Originally posted by starshipeleven
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Thunderbolt Is Seeing A Lot Of Improvements For Linux 5.2
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by nils_ View PostAnd then of course many CPUs don't have the PCIe/DMI lanes to support a larger number of ports (or even more than one).
Even with PCIe 5.0 lanes ( 4Gbit/s bidirectional) you would still need like 10 lanes to provide a single 40Gbit/s link for USB4.
With PCIe 4.0 you would need 20, and so on, doubling for each PCIe revision you decrease.
This is just silly, even on a tower PC.
These high-speed interfaces will get any traction once they are integrated in the main CPU die, just like PCIe, RAM and whatever else controllers.
There you don't have bandwith issues as the controller will be on the on-die interconnect bus.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYes but it won't matter just as it didn't with USB 3.0 revisions.
99.99% of current USB 3.0 devices aren't using controllers of a higher revision than the bare minimum needed to be USB 3.0 (aka 5Gbit/s), and even if they did it's irrelevant as most USB 3.0 host ports are still not really 10Gbit/s anyway.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by nils_ View Post
Also a new Type-Ca cable is in the work that is non-reversible to restore the classic user experience of the 3xflip'n'plug™
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by nils_ View PostThey'll get to that in due time my good man
99.99% of current USB 3.0 devices aren't using controllers of a higher revision than the bare minimum needed to be USB 3.0 (aka 5Gbit/s), and even if they did it's irrelevant as most USB 3.0 host ports are still not really 10Gbit/s anyway.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by torsionbar28 View PostI'm fairly certain the next iteration will be named USB 3.3 x2 +3 TurboSpeed v2. Once it's released, they will retroactively rename the previous versions of course. But to avoid consumer confusion, they will use the marketing names SuperSpeed, UltraSpeed, MegaSpeed, and SpeedySpeed to differentiate them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by intelfx View PostI don't think that "incompatible NIH" is applicable to a technology that's one of a kind. As of now, there is nothing for Thunderbolt to be potentially compatible to.
"Incompatible NIH" fits Intel's Thunderbolt because until they opened the spec the only available thunderbolt host controllers were designed by Intel and worked only on (some specific) Intel hardware. Sure you could connect any kind of client devices to your specific Intel hardware device.
Now that they opened the spec we might start seeing Thunderbolt host controllers that can run on AMD, or ARM or whatever else. Then and ONLY THEN we can talk of actual compatibility, standards and all that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by shmerl View PostGood thing Thunderbolt is going to be merged into USB 4 (or whatever the next version is called).
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by intelfx View PostHowever, I'm slightly worried, how this "merger" is ever going to work? Does it mean that any device that's going to formally support USB4 will have to implement PCIe? That's not gonna happen.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: