Intel Unveils the Thunderbolt 4 Spec, Debuting in PCs in the Fall (pcworld.com) 95
Intel unveiled Thunderbolt 4 on Wednesday, the next iteration of the I/O specification that provides a high-speed peripheral bus to docks, displays, external storage and eGPUs for PCs. Rather than increase the available bandwidth, however, Thunderbolt 4 provides more clarity and helps create new categories of products. From a report: Thunderbolt 4 will debut later this year as part of Intel's "Tiger Lake" CPU platform, as Intel originally announced during CES in January. We now know it will support 40Gbps throughput, but with tighter minimum specs. Thunderbolt 4 will guarantee that a pair of 4K displays will work with a Thunderbolt dock, and require Thunderbolt 4-equipped PCs to charge on at least one Thunderbolt port. Thunderbolt PCs will be able to connect to either "compact" or "full" docks with up to four Thunderbolt ports. Longer Thunderbolt cables will be possible, too. One thing that doesn't seem to be changing is Thunderbolt's exclusivity. Intel developed Thunderbolt, and perhaps not coincidentally, OEM systems based on rival AMD's CPUs have never had this technology. While AMD has officially dismissed the need for Thunderbolt, with generation 4 Intel appears to have made it even harder for AMD to get it, even if it wanted to. Intel's still pitching Thunderbolt as a single standard to rule them all, but the reality up to now has been complicated. You still have to squint hard at that USB-C-shaped port to determine which of the multitude of USB specifications it meets, including whether it's a USB4 connection that happens to support Thunderbolt. To muddy things further, Thunderbolt also encompasses PCIe, DisplayPort, and USB Power Delivery standards.
Why would they give away an exclusive (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why would they give away an exclusive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Itanium wasn't meant to be the 64 bit x86 CPU, it was meant to be a whole new processor family and largely targeted at the market for RISC CPUs, including co-developer HP's PA-RISC CPU.
I'm sure Intel *wanted* it to be the general replacement for x86, but it was never meant to be just an add on 64 bit instruction set for x86. I'd wager Intel figured plain x86 had some high profitable life left in it and probably planned to keep selling it without any 64 bit capabilities for some time to come, while pushing
Apple collaborated on Thunderbolt development (Score:3)
Apple and Intel collaborated [intel.com] to develop the previous iterations of Thunderbolt, so it is reasonably likely Apple retains rights to put TB4 even into non-Intel computers.
Re: (Score:2)
And they have announced that it will be included:
https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why would they give away an exclusive (Score:3)
Don't count on that though.
I still remember when I bought my Athlon 850, that there were only three (outsider) motherboard manufacturers that actually offered boards for it. Because Intel had threatened to withhold further chip deliveries from anyone who would dare to support AMD CPUs. All three of those manufactureres went bankrupt, not long after. I don't know why, but I can take a wild guess...
Thankfully, by then, nobody held back anymore and Intel lost its power. But if my guess is correct, that won't b
Re:Why would they give away an exclusive (Score:5, Interesting)
More interesting that keeping this away from AMD is what about Apple now that they are going to an ARM chip? Will there still be Thunderbolt?
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say, you're confusion is not misplaced. With the Thunderbolt 3, USB3, Thunderbolt 4, USB4 stuff that's usually confusing at best, it's hard to known what's what. USB4 integrates Thunderbolt 3 into the spec. So if you have USB4, it's a safe bet to assume that USB4 will bring with it Thunderbolt 3. Except if you get some $5 motherboard or controller card, but that's mostly on the buyer at that point. AMD [tomshardware.com] and some controller makers for ARM [anandtech.com] have indicated USB4 support support in the next generation of their processors.
If so, its not that exclusive
I think Intel is two parts "seeing the writing on the wall" and one part "fuck it, we're going to still try to hold on to something." Intel's iron grasp on Thunderbolt has just provided the needed fuel for pretty much the world's engineers to work on USB as opposed to bring the big dollars to Intel. So at some point Thunderbolt was either going to become open (-ish) or go the way of Firewire. There were just way too many people working on making USB better and better that it's no surprise that it's speed is rivaling that of Thunderbolt. However, I guess old habits die hard? So with Thunderbolt 4 they'll still try to pull the same stunt, it looks like.
And will it be hard to make this work with ARM chips?
No. Long story, short. Moving from USB3 to USB4 isn't that big of a shift. But not to downplay it, it's not a cakewalk either. There's server style ARM [arm.com] that implement PCIe lanes and typically USB3 in an IC is hooked up to the processor via these lanes. I'm assuming that Apple's ARM in particular is going down a similar road and will implement USB4 along the same lines.
So at this point you might be asking, what's the diff between Thunderbolt 3 and 4? Not much, it's more technical a revision rather than a design revision. Both will ultimately operate at the same speed, so 4 isn't going to be faster than 3. What will change is that Thunderbolt 4 will allocate things a bit differently (I'm seriously glossing over all of this) to allow a "better optimization" of resources so that you can do things like plug two 4K monitors in. Apparently, these "tighter" allocations required new silicone. IDK. Anyway, there's also branding standardization, so if you have a Thunderbolt 4 port, no more putting the bolt + USB logo over the port. The new standard requires that you only put the little bolt icon on the port. Also, if you do the whole Thunderbolt 4 thing, one of your ports has to be able to deliver power. Again, that seems trivial, and it is.
At any rate. With USB4 and Thunderbolt 3 being one and the same, I don't really see what benefit Thunderbolt 4 will bring outside of certain assurances and it being "Intel!" But for Apple in particular, since you mentioned them, very likely they'll carry Thunderbolt in with them via USB4 and likely they'll stop giving money to Intel meaning that they'll have to stop calling shit "Thunderbolt/Lightening/Whatever" and won't be allowed to put the little bolt icon on their ports. But honestly, IDK what Apple is going to do with their hardware outside of slap a really expensive price tag on it.
Re: (Score:1)
"And will it be hard to make this work with ARM chips?
No....What will change is that Thunderbolt 4 will allocate things a bit differently (I'm seriously glossing over all of this)..."
LOL you sure are! Also, you aren't even addressing things that are actually challenging.
"...to allow a "better optimization" of resources so that you can do things like plug two 4K monitors in. Apparently, these "tighter" allocations required new silicone. IDK. Anyway, there's also branding standardization, so if you have a Th
Re: Why would they give away an exclusive (Score:2)
Uuum, I might not be up to date, but AFAIK, Thunderbolt, like Firewire, is an *active* protocol, where each device has its own bus intelligence to decide when to send packets and such. While USB periphery is *passive*. Resulting in collisions.
Resulting essentiall in the same difference as a network connection with or without a traffic shaper.
So while technically, the theoretical speed is the same, in practice, while USB is cheaper, it is also far slower.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with most of your post but this sentence has me puzzled. Earlier in your post you mention that recent versions of USB are including Thunderbolt to take advantage of Thunderbolt's speed but then in this sentence you mention that the people working on USB are making it better and better so that it's speed is now rivaling Thunderbolt. Unless I'm missing so
Re: (Score:2)
I'm already plugging in two 4k monitors on Thunderbolt 3, either through a thunderbolt 3 dock that has DisplayPort plus two more thunderbolt ports (which can be DisplayPort channels as well), or via an eGPU attached via Thunderbolt.
Not really sure what they're on about with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that seems to be the main "feature" of TB4, it's an attempt to clean up the utterly confusing mess of TB3/USB-C, where you need exactly the right combination of devices and cables and directional orientation and room temperature and pressure for anything to work.
And even then it's only a 50/50 chance. You basically need to go to some site like Amazon and find someone else with the exact same combination of device (e.g. Lenovo Carbon X1 Gen 5) and host (e.g. CalDigit TS3 Plus) and cable that can confirm
Re: (Score:2)
You can get Thunderbolt on AMD systems. Intel has certified some motherboards for it. Not sure about laptops.
AMD owns x86_64, Intel licences it from them.
AMD has said it will support USB 4 which will incorporate Thunderbolt as an alternative mode so chances are AMD will get support in the next year or so when that launches.
Re:Why would they give away an exclusive (Score:4, Interesting)
But the terms of the previous case weren't that Intel had to give everything away forever.
No one is saying Intel needs to give it away. Cross licensing is quite lucrative, and was done on x86 long before the court case which opened it up for all. The problem Intel is making for itself is by limiting it's technology at a time when alternatives exist (seriously what does Thunderbolt do again that I can't do now with some other cable?) they are also limiting possible adoption. Thunderbolt devices are rare compared to traditional alternatives as is the connection standard on many PCs.
Intel does itself no favours by either locking up the technology or pricing it high. They aren't required to do anything, but what they are doing now is frankly a poor business decision as evidenced by the fact that they are up to version 4 of this mythic awesome standard so few people use.
Re: (Score:3)
seriously what does Thunderbolt do again that I can't do now with some other cable?
Plug in PCIe cards into a laptop by way of a breakout box, or other bandwidth-intensive applications. Example: non-hamstrung GPUs, fiber channel adapters, 10-gigabit networking, etc.
Plug in a cable or two when at your desk and have access to real iron, unplug that one cable and still have the portability of a notebook. Why wouldn't you want that?
Re: (Score:2)
"More interesting that keeping this away from AMD is what about Apple now that they are going to an ARM chip? Will there still be Thunderbolt?"
Why wouldn't there be and why do you think this is an interesting question? Do you know anything at all about "making TB work" that supports your opinion that it would not be "hard" to make work with ARM?
Who controls Thunderbolt licensing? Have you even tried to determine that first?
Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolt support is already embedded in Linux for ARM. Not sure why it wouldn't work for Mac, some ARM SoC have PCIe busses which you can put a Thunderbolt plugin card, having it embedded on a board doesn't sound too difficult to do.
The only platform that doesn't have Thunderbolt will be AMD, with the increasing prevalence of eGPU and docking stations for increasingly thinner and mobile clients, it seems AMD on mobile will never be a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
...and what do you know about Thunderbolt being "difficult to do"?
Name a "Thunderbolt plugin card" and an ARM-based computer that supports it.
Reading through the comments, not one person apparently understands what is actually hard, or unique, about Thunderbolt. No one.
Re: (Score:2)
Appears to have been done by patching around a build restriction placed on the thunderbolt driver in Linux 5.8 on non-x86 platforms
Card was a Gigabyte "Titan Ridge" Thunderbolt 3 PCIe card
Workstation used was a HoneyComb LX2K
Not suggesting that any of this is in or just about to hit the consumer space, merely that it does exist in some way, and appears to work.
Re: (Score:2)
There are several AMD motherboards with thunderbolt support...
Re:Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Thunderbolt is basically external PCIe. Video, sound, data, peripherals, networking, and power over a single cable is extremely useful for laptops."
You literally just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences. External PCIe is PART of Thunderbolt, the fact that there's another part is what is important and is what adds the "Video" to the "extremely useful" stuff for laptops.
Thunderbolt is only partly external PCIe, that's the easy part. The hard part is the other stuff that no one here understands.
Re: (Score:2)
You literally just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences. External PCIe is PART of Thunderbolt, the fact that there's another part is what is important and is what adds the "Video" to the "extremely useful" stuff for laptops.
Please read again. I said "Thunderbolt is basically external PCIe". For the context of the statement, Thunderbolt is a way to connect everything in a single cable that a laptop would need to connect. As such Apple is unlikely to drop it as there isn't a standard they would use for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that matter? They're something like 7% of the PC market. I expect that to drop even further with the switch to ARM.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for all those other laptops that have Thunderbolt on-board.
Typed into a Dell XPS, using a Thunderbolt-3 dock with 2 4k displays, gigabit networking, decent audio, and a real keyboard and mouse connected with a single standard cable.
Re: (Score:2)
When apple goes to ARM and drops thunderbolt it will be forever done.
Or maybe the opposite of what you said is going to happen.
https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
"Over a decade ago, Apple partnered with Intel to design and develop Thunderbolt, and today our customers enjoy the speed and flexibility it brings to every Mac," the company said. "We remain committed to the future of Thunderbolt and will support it in Macs with Apple silicon."
Disappointing (Score:3)
One thing that doesn't seem to be changing is Thunderbolt's exclusivity.
This doesn't make sense to me and I thought Intel knew better. A decade back when I was working on hardware standards Intel was always there and supportive, often providing money to build simulation models and the like. All for open specs.
What upside do they see in holding onto this specification? The only result that I can see happening is lower adoption to outright rejection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolt 3 is part of USB4. AMD is going to support USB4, including the Thunderbolt part of it.
Thunderbolt 4 doesn't seem to be any different to 3 really. Slightly longer cables (and expect to pay âââ for them), a little bit more clarity but the same speed as USB4/TB3.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good idea in the sense that implementing an external DMA capable bus without appropriate controls in place seems like a bad plan; but "VT-d" is a very specific term for the Intel implementation of an IOMMU to keep DMA capable devices from scribbling all over the place; and while AMD, and I assume some of the more upmarket ARM vendors, have equivalent capabilities they aren't "VT-d".
It remains to be seen whether whoever
Re: (Score:2)
AMD has had this kind of IOMMU for years on the Ryzen platform. It's important for virtualization among other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse VT-d with VT-x. The former is for I/O memory protection and not nearly as important for virtualisation (i.e. the hypervisor can do that task).
But you are right Ryzen has support. It's called AMD-Vi
Re: Disappointing (Score:2)
Then what planet are you living on?
Because two decades ago, Intel withheld chipsets from any mainboard vendors that dared to build mainboards for AMD CPUs, and I personally saw three manufacturers go bankrupt as the most likely result of that.
I think you mean "supportive" if you are a pawn in killing AMD, and quite the opposite otherwise.
Maybe they have to play nice since they were forced to license amd64. ("x86_64" is a silly intel name for it, so they don't have to say the name of the devil, but even some
Re: (Score:2)
x86_64" is a silly intel name for it
The name x86_64 for an instruction set that is 90% x86 with a some 64bit capabilities appended to the end is a silly name??? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard you say, and you say a lot of dumb things.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A decade ago, Intel had a comfortable lead over any and all competition. ARM was still very immature and AMD was struggling while Intel had a road map full of improvements to extend their lead.
Now, Intel has had many consecutive generations with little improvement while AMD has had several generations of huge improvements. Intel is also losing a high-pro
Re: (Score:2)
Why would other PC manufacturers consider abandoning x86? They will not have access to Apple's ARM processors that outperform basically any other ARM design out there, and they will not have access to Apple's ARM-compiled and custom-optimized OS. They are reliant upon an OS from someone else - predominantly Microsoft. Sure, some enterprising OEM could try and go the Linux route, except then they would then have to try to support consumers running Linux - it's far better than it used to be, but Gnome and
We need a new standard (Score:3, Funny)
"Intel's still pitching Thunderbolt as a single standard to rule them all, but the reality up to now has been complicated. You still have to squint hard at that USB-C-shaped port to determine which of the multitude of USB specifications it meets, including whether it's a USB4 connection that happens to support Thunderbolt. To muddy things further, Thunderbolt also encompasses PCIe, DisplayPort, and USB Power Delivery standards."
So now that they fucked up TB4 before it even shipped, I have a model proposal that we create a new standard to fix the flaws in TB4. We can call it TB4.1 Gen2-D. And make the cables physically compatible with USB-C but not electrically. That will clear things right up!
Obligatory XKCD (Score:1)
"Intel's still pitching Thunderbolt as a single standard to rule them all, but the reality up to now has been complicated.
https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Re: Obligatory XKCD (Score:1)
Indeed, but the standards committee says THIS TIME we won't need another standard after this next one!
Re: (Score:1)
Thunderbolt 4 provides more clarity (Score:2)
LOL, yep, Thunderbolt 4 is USB4 but USB4 not necessarily Thunderbolt 4.
Clear as mud.
AMD can Thunderbolt. (Score:2)
The ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming board [tomshardware.com] can do it, and is Intel certified to do it.
Granted it's not easy to find the right revision, but it's not complete vaporware [asrock.com].
