Intel ignoring USB 3.0 in favor of "Light Peak"

[Odanez]

How did we get from LightPeak to water cooling? anyway, there are passive radiators as well, it is doable but you will still hear the pump. 100% silence will never be realistic.

Optical implications are still only really worth it for long distances. I am not sure that it will be that efficient to actually have high speed busses in your PC replaced by optical lines, because even if light is pretty d*mn fast, an electronic signal has to be converted into an optical signal and then again converted back - I am not sure that that is fast enough. That's the good thing about a PC's internals, it's always digital electronic. Even once you use a DAC/ADC there will be some kind of delay...

[BIOShazard]

I believe there are watercooling setups that rely entirely on gravity to move liquid around (how this is possible is beyond me, but I have seen one or two people claim to be running watercooling without a pump), but they are hardly as effective as a true watercooling loop.

Except for that, I completely agree with you, and because of the bottleneck of the converters I think USB 3.0 is a better way to go.

[Jahova]

Originally Posted by Odanez

How did we get from LightPeak to water cooling? anyway, there are passive radiators as well, it is doable but you will still hear the pump. 100% silence will never be realistic.

Optical implications are still only really worth it for long distances. I am not sure that it will be that efficient to actually have high speed busses in your PC replaced by optical lines, because even if light is pretty d*mn fast, an electronic signal has to be converted into an optical signal and then again converted back - I am not sure that that is fast enough. That's the good thing about a PC's internals, it's always digital electronic. Even once you use a DAC/ADC there will be some kind of delay...

For whatever reason, using the 'digital optical' output on my motherboard produces better (or more pure) sound on my audiophile quality 700 watt sound system.

Look at it like this. USB signal is good for about 6 feet away from the computer, and always requires shielding. Then, some computers internal USB wiring is not shielded properly. You can loose some transmission speed or accuracy by using anything USB. However, with optical signals, you either have a signal, or you don't.

"Optical vs wired is like digital vs analog." <- quote me on that one.

[BIOShazard]

While it is true that USB requires shielding and optical does not, using this as a reason why we should abandon USB is like saying we should abandon airplanes because they require pressure chambers. If USB is faster, I would prefer to have it.

[Odanez]

Originally Posted by Jahova

For whatever reason, using the 'digital optical' output on my motherboard produces better (or more pure) sound on my audiophile quality 700 watt sound system.

Look at it like this. USB signal is good for about 6 feet away from the computer, and always requires shielding. Then, some computers internal USB wiring is not shielded properly. You can loose some transmission speed or accuracy by using anything USB. However, with optical signals, you either have a signal, or you don't.

"Optical vs wired is like digital vs analog." <- quote me on that one.

The reason why you get better audio quality on optical is probably because you compare it with ordinary analog. Theoretically digital via coax for example and optical should make no difference at all when it comes to the signal reaching the other side. Both are digital, and in both cases all the information sent will arrive at it's destination.

Optical transmission does have lower bit-error-ratios that is true, but with channel-coding all errors can be corrected. With analog transmission, you will loose information precision and that cannot be prevented. Digital signals can be falsified but as I said before, coding allows you to correct the flipped bits.

Also optical vs wired is like digital vs analog - that's 2 totally different things, you can't really compare that. Optical vs wired = comparing the medium and digital vs analog = comparing the signals themselves being transmitted. You can also send analog information via an optical cable but digital is much more effective due to the modern digital modulations you can use.

[krone6]

Originally Posted by BIOShazard

While it is true that USB requires shielding and optical does not, using this as a reason why we should abandon USB is like saying we should abandon airplanes because they require pressure chambers. If USB is faster, I would prefer to have it.

usb won't be faster compared to light. That's like saying my electrical connection from my isp is faster then my fiber optic connection. There's a night and day difference. Would you expect the largest stock exchange servers in the world to use electricity? no, they use light.

The reason we're on usb still is so many things are already usb. It's easier to work with then try and incorporate an entire new interface into the world.

[Odanez]

Originally Posted by krone6

usb won't be faster compared to light. That's like saying my electrical connection from my isp is faster then my fiber optic connection. There's a night and day difference. Would you expect the largest stock exchange servers in the world to use electricity? no, they use light.

The reason we're on usb still is so many things are already usb. It's easier to work with then try and incorporate an entire new interface into the world.

