bit-tech.net

Intel bets on Light Peak

Intel bets on Light Peak

Intel's LightPeak technology promises double the throughput of USB 3.0 - so is that why the company hasn't backed the rival standard?

The rumour that Intel isn't looking to implement USB 3.0 into its chipsets until 2012 may have received substantiation in the forum of the company's very public commitment to its own Light Peak technology.

Intel senior fellow Kevin Kahn, speaking at the Intel Developer Forum and quoted by PCWorld, described the company's up-coming optical cable technology as "a logical future successor to USB 3.0," and claimed that Intel was hoping that Light Peak would represent "the last cable you'll ever need."

With Light Peak representing in-house technology, there are certainly a raft of reasons for Intel to be hoping that the standard takes off: not least of which would be that Intel itself wouldn't have to pay royalties on its use, while the company's competitors would be required to send cheques Intel's way if they wanted compatibility with the standard.

Intel claims that it isn't out to steal USB 3.0's lunch, however, but does point out that Light Peak itself supports multiple protocols over a single cable - including the USB standard.

The technology offers consumers advantages over USB, too: due to its optical nature, Light Peak is significantly less fussy about cable lengths than USB; maximum data throughput is significantly increased too, with the technology currently maxing out at 10Gb/s compared to USB 3.0's 4.8Gb/s - and Intel is working on increasing that speed still further.

Kahn claims that Intel expects "both [Light Peak and USB 3.0] to exist together in the market and perhaps on the same platform at the same time," although with plans afoot to launch an industry group to promote the standard as early as next year, we could see Intel chipsets introducing Light Peak support before USB 3.0.

Do you think that optical cabling is the future for high-speed connectivity, or is Intel betting on the wrong horse with Light Peak? Should it stop trying to push its own standard and hurry up with USB 3.0 support in its chipsets? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

61 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
lacuna 16th April 2010, 10:05 Quote
well I can't see this powering any devices so its not going to replace the USB standard. I can't see it being much of a contender really
Gryphon 16th April 2010, 10:11 Quote
+1 to the power issues, But also, unless these fiberoptic cables can be bent double and otherwise manhandled as a usb cable can, i can see the need for lots of replacements being needed.
Krikkit 16th April 2010, 10:11 Quote
No reason why you couldn't have a couple of power lines running down the side of an optical cable.

On durability, have you guys played with an optical audio cable? The glass strand in the middle is incredibly flexible because it's so thin, the cladding is usually designed so you can't bend it enough to break the glass inside. If anything it could be more durable than a USB cable.
wuyanxu 16th April 2010, 10:13 Quote
oh dear, a new standard by Intel. USB is dooooooooooooomed!

firewire anyone?
lacuna 16th April 2010, 10:13 Quote
yeah but then its becoming overcomplicated and the price of the cables will start to mount up
do_it_anyway 16th April 2010, 10:43 Quote
Price may be an issue, but ultimately, a great move forward.

I don't get the negativity. We all understand how fibreoptic broadband is so much better than copper lines, but we don't want the same technology in our peripherals?
Bring it on.
impar 16th April 2010, 11:08 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
I don't get the negativity.
Intel supporting USB 3.0 would mean a quick implementation of everything USB 3.0.
Intel supporting its own tech (not available yet) and puting USB 3.0 in a back seat means USB 2.0 will still be the dominant connection tech in the short term.

On the promise of faster tech (Light Peak) we will be using an old tech (USB 2.0) instead of a "easy to switch to" tech (USB 3.0).
Bob1234 16th April 2010, 11:19 Quote
[QUOTE=Krikkit]No reason why you couldn't have a couple of power lines running down the side of an optical cable./QUOTE]

No, but it would limit the cable length.

For "close" devices like portable drives and the likes, it would be fine but probably better (read cheaper) to stick with USB.
ev1lm1nd666 16th April 2010, 11:21 Quote
Fibre-optic cable is already cheap to produce so an optical cable probably would only cost around a tenner, I can see this being used as a way to increase network speeds on a wired network as well as just for items like USB sticks etc, If you could have a powered LightPeak cable wouldn't it be even faster than E-Sata???
TWeaK 16th April 2010, 11:31 Quote
Allow me to be the first to say KAAAAAAAAAHHHHHNNN!!!!!

