Thunderbolt Card for 2010 Mac Pro

[goMac]

And here's the thing, I guarntee that for Apple or Intel it would be super easy to create such a card. They could easily create one called "T-Zap" or any other thing to denote that it was DATA only and people would scoop it up.

It is this desire to be 100% in control that has held back TB. I hope some of those clever Chinese flood the market with $5 TB knockoff chips. I have been reading up over at "eGPU DIY" and the more in tune over there completely agree that the stratospheric price for TB stuff is 100% artificial and just a money grab by the parties in control.

Someone with more dollars than sense and some spare time should buy an Asus and HP card and play around.

I don't think the video is a big deal. Like the HP card, you can simply route DisplayPort into the card.

The problem I have heard with data is that the CPU needs some idea that their are a tree of PCI-E devices on the other end of the Thunderbolt card, and older CPUs don't really do that. That's why the HP Thunderbolt card has an additional header. If you could just stick Thunderbolt on any ol' PCI bus you wouldn't need the additional data.

 

[crjackson2134]

And here's the thing, I guarntee that for Apple or Intel it would be super easy to create such a card. They could easily create one called "T-Zap" or any other thing to denote that it was DATA only and people would scoop it up.

It is this desire to be 100% in control that has held back TB. I hope some of those clever Chinese flood the market with $5 TB knockoff chips. I have been reading up over at "eGPU DIY" and the more in tune over there completely agree that the stratospheric price for TB stuff is 100% artificial and just a money grab by the parties in control.

Someone with more dollars than sense and some spare time should buy an Asus and HP card and play around.

I'd pay a pretty fair price for such a product, and it would boost the 3rd party development of TB devices. Who knows, maybe with more players the price on some of TB toys would drop to more affordable rates... Now I'm just dreaming

 

[Gav Mack]

It's on my wish list but the Intel server workstation chipset the 4-5,1 is built on can't support it or the Westmere CPU architecture but the next gen sandy bridge cpu + based xeon chipset can.

Hence why the 2011 mac range which has the sandy bridge cpu like the iMac/MBP brought forth thunderbolt but us cMP users have more chance of my head hair growing back than getting it tb for our towers run natively.

 

[crjackson2134]

I don't think anyone really expects it, but it sure would be welcomed.

 

[brentsg]

I'm using a Thunderbolt card in my PC and it works perfectly, even passing NV 980 SLI through it. But the comments that this won't happen without TB header and BIOS support on the motherboard are true, unfortunately.

 

[chrisrand]

Someone with more dollars than sense and some spare time should buy an Asus and HP card and play around.

I would like to start a fund on your behalf to scrape together the little bit of duckets it takes to get you the ASUS and HP TB cards to play around with.

Is any one else with me? They are not that expensive

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-ThunderboltEX-II-ASUS-Components/dp/B00ISKS45M

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039491-REG/hp_f3f43at_hp_thunderbolt_2_pcie_1_port_i_o.html

 

[goMac]

I would like to start a fund on your behalf to scrape together the little bit of duckets it takes to get you the ASUS and HP TB cards to play around with.

Is any one else with me? They are not that expensive

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-ThunderboltEX-II-ASUS-Components/dp/B00ISKS45M

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039491-REG/hp_f3f43at_hp_thunderbolt_2_pcie_1_port_i_o.html

They're not that expensive because a lot of the logic is on the CPU and the chipset. :-\

Seriously, these only work with certain motherboards for a reason. Half of the logic is on the motherboard itself, and the Mac Pro motherboards don't have those chips.

These cards are just half of what you need for Thunderbolt. That's why they have headers going back to the board. You need a board with a Thunderbolt header, and Mac Pro's don't have one.

 

[cinealta]

AFAIK this is not possible unless you have a TB-equipped motherboard.

 

[chrisrand]

AFAIK this is not possible unless you have a TB-equipped motherboard.

It is my understanding, albeit very limited, that Thunderbolt expandable cards are limited to motherboards that are already designed to be upgraded, but that limitation is because Thunderbolt is used for display and data over the existing displayport channel.

But my needs are not for video, but rather data throughput 10 or 20gbs. If PCIe has the bandwidth why couldn't it be worked out to create an adaptor?

And if the CPU is missing the proper logic, then why not build in the proper chipset in to the adaptor itself?

 

[mikeboss]

It is my understanding, albeit very limited, that Thunderbolt expandable cards are limited to motherboards that are already designed to be upgraded, but that limitation is because Thunderbolt is used for display and data over the existing displayport channel.

But my needs are not for video, but rather data throughput 10 or 20gbs. If PCIe has the bandwidth why couldn't it be worked out to create an adaptor?

And if the CPU is missing the proper logic, then why not build in the proper chipset in to the adaptor itself?

data throughput for what, from where to where? maybe a 10Gb Ethernet Adapter could be a solution?

