• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Teases Standardised External GPU Solution.

andybird123 said:
Thunderbolt is 40GB/s




I could probably get away with a tablet if it had a separate keyboard and mouse, but then it couldn't play PC games and I would want a bigger screen for gaming, so then you are back to do you use a self contained device like a laptop, or take a desktop monitor with you. The laptop with a breakout box still sounds like a better solution to me.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHyhznJp27I eve online on my old tablet (running on the tablet not streamed) - in fullscreen mode (needs a mouse/keyboard as the touchscreen only works in windowed mode) it ran about double that performance.

Only really useful as a stop gap measure though - one of the reasons why I went for the laptop I did was due to the reasonable size 120Hz screen which was passable for PC gaming.
 
Last edited:
Psypher5 said:
you could fit a complete pc in that external box..
Click to expand...

the picture is misleading - the case is not much bigger than a full sized GPU - Robert was using a Nano as it was the only card he had lying around - I've got a 980ti I would want to fit in it so a PC to fit a 980ti would be quite a bit bigger (again, thats not an AMD product, its a Razer Core)

you are absolutely right though, sticking an SFF card in to that enclosure is a waste of space, its designed for proper GPU's
 
Last edited:
You could have an adjuster knob on the box for a heat setting, overclocking your card more in the winter to keep your room warm. ;)
 
atm we generally use pcie 3.0, which is 984.6 MB/s per lane.

gcards sit in x16 lanes. = 15.754 GB/s

thunderbolt 3 will be using pcie 3.0 x 4 lanes = 3.9384GB/s per slot instead of x16 lanes(~15.754GB/s) per slot like the onboard pcie x16 mobo slots.

Correct me if i'm wrong but we will be looking at 1/4th of the bandwidth for each slot a card will be sitting in, inside this external storage?

The cable may be able to support 40gb/s but if the slots are only provided ~4GB/s, unless you have 10 slots in there that won't make any difference

EDIT: by the looks of it. if you are getting this for a desktop = performance decrease. Although for a laptop possibly a gain? it will depend on how graphics cards are connected within laptops, i assume they are using x4 lanes ? if so then this would be viable for laptop users looking for extra GPU grunt.
 
Last edited:
Ashley Jordan said:
atm we generally use pcie 3.0, which is 984.6 MB/s per lane.

gcards sit in x16 lanes. = 15.754 GB/s

thunderbolt 3 will be using pcie 3.0 x 4 lanes = 3.9384GB/s per slot instead of x16 lanes(~15.754GB/s) per slot like the onboard pcie x16 mobo slots.

Correct me if i'm wrong but we will be looking at 1/4th of the bandwidth for each slot a card will be sitting in, inside this external storage?

The cable may be able to support 40gb/s but if the slots are only provided ~4GB/s, unless you have 10 slots in there that won't make any difference

EDIT: by the looks of it. if you are getting this for a desktop = performance decrease. Although for a laptop possibly a gain? it will depend on how graphics cards are connected within laptops, i assume they are using x4 lanes ? if so then this would be viable for laptop users looking for extra GPU grunt.
Click to expand...

Graphics cards have been tested and found not to use more than 4 3.0 lanes worth of b/w.

I have read that TB is built off a 4X link as well in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Orangey said:
Graphics cards have been tested and found not to use more than 4 3.0 lanes worth of b/w.

I have read that TB is built off a 4X link as well in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is interesting, i wonder why/what is limiting the b/w or as you say maybe the cards just don't need the extra b/w to perform at its required levels
 
andybird123 said:
Hahahhahahha, $499 for a case and powersupply.
Hahaha haha. No.
http://www.techradar.com/news/mobil...x-costs-more-than-most-graphics-cards-1317090
Click to expand...
To be fair Razer are well known for being overpriced. They out-bling Alienware: become an Elite gamer by virtue of your deep pockets!
However, this in effect a dock too and if you were looking at TB3 dock for a business machine it would cost over $200-$250 too. So this is just $250-$300 too expensive.
At the size it is, I can't help but think they could have provided a 2.5" bay too (no point in being M.2 since that would take too much bandwidth away from what the GPU gets).
Now that there is a standard, I'm sure others will follow. The days of people buying something like an Elitebook 2570p or Dell 6440 and making their own Expresscard external GPU boxes are coming to an end. The parts for those were not that cheap either but then there was no mass market.
 
andybird123 said:
The express card adapters seem to be about £40, plus you'd need a powersupply... that's still nowhere near £400
Click to expand...

Well, yes when I looked at those the adapter was more £50 from the Far East but then you'd need a decent box (although hacking an mITX case might work) and a PSU. The kits I saw with cases, PicoATX DC supplies etc. were more like £150 though. And they didn't act as a laptop dock.

Of course, I have only ever purchased used docks for used Thinkpad, but I do know that good business-class laptop docks are not cheap. With Thunderbolt they can easily be £200 and would only come with max 150W power bricks (power bricks do have the advantage of being silent hence why a lot of the DIY external cards used them).

Also on ebay, are some Thunderbolt external boxes for Macs and they are like £400-£500 so there is a market for them.

Thunderbolt is expensive for now and despite all this talk about Intel + AMD + Razer co-operating it looks like Intel don't mind if Thunderbolt continues to be expensive.
 
Hexus | Posted: 26th April 2016 said:
AMD Radeon Software 16.4.2 offers full support for Thunderbolt 3 eGFX

AMD has released Radeon Software Crimson version 16.4.2. The highlights of this Hotfix driver include “full support” for AMD Xconnect technology and new/updated Crossfire Profiles for Elite Dangerous and Need for Speed.

AMD XConnect is a feature that will be of great interest for some, depending upon their hardware portability requirements. The technology was launched just last month and right now there aren’t that many hardware combinations available to actually use it. AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.3 (Hotfix) provided initial support for the feature and now we have “full support” in this latest Hotfix driver update.

sQ42AP0.jpg


XConnect is billed by AMD as “how external GPUs should work” and was designed with the collaboration of the Intel Thunderbolt Group and Razer. There are still lots of requirements to be met to get a system up and running with XConnect (BIOS is probably the major hurdle) but as the tech matures and showcase tech events like Computex near, we should start seeing more enclosures and systems that can meld to enjoy this ‘easy’ eGFX solution. As a reminder Razer’s latest Blade laptop can be XConnected to its own Core eGFX dock and Intel’s Skull Canyon NUC will support external graphics when it is launched in May.

VZtsrgl.jpg


Other than the above important feature update, AMD Radeon Software Crimson 16.4.2 offers a couple of new Crossfire profiles, as mentioned in the intro, and a plethora of resolved issues. It’s probably best to have a look through the issues that have been fixed before thinking about installing this Hotfix, to see if any are important to you.

Notably fixes have come to address various Crossfire configurations, stuttering, and flickering issues in The Division and Hitman. Some known issues remain, as usual. Head on over to the release notes for a full rundown. The new driver can be snagged via the usual AMD download page – or directly from the 32/64-bit links at the bottom of the release notes page.
Click to expand...
Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom