what happened to Intel's Light Peak?
6 years after they demoed it we still don't have optical interconnects in PCs. 1 Tb/s would've been sweet.
It's called lightning cable faggot
>>51782084
once you get steve job's dick out of your ass, you'll figure out the difference between copper and optical links.
wut m8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK
http://www.labs.hpe.com/research/systems-research/themachine/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computing
>>51782452
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK
125 Mbit/s kek
> http://www.labs.hpe.com/research/systems-research/themachine/
vaporware of the decade
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computing
wow, you're deep
my was about a practical high bandwidth optical interconnect that intel promised in 2010, and then killed for an unkown reason.
op
it failed and became thunderbolt.
>>51782550
it didn't "fail" because because it was never released. intel scrapped it for an unknown reason after all the hype. my guess is that they decided that the goys don't deserve optical shit, while they can milk old copper for another decade.
>>51782602
>intel scrapped it for an unknown reason after all the hype
oh, you mean the project failed?
they had a demo running at 10 Gb/s back in 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDHHM-NsGOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ox_inwLSl0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_%28interface%29
> Thunderbolt 3 is being developed by Intel Israel
>>51782654
the project never made it to market you retard.
>>51782695
i.e., it internally failed.
>>51782710
i'm not going to argue with a moron
http://www.corning.com/opcomm/OpticalCablesbyCorning/products/thunderbolt.aspx
So why are these called optical thunderbolt cables then? and i'm 90% sure Light Peak got changed/merged into Thunderbolt.
>>51782735
well there's no sense arguing with yourself anyway.
>>51782710
>>51782695
Do either of you have internal intel documents showing why it was never released?
No?
Then all you have is speculation
>>51782842
Thunderbolt is not an optical technology, it's old copper. If you look at the page you linked to, you'll see that there's a chip inside the cable that converts from copper to optical.
>>51782914
intel's silicon photonics is dead in the water
maybe ibm or someone else will eat jewtel's lunch
>this thread again
Its not dead, it wasn't dropped, you're a fucking moron.
HP's next gen server platform relies on intel to supply the optical interconnect hardware that links their high speed storage together. The reason why HP keeps delaying the release is that they've had issues with intel not being able to provide enough fully functional hardware. There have been news articles about it, and you'd know that if you had done any research whatsoever.
>>51783077
>HP's next gen server platform
relies on memristors, which HP doesn't know how to make, that's why its "machine" is vaporware
>>51782034
its because engineers keep on figuring out how to push copper further. Thunderbolt is a perfect example. It was thought to be impossible without optical, but dudes figured out how to do it with copper.
optical interconnects sure as shit will arrive, but tweaking copper technology by dropping voltage swings, controlling impedance, integrating the clock into the data-stream itself (ethernet,pcie) are little cheap tweaks that have paid huge dividends.
moving to optical stuff is a huge step. typically the optical devices are not made with the same semiconductors or processes as a cpu. You have to handle packaging. You can't just plop a chip down into solder paste and reflow -> you have to worry about proper termination. It's a whole different technology stack, and it is more expensive and less consumer proof at this point.