At least mobo makers can use 3rd party USB chips, I just wish Intel would offer more PCI-E lanes and generally a bit more bandwidth for them to play with.
dec 16th April 2010, 11:34 Quote
"the last cable ull ever need"

Wasnt USB intended for that purpose too?

I smell a big shift to AMD until intel gets around to USB3
von_stylon 16th April 2010, 11:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
Allow me to be the first to say KAAAAAAAAAHHHHHNNN!!!!!

lolz
Krikkit 16th April 2010, 11:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob1234


No, but it would limit the cable length.

For "close" devices like portable drives and the likes, it would be fine but probably better (read cheaper) to stick with USB.

Why would it be any more limiting than USB? For long-length runs you could just disable the charging lines. It wouldn't be difficult to detect how long the cable length is, so you can just disable it over x metres.

Tbh I think the differences are pretty moot - both provide bandwidth well in excess of any practical device that normal folks will use. Once you can run an SSD down it without worry there's no need for extra bandwidth for the foreseeable future.
do_it_anyway 16th April 2010, 11:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
I don't get the negativity.
Intel supporting USB 3.0 would mean a quick implementation of everything USB 3.0.
Intel supporting its own tech (not available yet) and puting USB 3.0 in a back seat means USB 2.0 will still be the dominant connection tech in the short term.

On the promise of faster tech (Light Peak) we will be using an old tech (USB 2.0) instead of a "easy to switch to" tech (USB 3.0).

And I would wholeheartedly agree, if there were things out there that utilise the extra bandwidth. As far as I can see, USB3.0 is fast, but of no benefit over USB2.0 while external devices are limited by other; mechanical; facctors.
impar 16th April 2010, 12:25 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
And I would wholeheartedly agree, if there were things out there that utilise the extra bandwidth.
External storage devices.
B3CK 16th April 2010, 12:56 Quote
Glass fiber does have a specific bend radius, listed on the packaging. The higher quality multi-strand cables like what I purchased has a bend radius of 1ft per 360degrees. There isn't a single cable right now behind my computer desk that would fit into that category, as they are all bent at much tighter angles than that.
However, they could use a non-glass cable that would allow more flexibility than glass.
As to using multiple strands per connector, by enabling more optical sensors of different wavelengths, they could upgrade the bandwidth in the future over the same cable, yay multi-plexing.
EvilMerc 16th April 2010, 13:03 Quote
Fibre optic cabling, certainly something slightly sci-fi about it all, I hope this takes off providing it gets the support it deserves.
The_Beast 16th April 2010, 13:35 Quote
Very cool but they should still be backing USB 3.0
Krikkit 16th April 2010, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B3CK

However, they could use a non-glass cable that would allow more flexibility than glass.
As to using multiple strands per connector, by enabling more optical sensors of different wavelengths, they could upgrade the bandwidth in the future over the same cable, yay multi-plexing.

Is there really a need for multiple strands, why not just use a couple of different lasers? SS lasers aren't exactly expensive.

One question is, will LightPeak allow us to network stuff together? That'd be its best use imo.
TheUn4seen 16th April 2010, 14:22 Quote
Yeah, because we need another proprietary technology from Intel, to ensue their monopoly.
Bob1234 16th April 2010, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
Why would it be any more limiting than USB? For long-length runs you could just disable the charging lines. It wouldn't be difficult to detect how long the cable length is, so you can just disable it over x metres.

Tbh I think the differences are pretty moot - both provide bandwidth well in excess of any practical device that normal folks will use. Once you can run an SSD down it without worry there's no need for extra bandwidth for the foreseeable future.

It wouldnt be any more limiting than IN SPEC USB cables, which is 5m for high-speed and 3m for low-speed and guestimated at 3m for USB 3, and even 3m is pretty long and sufficient for most people.

But, optical could allow much longer cables AND also eliminate interference, its why it was included in the USB 3.0 spec as well.
crazyceo 16th April 2010, 15:36 Quote
LMAO at the AMD fangirls pouring scorn on this just because it has Intel in the title.
Moriquendi 16th April 2010, 16:22 Quote
That's because Intel ruined USB 1.0 making the world wait for USB 1.1 to have a system that actually worked. As for distance limits unless you want to be running kilometers of cable then power conductors bundled with the fibre wont make any difference USB is only limited to 5M because of the inductance and capacitance of the data pairs, neither of which affect the power wires.