(there's been uncertified hacks done as well, but it looks like the savior will be USB4)
AMD USB4 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is better about its "architecture" and how does it benefit these "certain use cases" you haven't "personally" identified?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How is it out of line?
Thunderbolt4 is not the successor of USB3 or Thunderbolt3, it's a marketing gimmick for USB4 ports on Intel-based systems. Defend your next statement if you don't think this is true.
Personally I think TB is the better architecture for certain use cases.
What use-case is better in Thunderbolt4 rather than USB4? The Direct-Memory problem Intel is trying to address with VT-d is already fixed in Thunderbolt3 computers(e.g. MacBooks) that have an IOMMU system in place. I literally can't think of any reason I'd buy a Thunderbolt4 device over USB4 device.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolt4 is not the successor of USB3 or Thunderbolt3, it's a marketing gimmick for USB4 ports on Intel-based systems. Defend your next statement if you don't think this is true.
Intel says differently. [intel.com]But of course you know more than one of the creators of Thunderbolt. Please tell me how you know more than Intel about their own product.
What use-case is better in Thunderbolt4 rather than USB4? The Direct-Memory problem Intel is trying to address with VT-d is already fixed in Thunderbolt3 computers(e.g. MacBooks) that have an IOMMU system in place. I literally can't think of any reason I'd buy a Thunderbolt4 device over USB4 device
Dude it says in the summary TB4 contains USB 4 and not the other way around. Did you skip the summary or something?
Re: (Score:1)
What use-case is better in Thunderbolt4 rather than USB4? The Direct-Memory problem Intel is trying to address with VT-d is already fixed in Thunderbolt3 computers(e.g. MacBooks) that have an IOMMU system in place. I literally can't think of any reason I'd buy a Thunderbolt4 device over USB4 device
Dude it says in the summary TB4 contains USB 4 and not the other way around. Did you skip the summary or something?
You were saying you know of a use-case for Thunderbolt4. Why would anyone want Thunderbolt4 except that it is a portmanteau to a port on a computer that is compatible with Thunderbolt3+USB4? (Thunderbolt3 is already part of USB4, although optional)
Re: (Score:2)
You said: "Thunderbolt4 is not the successor of USB3 or Thunderbolt3, it's a marketing gimmick for USB4 ports on Intel-based systems" That is factually untrue. TB4 is the successor to TB3. It encompasses USB4 as TB3 did not. It may not be a giant technological leap forward but it is the next step.
You were saying you know of a use-case for Thunderbolt4. Why would anyone want Thunderbolt4 except that it is a portmanteau to a port on a computer that is compatible with Thunderbolt3+USB4? (Thunderbolt3 is already part of USB4, although optional)
What part of "TB4 encompasses USB4" is difficult to explain? That being said, that's your entire use case if you think about that for a second. TB4 can do everything USB4 can do and not the other way around.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: AMD USB4 (Score:2)
No, TB is optional on USB4.
"optional" is code for "We'll make you pay more, assuming it's included, but work less, and not include it. For profit."
Re: (Score:1)
No, TB is optional on USB4. "optional" is code for "We'll make you pay more, assuming it's included, but work less, and not include it. For profit."
True, but you only need thunderbolt compatibility on the host machine. If you have existing Thunderbolt3 devices get a computer that is compatible, this doesn't effect devices which will likely either be either USB4-only or compatible with both Thunderbolt3 and USB4. We already have many devices that are compatible with Thunderbolt3 and fall back to USB3(e.g. newer versions of LG's 5K monitor https://support.apple.com/en-u... [apple.com] )
Aww CMON (Score:2)
I just got my equipment almost caught up with the older thunderbolt spec!!!
Good grief my dad's stereo was compatible with everything for 30 years using RCA cables.
Now my HDMI stereo is out of date in 5 years because it doesn't support the 4k HDMI and can't even be updated in the firmware!
Re: (Score:2)
4K HDR with dozens of lossless audio channels.
But I mean, if you wanna keep watching your old 480i low gamut washed out CRT TV with stereo analog speakers, have at it.
