback.

            Anyhow besides that point; all you will tend to need to lug around with you is the case and keyboard/mouse or some form of HIDs, just go for places where you can use a TV as a monitor and forget about the whole laptop thing.


            Ah, I get it now. But they were actually plugging in graphics cards, routing a monitor through a USB port to a graphics card is another thing entirely, and I'd be surprised if intel's thunderbolt supports doing it on anything else than an iGPU...
            Of course laptop screens are not sturdier than other monitors, do you seriously think this is what I meant or are you just trolling? Laptops close so the screen is protected whereas stand alone monitors have no protection and will need to be carefully packed to avoid damage. Just because you find working on laptops uncomfortable doesn't mean other people do and that the use case doesn't exist, I highly doubt manufacturers like HP and Lenovo would make business lines if they were not profitable. Anyway this is a nonissue because the person would already have and be working from a laptop, that's the whole point. Also advocating gaming on a TV? lol.
            Last edited by chris200x9; 10 March 2016, 10:09 PM.

            Comment


            • #16
              Often these connectors end up being almost as expensive as the videocard itself...

              Comment


              • #17
                I've been looking for a solution like this for years. Only 17" laptops are big enough for cooling a mid-high end GPU. And I wanted a single PC (laptop) to take it with me anywhere and when I get home to dock it (to a GPU) and play AAA games. For the previous docking solutions (express-card or others) you always had to use an external monitor (besides the solution beign expensive....probably like this one). But here we have no other requirements, so I assume this will take on easier (plus there is AMDs backing).
                PS: my current laptop is a Lenovo x230 and the biggest I've had was a 14" 4:3 (T61). So 17" laptop is a no-no

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by chimpy View Post
                  The first thing that came to my mind was just how underpowered laptop CPUs are in comparison to desktop CPUs; desktop i3s routinely beat mobile i7s. I guess this would be alright with like a mid to low range graphics card.
                  Well, gaming laptops with desktop Skylake CPUs weren't anything better than laptops with mobile non-U Skylakes (assuming no desktop monster being used).

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    This is something I would definitely love to see on Linux with FOSS drivers. A small laptop with an APU and a small external enclosure with a Nano.
                    ## VGA ##
                    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
                    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Lol there are some clueless people in this thread.
                      Anyway, the main progress made by AMD here is on the software side:
                      The ability to remove the external GPU without rebooting, even with a surprise disconnect.
                      All the rest, as other posters have detailled, is mostly already provided by the existing standards (TB3).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X