 

[cinealta]

It is my understanding, albeit very limited, that Thunderbolt expandable cards are limited to motherboards that are already designed to be upgraded, but that limitation is because Thunderbolt is used for display and data over the existing displayport channel....If PCIe has the bandwidth why couldn't it be worked out to create an adaptor?...And if the CPU is missing the proper logic, then why not build in the proper chipset in to the adaptor itself?

AFAIK TB adapter needs certain system facilities eg GPIO header, BIOS settings that address SMBus and/or hot plug events regardless of DisplayPort capability.

 

[Gav Mack]

I said it before - it's all down to the Intel chipset the logic board is made from.

For the Mac Pro 1,1 onwards they are here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Xeon_chipsets#Core-based_Xeon_chipsets

Seaburg is the 3,1

Tylersburg is the 4-5,1 chipset which is the 55xx series

Through to the Cougar Point which gave Thunderbolt as well as SATA3 which Apple never bothered with for a newer tower Xeon.

Ivy bridge E - 6,1

And the Lynx Point Haswell E chipset which will be in the Mac Pro 7,1

 

[EdDuPlessis]

You can indirectly add Thunderbolt connectivity to a Mac Pro tower by networking the machine to a cheap used Mac mini. Use the Mac mini for importing or saving data to and from thunderbolt devices and then share those drives over an Ethernet connection to the Mac Pro.

 

[brand]

You can indirectly add Thunderbolt connectivity to a Mac Pro tower by networking the machine to a cheap used Mac mini. Use the Mac mini for importing or saving data to and from thunderbolt devices and then share those drives over an Ethernet connection to the Mac Pro.

That is in no way adding Thunderbolt connectivity to a Mac Pro. The Thunderbolt computer would not be sharing the Thunderbolt drives, instead it would be sharing published network shares using NFS, AFP, or SMB.

Thunderbolt speeds capped at a theoretical maximum speed of 125MBps. With the real life speeds being closer to the 80MBps range. No thanks.

A USB 3 PCIe card makes much more sense than this.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

That is in no way adding Thunderbolt connectivity to a Mac Pro. The Thunderbolt computer would not be sharing the Thunderbolt drives, instead it would be sharing published network shares using NFS, AFP, or SMB.

That's what I said. If you want to keep your Mac Pro tower but also want to take advantage of thunderbolt capture and storage this is the only way and it is simple, cheap and practical enough to buy a Mac Mini Server to act as a bridge. The Mac Pro would have slower access to the data than the mini but still fast enough for practical use especially if the Mac Pro can work off the networked storage without a need to copy the files locally.

A USB 3 PCIe card makes much more sense than this.

Or USB 3.1 when it is available. But that is not the point here. If you have for example a video camera with thunderbolt outputs but you want to edit the footage on an older Mac Pro, the solution I mentioned is the most convenient way.

 

[goMac]

That's what I said. If you want to keep your Mac Pro tower but also want to take advantage of thunderbolt capture and storage this is the only way and it is simple, cheap and practical enough to buy a Mac Mini Server to act as a bridge. The Mac Pro would have slower access to the data than the mini but still fast enough for practical use especially if the Mac Pro can work off the networked storage without a need to copy the files locally.

At this point, why bother? Just attach a USB3 or SATA drive. It would be faster then that sort of setup. Much faster than the cap of the gigabit ethernet.

Transferring off the camera with FW800 would also make more sense, once you add in the cost you're going to have moving all that data through a mini and onto a network.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

Transferring off the camera with FW800 would also make more sense, once you add in the cost you're going to have moving all that data through a mini and onto a network.

Transferring 4K RAW and upwards on FW800 will take ages and good luck finding a new digital cinema camera with FW800. One of the best and affordable solutions is the Black Magic cinema which has thunderbolt ports only. It does also save to SSDs which can be connected to a Mac Pro, but if you're transfering from the camera to a RAID then thunderbolt is fastest.

If you have a Mac Pro tower and you want to capture video off such a camera, it is best if a cheap Mac mini transfers it to a RAID over Thunderbolt and that disk is shared to a Mac Pro tower via Ethernet. You work off that disk, no need to copy it to the Mac Pro. Arguing against that would just be the billionth futile internet argument of the year. It's the best and cheapest choice a Mac Pro has for handling that kind of data over that kind of connection.

 

[goMac]

Transferring 4K RAW and upwards on FW800 will take ages and good luck finding a new digital cinema camera with FW800. One of the best and affordable solutions is the Black Magic cinema which has thunderbolt ports only. It does also save to SSDs which can be connected to a Mac Pro, but if you're transfering from the camera to a RAID then thunderbolt is fastest.

It's about the same speed as trying to move a transfer through a gigabit ethernet port via another machine.

Ethernet is 1000 megabit, Firewire 800 is 800 megabit. Once you take into account all the transfer overhead that would happen by putting a Thunderbolt port at the other end of a connection, you'll only get 800 megabits out of that connection if you're lucky.

So I'm not being outrageous here. At the end of that day, that setup you describe would run at FW800 speeds. Might as well just use FW800.

Thunderbolt is fast, yes, but you're bottlenecking it with Gigabit ethernet, reducing it to Firewire 800 speeds.

 

[EdDuPlessis]

It's about the same speed as trying to move a transfer through a gigabit ethernet port via another machine.

..... is fast, yes, but you're bottlenecking it with Gigabit ethernet, reducing it to Firewire 800 speeds.

I said you don't need to move any files over Ethernet so there is no bottleneck. The only transfer is done over Thunderbolt. I think you should leave this part of the conversation to us film editing and effects people if you dont understand my previous post.

 

[goMac]

I said you don't need to move any files over Ethernet so there is no bottleneck. The only transfer is done over Thunderbolt. I think you should leave this part of the conversation to us film editing and effects people if you dont understand my previous post.

Let's review. You said a way to use Thunderbolt with the Mac Pro is to have a Mac Mini acting as a bridge. The Mac Pro would be connected to the Mini with ethernet. That means any transfer between the Mini and the Mac Pro would be at gigabit speeds, which would basically gate any work to gigabit speeds.

Now you're telling me that ethernet is not involved. Great! Then what does this have to do with the Mac Pro?

I suppose the Mac Mini could be connected to the Mac Pro with a different sort of connection, but I'm assuming gigabit ethernet because it's the fastest connection on the box between the two. Even if we assume you use a drive like a USB3 drive, you're still gating the whole process at USB3 speeds.

There just isn't a way to get Thunderbolt speeded transfers into a Mac Pro (of the classic sort).

 

[sirio76]

This forum never stop to surprise me.

 

[Synchro3]

Let's review. You said a way to use Thunderbolt with the Mac Pro is to have a Mac Mini acting as a bridge. The Mac Pro would be connected to the Mini with ethernet. That means any transfer between the Mini and the Mac Pro would be at gigabit speeds, which would basically gate any work to gigabit speeds.

Now you're telling me that ethernet is not involved. Great! Then what does this have to do with the Mac Pro?

I suppose the Mac Mini could be connected to the Mac Pro with a different sort of connection, but I'm assuming gigabit ethernet because it's the fastest connection on the box between the two. Even if we assume you use a drive like a USB3 drive, you're still gating the whole process at USB3 speeds.

There just isn't a way to get Thunderbolt speeded transfers into a Mac Pro (of the classic sort).

I think he means that with the Mac Pro you'll just edit the data on the network device over Ethernet, but the data itself remain on the Mac Mini side on the Thunderbolt device (with Thunderbolt i/o). You'll just sending commands from Mac Pro side, not data, with Ethernet i/o.

Question: When i have two network volumes A and B on the Mac Pro (which are Thunderbolt drives A and B attached to the Mac Mini), and on the Mac Pro i give the instruction 'copy data from network volume A to network volume B':
Will the data be copied directly from Thunderbolt Volume A to B, or will the whole data go over Ethernet to the Mac Pro an back over Ethernet to the Mini? Never thought of this. Does anyone have a clue?

 

[goMac]

I think he means that with the Mac Pro you'll just edit the data on the network device over Ethernet, but the data itself remain on the Mac Mini side on the Thunderbolt device (with Thunderbolt i/o). You'll just sending commands from Mac Pro side, not data, with Ethernet i/o.

Which is even... slower?

Whatever way he means it, it doesn't make sense.

Look, I have that exact setup he's talking about. It doesn't work at Thunderbolt speeds (which is fine for me), it works at Gigabit Ethernet speeds. So this is why I don't see what he's talking about.

 

[brand]

Question: When i have two network volumes A and B on the Mac Pro (which are Thunderbolt drives A and B attached to the Mac Mini), and on the Mac Pro i give the instruction 'copy data from network volume A to network volume B':
Will the data be copied directly from Thunderbolt Volume A to B, or will the whole data go over Ethernet to the Mac Pro an back over Ethernet to the Mini? Never thought of this. Does anyone have a clue?

If you initiate the copy from the Mac Pro the data copy will happen in the following way:

Mac Mini Volume A > Ethernet > Mac Pro > Ethernet > Mac Mini Volume B​

The only way for the data to be copied directly from Mac Mini Volume A to Mac Mini Volume B is to perform the copy directly on the Mac Mini. Some common methods to make that happen from the Mac Pro are Apple Remote Desktop, VNC, or SSH.

 

[Synchro3]

If you initiate the copy from the Mac Pro the data copy will happen in the following way:

Mac Mini Volume A > Ethernet > Mac Pro > Ethernet > Mac Mini Volume B​

The only way for the data to be copied directly from Mac Mini Volume A to Mac Mini Volume B is to perform the copy directly on the Mac Mini. Some common methods to make that happen from the Mac Pro are Apple Remote Desktop, VNC, or SSH.

Thanks for info. So the only useful way to access data from a Thunderbolt drive is to copy it on the Mac Mini to an SAS/SATA/USB drive, and to connect this drive to the Mac Pro.