Re: Aww CMON (Score:2)
As an owner of a analog 5.1 amplifier from 1999, ... piss off. Amplification is *always* by definition analog. As are the cables to your speakers. :D
Don't tell me you can "hear" the additional noise introduced by analog cables going from you PC's D/A converter to the amp... or I've got a nice wooden volume knob from Monster, that "adds warmth", to sell to you for $400!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a licensed amateur radio operator. My neighbors can hear the noise ... very clearly.
Enjoy your part 15 devices!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We will see what Apple does (Score:1)
Whatever connectivity Apple announces in their upcoming Apple silicon systems will probably end up being the leading technology. If Apple somehow supports Thunderbolt, that will be a big boost. If Apple supports some alternative, then expect Thunderbolt to start a long decline.
That’s usually how things go. If Apple makes a bad choice or goes with a proprietary solution, then who knows...
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that? They're a vanishingly small part of the market and, historically, they haven't do much to help a standard save from keeping it from completely dying. DisplayPort, FireWire, etc. failed to lead the market.
Apple has no real influence here. They always just do their own thing. It's good for Apple users when they place nice, but the market doesn't care one way or the other.
Re: (Score:1)
Based on history. Apple adopts a technology and others copy. Phones, tablets, wireless networking, USB-A, wireless headphones, fingerprint readers, SSDs, touchpads, retina screens, etc., etc
It doesn't always work out that way. Thunderbolt hasn't been widely adopted in the industry. If Apple abandons it, it's probably done for.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that nonsense before, that Apple makes or breaks technology, but that's pretty delusional. There must be some remnants of the old reality distortion field still hanging around.
- The smartphone was already a thing -- even the modern UI and form-factor predate the iPhone. Yes, the press put a lot of pressure on manufactures to adopt the slab design, like Apple did, which makes it look like Apple was leading. Real consumers, however, weren't playing along. You forget that RIM's Blackberry smartp
CPU connected? (Score:2)
Is it CPU connected or does it still use only the "shared" bitty-bus?
From what I have seen, almost all Intel implementations use the "shared bitty bus" which is like putting a 10Gig Ethernet Adapter on USB 1.0. While it will work, for some limited definitions of working, it is not very useful. You might as well stick with an ArcNET/StarLAN adapter for your USB 1.0 as that is about all it can handle bandwidth wise (if you are very lucky).
Re: (Score:2)
For a few years, I've been predicting a USB variant that takes the form and function of a CPU socket. I remember when USB was introduced as a simple connector for simple peripherals, but somebody somewhere decided we should replace every kind of I/O with some version of USB. These different versions have nothing to do with each other on a technical level, but they are all called "universal", thus finally unifying computer hardware design once and for all.
http://iki.fi/teknohog/rants/u... [iki.fi]
Apple users rejoice, PC users shrug. (Score:2)
Honestly I've yet to see a thunderbolt device not targeted specifically for Apple users. Likewise I've not seen a thunderbolt device that didn't have a PC compatible alternative. Intel is doing itself no favours making thunderbolt difficult to access. People aren't keen to adopt a limited proprietary standard when alternatives exist. This is precisely why USB was so successful: The price to entry, even down to the design of connector was incredibly low.
Who knows though, maybe 2021 will be the year of Thunde
Re: (Score:2)
File transfers (Score:2)
If the port can do 40Gbps does that mean you could connect two boxes and transfer files at that speed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: File transfers (Score:2)
Yes, my dad does exactly that regularly.
Movie producers *need* those fast speeds. They use hard disks like we used to use floppys. Even 10GB Ethernet often doesn't cut it. E.g. for workstation - NAS connections, if you plan to do more than just work on a few or small files.
So Intel effectively kills Thunderbolt. (Score:2)
Sorry, Intel, you're not the monopolistic top dog anymore. And that Thunderbolt straw you are holding so tight, isn't exactly the big lever you hope it is. (Hint: If you can drink soda through it, don't try to lift a truck with it. :)
Sad. I liked Thunderbolt. Not enough to buy Intel though. ... We'll get over it.
intel has PCIe 4.0?? (Score:2)
intel has PCIe 4.0??
The nice thing about tech industry standards ... (Score:2)
The nice thing about tech industry standards
is that there are so many to choose from.