The whole point of frequency multiplexing is that you don't need multiple fibers.

Moriquendi
speedfreek 16th April 2010, 17:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
LMAO at the AMD fangirls pouring scorn on this just because it has Intel in the title.

No, its because the consumer would loose out in the end.

USB 2 will stay the standard, Intel will do everything they can to make sure their technology overtakes USB 3. That way only they stand to profit.

Fiber is expensive, not to make but to buy. Who honestly thinks that these cables will be priced competitively, I expect to see Best Buy HDMI cable prices on these considering who is releasing this.

USB 3 is here, now! What would it take to add it to a chipset, why cant we use the existing technology that works? Why do we have to wait for a closed standard?
crazyceo 16th April 2010, 18:05 Quote
I'm sorry but I have to say that Intel can clearly justify what they are doing. Why should they adopt someone elses "standard" and not fully develope their own. Who says Intel has to fully implement USB3 when they have an alternative which can work more than twice as fast? Would you? Would AMD? Don't talk sh!te
Showerhead 16th April 2010, 18:36 Quote
Can see this backfiring if board manufacturers don't add support though they probably will.
They'll have a hard time convincing buisnesses/users to move entirely over to this format as it would obsolete all the usb devices they have up to now. I don't see why they would compete anyhow isn't this aimed at high bandwidth transfers ala eSATA?
Sloth 16th April 2010, 19:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
I'm sorry but I have to say that Intel can clearly justify what they are doing. Why should they adopt someone elses "standard" and not fully develope their own. Who says Intel has to fully implement USB3 when they have an alternative which can work more than twice as fast? Would you? Would AMD? Don't talk sh!te
Because it's additional hassle for consumers to use their own standard? :|

I can just see it now: External Hard Drive ships with USB3 as its only form of connectivity since it is widely available and still very functional at 4.8Gbps. Consumer only has LightPeak and USB2 connectivity on PC since Intel is not supporting USB3. Consumer must use USB2 speeds or purchase [likely more expensive due to royalties for Intel] LightPeak-ready enclosure.

The advantages of using a widely accepted (and backwards compatible) standard are great. Sometimes pure speed is not the sole factor in the decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikket
One question is, will LightPeak allow us to network stuff together? That'd be its best use imo.
This seems far more practical. The speed could likely be a useful factor here. Things like power become moot in this scenario as well, and flexability isn't as demanded either.
the_kille4 16th April 2010, 19:14 Quote
well regarding the breakability of glass optical fibres, there are institutions trying to develop plastic based ones... not sure if there are in the market right now but they could be an option instead of using glass... although the audio optical cable thing itself is quite durable although it might be slightly rigid and such but such factor being that the cable has to be floppy is not something i really want either

oh and showerhead said "obsolete all the usb devices" but in the article it does say that it supports USB without the power...like backward compatible
crazyceo 16th April 2010, 19:32 Quote
As you can see I put the "standard" in that way as USB3 is NOT the current standard. It is still in its infancy and components using the "standard" are few and far between. You can count on one hand how many X58 boards have them.

This is a great move by Intel to push the boundarys beyond the lowest common denominator. I have eSata sockets ont the back of my board but have never used them. Whats one more socket that runs faster than the rest?
yougotkicked 16th April 2010, 19:48 Quote
while i would love to see higher thruput connectors as a standard, i dot think people will want to move away from USB, maybe if intel figures out a way to make their conector directly compatable with a USB connector. I think a new stadard will have a hard time catching on without hybridizing with USB first.
Sloth 16th April 2010, 19:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
As you can see I put the "standard" in that way as USB3 is NOT the current standard. It is still in its infancy and components using the "standard" are few and far between. You can count on one hand how many X58 boards have them.