How high is memory bandwidth in a PC? That's all connected with copper cables. Not to mention CPU cache. They use bitrates that are by far beyond any internet connection

Connecting servers via optical is something different - it's because (as I said before) optical signals deteriorate much less over long distances and you can sustain a very high bandwidth over very long distances - perfect for the internet's backbone all over the world - but not worth it for short distances. When you say "faster" - USB and optical are the same speed because a signal travels along a fibre optical cable just as fast as it does over a wire - at the speed of light. There is no real limit to the bitrate of a copper wire as long as it's not too long (the reason why you cannot use HDMI or USB cables over a certain length) and as long as you can provide a certain bitrate over a certain distance over a copper cable, then there is no reason to use a different medium yet.

[Jahova]

Originally Posted by Odanez

The reason why you get better audio quality on optical is probably because you compare it with ordinary analog. Theoretically digital via coax for example and optical should make no difference at all when it comes to the signal reaching the other side. Both are digital, and in both cases all the information sent will arrive at it's destination.

Optical transmission does have lower bit-error-ratios that is true, but with channel-coding all errors can be corrected. With analog transmission, you will loose information precision and that cannot be prevented. Digital signals can be falsified but as I said before, coding allows you to correct the flipped bits.

Also optical vs wired is like digital vs analog - that's 2 totally different things, you can't really compare that. Optical vs wired = comparing the medium and digital vs analog = comparing the signals themselves being transmitted. You can also send analog information via an optical cable but digital is much more effective due to the modern digital modulations you can use.

That is incorrect. For years I used analog RCA. Then switched to digital RCA. Then purchased a $50 digital RCA wire that improved quality a tiny bit. But still it was not pure like the sound from a high def DVD. Then I finally switched to digital optical and the sound was pure.

Digital optical beats digital RCA.

Additional Comment:

And to add to that, optical signals do not receive interference like the standard wired signals.

[Odanez]

I dunno - does not make sense that any digital signal would be better than any other one. I guess it's possible if your audio source decides to send a lower bitrate along the RCA than over the optical...
And I did mention that even if a wire gets interference and the information is sent digitally, the wrong bits can be corrected at the other side again if channel coding is used (and it is used just about everywhere - adding a few bits of parity check etc). If a there is a bit error on a digital connection that cannot be corrected, it will have a much greater effect on the audio output than just a little bit of quality decrease. A bit error would create glitches in the sound.

[BIOShazard]

Originally Posted by krone6

usb won't be faster compared to light. That's like saying my electrical connection from my isp is faster then my fiber optic connection. There's a night and day difference. Would you expect the largest stock exchange servers in the world to use electricity? no, they use light.

The reason we're on usb still is so many things are already usb. It's easier to work with then try and incorporate an entire new interface into the world.

The speed of an interface is not decided entirely by the bandwidth (there are other considerations as well, look in the next paragraph). Keep in mind that we will still need a Digital to Analog Converter / Analog to Digital Converter which will be a huge bottleneck in a fiberoptic connection.

As Odanez has posted, the main difference between fiberoptic and regular does not lie in highest possible bandwidth, it lies in highest possible bandwidth over a specific distance with the same amount of amplifiers (I don't know if this is the right word, it is a direct translation of the Norwegian word).

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by Odanez

When you say "faster" - USB and optical are the same speed because a signal travels along a fibre optical cable just as fast as it does over a wire - at the speed of light.

Not exactly, but close enough I guess
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity

Originally Posted by Jahova

That is incorrect. For years I used analog RCA. Then switched to digital RCA. Then purchased a $50 digital RCA wire that improved quality a tiny bit. But still it was not pure like the sound from a high def DVD. Then I finally switched to digital optical and the sound was pure.

Digital optical beats digital RCA.

Additional Comment:

And to add to that, optical signals do not receive interference like the standard wired signals.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. It's a digital signal... it's either 100% quality or it's corrupt. There's no in between. Any difference you're hearing is either placebo or it's possible that, for whatever reason, your receiver uses a different DAC to convert the audio for coaxial vs optical.

Originally Posted by Odanez

I dunno - does not make sense that any digital signal would be better than any other one. I guess it's possible if your audio source decides to send a lower bitrate along the RCA than over the optical...
And I did mention that even if a wire gets interference and the information is sent digitally, the wrong bits can be corrected at the other side again if channel coding is used (and it is used just about everywhere - adding a few bits of parity check etc). If a there is a bit error on a digital connection that cannot be corrected, it will have a much greater effect on the audio output than just a little bit of quality decrease. A bit error would create glitches in the sound.

Exactly, and the lower bitrate thing would really only apply if he's using AC3. And if so, coaxial is fully capable of sending 640 KB/s AC3. It can send full 1.5 mpbs DTS without problems as well.

Originally Posted by BIOShazard

The speed of an interface is not decided entirely by the bandwidth (there are other considerations as well, look in the next paragraph). Keep in mind that we will still need a Digital to Analog Converter / Analog to Digital Converter which will be a huge bottleneck in a fiberoptic connection.

Why do you think an analog signal is sent over optical?? It's a digital signal....

[zollen]

Originally Posted by zollen

If LightPeak technology is fully matured, that would mean PC will be able to further modularized. Imagine a standalone CPU component in your bedroom could potentially connect to your standalone graphical card component in your living room, memory modules in your kitchen and SSD in your dinning room.

Originally Posted by ythe1300

I don't think I like that idea, but I would like cheaper fiber networking before they mess around with this......

Imagine a single CPU could serve as a "brain" of multiple PC's. All you would need is a keyboard and a monitor (i.e. workstation) in each room. The core PC components could be shared among all your rooms. This options would save a lot of money comparing to the traditional multiple standalone PC's.

Using Lightpeak also mean less electrical interference, greater bandwidth and greater data throughput. Potentially chips companies could cramp more complex circuitry in a smaller area without worrying about cross interference.

[kwiksilver]

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.co...4&postcount=13

Old news kids

[bravotsx]

lightpeak and USB 3.0 are complimentary technologies. Lightpeak is protocol agnostic while USB 3.0 is its own thing. To say Lightpeak will eat USB 3.0 is absurd since Lightpeak doesn't really have it's own drivers. The reason USB devices work so well is due to the existence of class drivers, such as mass storage class, human interface device class, etc.

One of the main issues with USB 3.0 at this time is that there aren't too many applications outside of storage that can actually take advantage of the 5 gigabits/second of throughput. so far i'm seen numbskulled ideas like uncompressed 60 fps 1080p webcams but then you'll need a i7 and a crazy fast internet connection just to use skype

I think the main point of lightpeak is that its 10 gigabits/sec can be shared between usb 3.0, lan, HDMI, etc. ideally you can consolidate a bunch of ports. other applications I think are just speculation...

[BIOShazard]

Originally Posted by Maniac

Not exactly, but close enough I guess
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity



Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. It's a digital signal... it's either 100% quality or it's corrupt. There's no in between. Any difference you're hearing is either placebo or it's possible that, for whatever reason, your receiver uses a different DAC to convert the audio for coaxial vs optical.



Exactly, and the lower bitrate thing would really only apply if he's using AC3. And if so, coaxial is fully capable of sending 640 KB/s AC3. It can send full 1.5 mpbs DTS without problems as well.



Why do you think an analog signal is sent over optical?? It's a digital signal....

I don't think it is, hence the "Analog to digital" part.

[index1489]

I don't see USB 3.0 taking off after all the backing by apple and intel with light peek.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by BIOShazard

I don't think it is, hence the "Analog to digital" part.

You don't need a DAC and an ADC in a chain unless you think the signal is being sent as analog over the optical cable... so I ask why you think an analog signal is being sent over optical?

[BIOShazard]

I believe I have explained myself well enough. I am not saying a signal is converted to analog, I am saying a converter is required.

[Odanez]

What you probably mean bio is the photonic sensor / emitter. A signal has to be converted from electric voltage into photons, but that is not a digital-analog conversion.

[Jahova]

Wow I like the point made by Bravotsx. He said the USB interface is universal, while the light peak would need a driver. Nice.

But perhaps light peak will be integrated into firmware in the near future.

Additional Comment:

It would have to be as big as the conversion from Floppy to USB flash drive. Some people used to complain about USB drives. Now, no more floppy cause it's too slow and holds nothing.

If file sizes continue to increase, something fast like light peak will be needed. My co'workers insist on using sneakernet with a USB drive for Photoshop files. It takes 3-6 minutes just to save a large photoshop file onto the USB drive. I can see a need for something faster.