this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
329 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
3934 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Brandon@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can someone please explain how this is possible? What advancements on the tech tree did we have to make to double the bandwidth which we couldn't previously?

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's the protocols more than anything.

stuff with this speeds existed already, it just wasn't via USB. it was expensive proprietary protocols and hardware and cables. USB is an open standard design for consumer use, and not for giant corps with datacenters who can pay $2,000 for a single data cable.

Thunderbolt is basically a data-transfer focused version of USB, and just requires a different controller that supports the new protocols to achieve the higher speeds.

multiplexing is one way to achieve higher bandwidth and throughput over the same physical cable.

[–] clutch@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I heard about multiplexing in a radio frequency context, first time on digital... how would it work?

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Same thing, the medium is just copper instead of air. That’s why they need a ton of shielding.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

From what I recall, the big change is in the signal encoding. It’s switching from PAM2 to 3, which will allow a lot more data to move down the line without having to totally rethink the cables and connectors. Although you will need new cables for this.

[–] weedazz@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

We made breakthroughs in recent yeara at harvesting alien technology from the crashed Roswell ships, leading to all of these "AI chips" and crazy speeds

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

USB 4 can already do 80 gbit, why are they even bothering with a competing standard anymore?

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's USB4 v2.0, not USB4. It's not the same thing.

[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ugh...Find me one more naming standard on this entire fucking planet more screwed up than USB

[–] kvadd@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh, let me introduce you to our lord and savior Microsoft!

Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

And then we have the magic that is Xbox:

Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series S, Xbox Series X

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Windows 9

Woah, that's sounding a bit too logical, there.

Even better is that the Windows 11 version number isn't 11, it's 10.0.22000.

[–] kvadd@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh shit, I forgot they actually skipped 9 :D

[–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Reason was that old naming schemes from 95 and 98 messed up their shit.

[–] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 7 points 1 year ago

Windows 95 was version 3.95 because returning 4.0 from the GetVersion api broke loads of software that was doing stupid checks.

People then started hardcoding checks for 3.95...

GetVersion has been deprecated completely now...

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's cause 11 is mostly the same as 10 under the hood barr a few additions. But is mostly regarded as just a better front-end for 10

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would say that 10 is way more mish mashed together than 11s

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

At least they didn't remove access to a ton of important settings

[–] Molecular0079@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

God I hate the entire industry of marketing and sales and this is one of the reasons why.

Even worse is when Apple decides to just name everything the same thing and get rid of numbers entirely.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You're also missing 8.1 if we're going by Microsoft's wish of calling a service pack a whole new version of Windows.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 1 year ago

Kingdom Hearts.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago
[–] Patius@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Wifi under the old standard?

[–] sznio@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you connect PCI-E devices to USB 4? That feels like the only useful feature of Thunderbolt imo.

[–] notepass@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago

Yes. The full USB-4 spec has that.

That being said: thunderbolt is still great for verification. If it says thunderbolt you exactly know what it can do and that it should work as expected. USB-4 will be plastered on anything that can do only plain usb4 speeds.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

Looking at Wikipedia, it seems like USB 4 has a 120Gbps asymmetric mode as well. That's wild!

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Can we just switch to fiber interfaces already? TB5 apparently has a one-meter maximum passive cable length, compared to TB4’s already short two meters.

[–] kalleboo@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Thunderbolt optical cables exist if you need them, and for anyone who doesn't the extra cost of the optical interface is a waste.

[–] Dfy@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

But then you would need fiber glass cables, put it in your bag/pockets by itself and you have to buy another one

[–] stevehobbes@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You still need copper unless you don’t want to transmit power too.

Interestingly, fiber technically has more latency than copper - light moves slower through fiber than electrons through copper.

[–] hungover_pilot@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Nice. I'm interested to see how eGPUs perform on TB5.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why is Intel technology coming to Macs next year when Macs no longer use Intel chips? That makes no sense.

[–] SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Intel and Apple co-developed ThunderBolt, and the tech is free to use for all manufacturers, so why wouldn’t they? One more selling point on the spec sheet is always good.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it was free to use then AMD would support it too. I didn't realize Apple was involved with it too, I thought it was Intel's IP. Weird for them to work together on that and then Apple gives Intel the finger like they did.

[–] __dev@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If it was free to use then AMD would support it too

They do. There's thunderbolt motherboards and it's coming with USB-4 on the new 7000-series mobile chips.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I believe I read rumors that Intel wants to be a US manufacturer of Apple Silicon chips someday down the road. Sharing the role with TSMC.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Apple’s part of the group backing AV1, along with Intel too. Huh.

[–] __dev@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Apple still uses intel chips in all their macs, just not for the CPU. The M1 Macbook for instances uses an Intel JHL8040R thunderbolt 4 chip.

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Does anything even use thunderbolt 4's bandwidth? About the only thing I've seen is external GPUs and even that is a ludicrously niche use case.

I'd be much more excited about a post about something using TB4 to its fullest. All I can think reading this title is "who cares?" Is someone going to make a reasonably priced and even remotely convenient 40gbps ethernet card for TB5? No. Do my NVME drives go past 40gbps? Generally not, but I could've seen use for fast drives plugged into tb4/5 at least. Is anyone using TB4/5 for datacenter interconnects where this speed would actually be useful? I doubt it.

Does anyone reading this post use tb4 on a daily basis and feel limited in any way?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GregoryTheGreat@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Player2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] elrik@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thunder is actually quite slow being limited by the speed of sound.

load more comments
view more: next ›