This is a great move by Intel to push the boundarys beyond the lowest common denominator. I have eSata sockets ont the back of my board but have never used them. Whats one more socket that runs faster than the rest?
USB in general is the standard, though. The progression from 2 to 3 is a pretty simple matter because if you have a device supporting USB3 but your PC doesn't, it works. If your PC supports it but your device doesn't, it works. People can very easily shift between the two. The few USB3 ports out currently are already in use because of this, just not at USB3 speeds yet. Name a consumer product using LightPeak right now. It hardly even exists outside of Intel labs. By the time it does exist there's a good chance that USB will have made a large shift to 3.0.
crazyceo 16th April 2010, 20:35 Quote
This is where you arguement is flawed. You have motherboards though not very many X58 boards with both USB2 and USB3 together with eSata sockets. Whats one more socket that is far more superior than the rest in addition to the older ones?

Intel are doing nothing wrong here so stop the negativity. This forward thinking should he highly commended.
leslie 16th April 2010, 21:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dec
"the last cable ull ever need"

Wasnt USB intended for that purpose too?

I smell a big shift to AMD until intel gets around to USB3

An add-on chip or board fixes the problem.

There are currently 34 Intel boards listen on Newegg with USB 3.0.
There are currently ZERO Amd motherboards with USB 3.0.
Have fun with your AMD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
Yeah, because we need another proprietary technology from Intel, to ensue their monopoly.
Intel and AMD have a technology sharing agreement.

Even if that only applies to processors, Intel cannot and will not lock AMD or Nvidia or even add-on board makers out of this as it could create a monopoly situation. Something Intel has been fighting with for many years, governments are just waiting for an miss-step by Intel.
Elledan 16th April 2010, 21:26 Quote
I'd love to see something more elegant than USB 3, which has got 8+ conductors in a single USB cable, making it as stiff and inflexible as a bloody piece of steel cable, not to mention the 'mini USB 3' connector which is actually twice as wide as the USB 2 version and thus a major fail for portable devices.

Light Peak with two copper conductors for power should be pretty cool.
Sloth 16th April 2010, 21:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
This is where you arguement is flawed. You have motherboards though not very many X58 boards with both USB2 and USB3 together with eSata sockets. Whats one more socket that is far more superior than the rest in addition to the older ones?

Intel are doing nothing wrong here so stop the negativity. This forward thinking should he highly commended.
The beauty of having them all be same is that a motherboard manufacturer can place eight USB on the back or so, pins for four more on your case, and forget about it. No money sent to Intel for LightPeak, no additional controller of any sort to place on, no worry of just how many LightPeak connections users might want. Same goes for case manufacturers, just place a handful of USB3 on the front and you're golden.

If anything, this seems like it's more of an eSata replacement (and networking like Krikket said perhaps). External SSDs are about the only thing that would ever draw over 4.8Gbps in the next few years and you usually only need one so manufacturers can get away with only putting on one then stocking up on USB. Looking at my own computer usage: four powered USB devices, two USB chargers, one USB printer, two front USB ports kept ready for flash drives. None of the four devices would ever need that bandwidth, just mouse and keyboard etc. The two chargers just draw power and use whatever port is most common. Printer, again does not need the bandwidth so it may as well use the very popular USB. Flash drives could possibly use the bandwidth? I doubt it. But then their main use is portable storage that can be used anywhere, and everywhere has USB.

Perhaps others are different, but it seems to me that being common and standardized is often more useful than simply being the fastest. In that regard USB is already here to stay, it's dug itself in so deep with peripherals and chargers for every device imaginable that it won't go away. LightPeak, imo, could at best be an additional support function for a handful of devices.
Jenny_Y8S 16th April 2010, 22:12 Quote
How energy efficient is the tech? I know we're talking small currents here but is turning electrical to optical and back to electrical again as efficient as a standard copper cable?

Also, I'd love to see a standard with round connections so there is none of that "Wrong way up again" thing we all do from time to time. Easily done in a basic optical connection, the 3.5" tosslink is based on the 3.5" plug size.

Or maybe do a deal with apple and use a magsafe connection with a round formfactor. I'm thinking of a laptop with a row of small shallow circular holes along the edge. Each magnestised to take the end of an optical cable that will provide uber data speeds and enough power for the average mobility device. Put any device in any socket.

Alternatively we could just drop the wires all together and use something wireless

Hold on... doesn't Sony want us to do that.

SONY!!!! Agghhhhhh I'd stick with Intel thank you very much
Jux_Zeil 17th April 2010, 01:24 Quote
I may be completely wrong but I don't think people are seeing the whole picture. Intel are obviously using this as a test-bed for complete optical communication of system busses.

I like the idea personaly as it can only push bandwidth of all the device busses up, and I think that is the only way to improve the GFX to an extent that'll make us do more than raise one eye-brow.

Also, on the power issue, a laser is in itself a form of energy. That is why it's meassured in W/KW. I may be wrong again but surely such a precise power source wouldn't require a load of conditioning circuitry either.

Go on, proove me wrong and I'll just go and sit in the corner and sulk while muttering about how stupid and far fetched I sounded.
iwod 17th April 2010, 04:43 Quote
Plastic Fibre, they are here, cheap to produce at the cost of Running Length. ( 10 - 20M compare to 100M+ , but why would you need a 100M+ cable for your peripherals? )

You get a Copper Coating on top of the Fibre Cable itself. Which means you are still using 2 Cables inside Lightpeak, but you get Power as well.

Consider this to replace every single connection you have, internally and externally, SATA, USB, Firewire, Etherent... etc....

Not to mention the cable would be even thinner then USB 2.0 ( When you consider USB 3.0 is like Ethernet CAT 6 thick.... that is ridiculous......... )
Alexg 17th April 2010, 05:25 Quote
The power of the lasers used for this kind of optical transmission is mW - it is not a sensible form of power transfer and would be massively inefficient anyway - converting from optical energy to electricity is difficult hence all the problems with solar cells.

Optical transmission would not speed up on board buses because they are not limited by long lengths of cable or the need to use a limited number of cables. Optical is overly complex for this purpose hence inefficient examples below:

Digital Signal (send) -> tiny length of copper (with as many channels as necessary for bandwidth) -> Digital Signal (receive)

as opposed to

Digital Signal (send) -> Optical converter chip -> laser source -> Fiber Optic -> photo diode -> Optical converter chip -> Digital Signal (receive)
Jux_Zeil 17th April 2010, 10:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexg
*snip*

I know what you're saying but you seem to forget that digital is a sieries of ones and zeros. Why convert at all when light is the same language, one=on, zero=off.

The whole curcuit would only require a very little power as no electricity would need to be pushed(amps). The chips would probably use a solar cell to read the information any way, so it would do the job of recieving the power as well.

If you can power a calculator in a sparcely lit office, then think what you could power with a pure laser(which I believe is in the invisible spectrum range).

It's just up to the peripheral manufacturers to forget about their shares in the power companies and start working together as it requires a total rethink and change of the current standards. That goes for the GFX card munufacturers that believe we need to draw the same power as a hallogen oven(and create the same heat output as well).

Shoot!!

Fail. That'll never hapen will it. :(
eddtox 17th April 2010, 11:15 Quote
I don't think anyone is saying that this wouldn't be a cool technology. What irks some of us is the possibility that intel might intentionally try to hinder the adoption of USB3, in order to give their tech a higher chance of success. That would not be in the customer's interest.
Moriquendi 17th April 2010, 11:25 Quote
You can have a laser of almost any frequency from infrared used in CDs and DVDs to ultraviolet used in lithography.

Almost all optical communication systems are digital all the way but you still need more components to produce an optical bus than an electrical bus, a laser and most likely a photodiode and a converter chip (to clean up the signal) at the receiving end, this makes it less suitable for consumer level use than an electrical bus. Also, there's no way currently to produce optical fibres in or on a PCB.

Also, the is significantly less power available at the end of an optical fibre than there is to a calculator in an office and calculators are very low power devices, powering peripherals optically simply will not work.

Optical communications don't really have any advantages to a consumer at the moment and they wont until required bandwidths increase beyond the ability of electrical busses. Which may never happen as electrical busses are improving faster thant he devices they're attached to, why have a harddisk capable of ~150-200 MBps connected with a bus capable of 10GBps? especially if you cave to pay more for it.

Optical interconnects do have advantages in other situations where interference is a problem (manufacturing) or there are long distances (telco) to be covered or very high bandwidth is required (network backbones)

Moriquendi
Elledan 17th April 2010, 12:00 Quote
I, for one, welcome our optical overlords.

:D
Mister_Tad 17th April 2010, 14:11 Quote
I don't get it.

So Light Peak is just the cable, just a pipe to send whatever through, be it USB, SATA, IP etc.

What the hell is wrong with the many garden varieties of fibre that are widely used at the moment? There are plenty of optical technologies at the moment which can pipe 10Gb+ over fibre now. Never mind the impracticalities of fibre over a copper cable. Don't get me wrong, fibre is the best thing since bread, but its advantages over copper are moot at home.

And what's the point of having any more than 2 strands? hmm.

Generally speaking: :?
metarinka 17th April 2010, 21:57 Quote
I would welcome it soley to replace cat 5 cable. especially with the bandwidth.

and the people claiming no need for bandwidth are like the no one ever needs more than 24K of ram type. sure 10GB/s right now might be "too fast" but when sata 1 was launched it was "faster' than any pata drive could push and look how that changed. in 3-5 years a SDD array on a NAS box could push 10GB/S easily.

FIber optic is the future, it's already proven itself for long haul and even last mile to customer houses. Slowly coming into consumer range is next especially due to the advantages in throughput it offers over electrical buses.
eddtox 17th April 2010, 22:13 Quote
The point isn't that it's not a good tech. The problem is that intel is hindering the adoption of USB 3 in order to promote it.
Moriquendi 17th April 2010, 23:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by metarinka
I would welcome it soley to replace cat 5 cable. especially with the bandwidth.

You can already replace cat5 with fibre but you'll pay through the teeth for it, I haven't heard yet how Intel intend to keep the price reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by metarinka
and the people claiming no need for bandwidth are like the no one ever needs more than 24K of ram type. sure 10GB/s right now might be "too fast" but when sata 1 was launched it was "faster' than any pata drive could push and look how that changed. in 3-5 years a SDD array on a NAS box could push 10GB/S easily.

My point was that electronic busses are improving too, in 3-5 years we may very well have usb4 or something similar that can push that much data down a copper wire
Quote:
Originally Posted by metarinka
FIber optic is the future, it's already proven itself for long haul and even last mile to customer houses. Slowly coming into consumer range is next especially due to the advantages in throughput it offers over electrical buses.

Why? Fibres advantages are not well suited to the consumer space, the added cost is not rewarded with added performance. Put simply, fibre in the consumer space is a solution looking for a problem. In the long haul and even in the last mile fibre has advantages, it is currently difficult or impossible to push bandwidth that people will use over those distances over copper but for distances under 100m you can do it with copper and at significantly lower cost.

Maybe electronic busses will hit a bandwidth wall while devices demand more bandwith in which case, if fibre can offer the bandwidth, I'm all for it but that is not the case at the moment.

Moriquendi
dark_avenger 18th April 2010, 07:26 Quote
While intel maybe taking there time in putting USB3 into there chipsets it has not stopped alot of board manufactures just using the NEC chip and adding it them selfs.
I doubt intel is going to have much luck on slowing USB3, it's here and it's going to stay.

I do like the idea of 10Gbs fibre for external storage and networking.
With the amount of data floating around theses days I feel gigabit is now becoming some what of a bottleneck
ambrose 18th April 2010, 09:57 Quote
the main problem i have with optical is they are damn stiff!!! and they break if you bend them around a more tight corner than say, a coke can :( so usb will live forever in the mouse/ keyboard i reckon
crazyceo 18th April 2010, 12:44 Quote
I just don't get it. How is this not a good thing from Intel?

Most new motherboards come or are about to come out with additional USB3 sockets anyway in addition to the many USB2 sockets and eSata. So why are Intel getting dumped on by the doom sayers here?

This is progress being driven positively forward by Intel so why are you all moaning?

Well Done Intel for taking on another area of the industry and making it better (by a long way!)
Elledan 18th April 2010, 13:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambrose
the main problem i have with optical is they are damn stiff!!! and they break if you bend them around a more tight corner than say, a coke can :( so usb will live forever in the mouse/ keyboard i reckon

Have you handled a USB 3 cable lately? They got 8 conductors in them are have the rigidity of a steel cable. An optical cable is positively flexible in comparison. There are also types of fibers which can take a lot of abuse and very tight corners.
leslie 18th April 2010, 19:33 Quote
I suspect Intel isn't in a huge rush because they realize the appeal is limited.

For printers and scanners, it's useless.
For external drives we already have Esata.
For Lan, we already have optical, and 10gigabit is coming soon. Plus, I have to wonder about lag on Lightpeak.
Then as mentioned you have the stiff cable...

It's impractical.
Ask yourself, how badly do most people really need USB3 right now?
How much would it cost Intel to re-engineer another chipset to add USB3?
How much to then do it again to add Lightpeak?

So while you are bitching about Intel (who's already boards have it , making your complaints rather pointless), AMD isn't even on the map. Not that most people have a need for USB3 anyway.
Elledan 18th April 2010, 21:04 Quote
It's really amusing to hear people bitchin' about Intel 'sabotaging' USB3 when most new mainboards include USB3 via the NEC chip, whether they are Intel or AMD boards. Intel is right about sitting this one out.
Jux_Zeil 18th April 2010, 22:20 Quote
It's another HD-DVD V's Blu-Ray war. Where is the logic in backing the lesser tech? Why get stuck with 25GB when you can have 50GB in the same package?
impar 19th April 2010, 09:25 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jux_Zeil
It's another HD-DVD V's Blu-Ray war. Where is the logic in backing the lesser tech? Why get stuck with 25GB when you can have 50GB in the same package?
Cheaper, and always to be cheap, 5Gbps now or expensive, and always to be expensive, 10Gbps in the future?
The 5Gbps seems the best choice, even more after factoring that you dont really need 10Gbps for anything.
Krog_Mod 19th April 2010, 18:04 Quote
even though the cost of fiber optic cable may be coming down, the cost the optic sensors isn't. I'd expect this type of technology to be used in high end equipment, not really flash drives but possibly huge backup arrays or other equipment that would already be powered. Just my two cents on the matter.
Farting Bob 19th April 2010, 20:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
The point isn't that it's not a good tech. The problem is that intel is hindering the adoption of USB 3 in order to promote it.
Based on what are you claiming that Intel is currently holding back native USB3 support to give LP a better chance at adoption?
Your confusing "Intel could" with "Intel is".
bothaus 20th April 2010, 01:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny_Y8S

Or maybe do a deal with apple and use a magsafe connection with a round formfactor.

That would make sense because Apple is woking on this with Intel. Not sure why they did not mention this joint venture in the article. It is probably powered more by Apple anyway now that I think back on all the useful and useless alternative sockets Apple has had a hand in engineering. They can't seem to help themselves. But hey, all devices including video through one connection could be pretty cool.
Ticky 20th April 2010, 07:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krog_Mod
even though the cost of fiber optic cable may be coming down, the cost the optic sensors isn't. I'd expect this type of technology to be used in high end equipment, not really flash drives but possibly huge backup arrays or other equipment that would already be powered. Just my two cents on the matter.

The cost of the detector needed is pennies.... just saying.
Splynncryth 20th April 2010, 20:19 Quote
AFAIK, TOSLINK audio cables use plastic fibers, though I belive you can get some reasonable distances from plastic fibers. I would bet lightpeak uses multimode fibers and transmissions which means 'short range' transmissions. Wikipedia says the old plastic tech was good for a 'short' 100 meters :)
The plastic should be plenty durable enough.

I don't see power as being a big problem with distance, think power over Ethernet. The problem is that DC can incur pretty hefty losses over longer runs, but that may not be an issue for most practical application.

The real problem is the Intel license on the tech. I think we will see a competing, open optical standard develop and that will gain acceptance because it is royalty free.
impar 23rd August 2010, 11:15 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
I don't get the negativity.
Intel supporting USB 3.0 would mean a quick implementation of everything USB 3.0.
Intel supporting its own tech (not available yet) and puting USB 3.0 in a back seat means USB 2.0 will still be the dominant connection tech in the short term.

On the promise of faster tech (Light Peak) we will be using an old tech (USB 2.0) instead of a "easy to switch to" tech (USB 3.0).
And I would wholeheartedly agree, if there were things out there that utilise the extra bandwidth. As far as I can see, USB3.0 is fast, but of no benefit over USB2.0 while external devices are limited by other; mechanical; facctors.
External storage devices.
Quote:
There are also comparisons between USB 2.0 and Firewire versus USB 3.0.
LightPeak is still no way to be seen.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums