I always thought the insane Thunderbolt pricing was due to the Intel monopoly but nowadays I wonder if the technology is just inherently a non-starter due to the price of tunneling everything, akin to those optical USB cables that never really dip under a few hundred dollars.
It's just a way to milk business customers, content producers and HEDT users. TB does not inherently cost a lot to implement. My reference example is the BOM for an HP Probook 440 G9 and Elitebook 640 G9 - previously classed as a Probook 640, is a $20 difference. The only difference between the two is the 640 has Thunderbolt and the 440 does not. They are literally identical except for a provision made to the identical motherboard for the TB controller, and badging. This isn't some trade secret; you can spec out the components on parts.hp.com
But as built, TB-equipped PC's demand a huge premium, possibly driven by demand, but in my opinion, driven by greed.
Yeah, TB3/4 is not an expensive feature with Intel laptops. I assume the majority discount happens when ordered with a mobile CPU. The minor BoM savings would come from shorter traces on the mobo.
Exactly. It's all marketing. The motherboards are virtually identical between processors. All I can guess is the USB-C traces are hardened or something, maybe some shielding, and obviously a different firmware. The whole thing is ridiculous and a clear play to hit AMD in the mobile space. Docking a Ryzen laptop is not a trivial matter and most people accept the DP-over-USB function and the limitations that go with it.
3rd party controllers are just starting to hit the market in volume, so prices are still somewhat inflated after the long period when you could only buy from Intel at Intel prices. We'll hopefully see more widely available support as more vendors offer a wider range of controllers at different (and hopefully more competitive) price points.
So one internal cable is for USB header, and the other is for...Thunderbolt header? Additional power? Sure doesn't help out the look of a clean build, but internal cards rarely do.
"Only compatible with ASUS motherboards"... That's quite the gotcha.
Plus you can draw 75W of power through the PCIe connector, yet this AIC requires a PCIe 6 pin connection for outputting 60 total watts. Or was it mistyped, and you can draw 60W per USB port?
PCIe spec is only 25W for a x4 card. Technically, you could probably get away with it on some better boards. But if you're sticking to spec, external power is needed for this card.
Yes, let's just stick to using abacus because much prettier than PC components.
I do agree on the non-cheap part. There's only so much upgrading to an existing system that makes sense and the moment they throw a shroud over it, you know it's going to be costly.
What is the technical reason for the extra cables? Is USB fundamentally so broken now that you can't just put a controller on a PCIe bus and have it work?
"What is the technical reason for the extra cables" The article notes why.
"Is USB fundamentally so broken now that you can't just put a controller on a PCIe bus and have it work?" not really at least in that sense because "USB4 by itself does not provide any generic data transfer mechanism or device classes like USB 3.x, but serves mostly as a way to tunnel other protocols like USB 3.2, DisplayPort, and optionally PCIe." - wiki
So this card needs DisplayPort signal/lanes which can either be provided by the integrated gpu on the cpu by the header on the motherboard or by an external gpu with the ports on the back of the card. There is not a way to send these DP lanes over PCIe.
This doesn't seem competitive with MSI's USB4 PD100W released years ago, and supplying an additional 49W (by using a power connector) and isn't locked to one motherboard.
As far as I can tell the "MSI's USB4 PD100W" launched 8 months ago not "years ago". They are both based on the same controller so it's not surprising they are similar.
The MSI card has one port that can provide 40 more watts of power, however the second port can only do 27W. The Asus card appears to have the same power budget which makes sense. Rather it is split evenly between the two ports. This allows both ports to provide 20v/3a which is a common spec. Note both cards require a power connector from the PSU.
A big differentiator is the fact that the Asus card can use their special motherboard header to get DisplayPort lanes from the integrated GPU without having to connect extra DisplayPort cables to the card from the outside of the case.
Another possible differentiator is the Asus card notes it supports daisy-chaining. The MSI product page for their card makes no mention of this feature anywhere. The feature does not appear to be a USB4 requirement so that appears to be a major differentiator. USB4 does support TB3 so maybe that’s how it works idk.
I’m confused what you gain with the internal headers… is there any functionality usable over just the PCIe lanes? If these motherboards have internal headers for TB4, why wouldn’t they just have made that a connector on the backplane if there’s already dedicated lanes for it. I don’t understand this product. [I’m not trying to knock it, but to encourage some kind person to perhaps explain it differently than the article did]
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
mukiex - Wednesday, January 24, 2024 - link
I always thought the insane Thunderbolt pricing was due to the Intel monopoly but nowadays I wonder if the technology is just inherently a non-starter due to the price of tunneling everything, akin to those optical USB cables that never really dip under a few hundred dollars.Samus - Wednesday, January 24, 2024 - link
It's just a way to milk business customers, content producers and HEDT users. TB does not inherently cost a lot to implement. My reference example is the BOM for an HP Probook 440 G9 and Elitebook 640 G9 - previously classed as a Probook 640, is a $20 difference. The only difference between the two is the 640 has Thunderbolt and the 440 does not. They are literally identical except for a provision made to the identical motherboard for the TB controller, and badging. This isn't some trade secret; you can spec out the components on parts.hp.comBut as built, TB-equipped PC's demand a huge premium, possibly driven by demand, but in my opinion, driven by greed.
meacupla - Wednesday, January 24, 2024 - link
Yeah, TB3/4 is not an expensive feature with Intel laptops.I assume the majority discount happens when ordered with a mobile CPU.
The minor BoM savings would come from shorter traces on the mobo.
Jorgp2 - Thursday, January 25, 2024 - link
How could it be due to the intel monopoly if Intel wasn't the one making the end products in the first place?They actually made it cheaper by including it into the CPU.
The prices are most likely due to OEMs marketing it as a premium feature, regardless of how much it costs to implement.
Samus - Friday, January 26, 2024 - link
Exactly. It's all marketing. The motherboards are virtually identical between processors. All I can guess is the USB-C traces are hardened or something, maybe some shielding, and obviously a different firmware. The whole thing is ridiculous and a clear play to hit AMD in the mobile space. Docking a Ryzen laptop is not a trivial matter and most people accept the DP-over-USB function and the limitations that go with it.saratoga4 - Thursday, February 8, 2024 - link
3rd party controllers are just starting to hit the market in volume, so prices are still somewhat inflated after the long period when you could only buy from Intel at Intel prices. We'll hopefully see more widely available support as more vendors offer a wider range of controllers at different (and hopefully more competitive) price points.erotomania - Wednesday, January 24, 2024 - link
So one internal cable is for USB header, and the other is for...Thunderbolt header? Additional power? Sure doesn't help out the look of a clean build, but internal cards rarely do.ballsystemlord - Wednesday, January 24, 2024 - link
"Only compatible with ASUS motherboards"... That's quite the gotcha.Plus you can draw 75W of power through the PCIe connector, yet this AIC requires a PCIe 6 pin connection for outputting 60 total watts. Or was it mistyped, and you can draw 60W per USB port?
Ryan Smith - Thursday, January 25, 2024 - link
PCIe spec is only 25W for a x4 card. Technically, you could probably get away with it on some better boards. But if you're sticking to spec, external power is needed for this card.ballsystemlord - Thursday, January 25, 2024 - link
Ah, I'm an x16 slot. Thanks, I didn't know that power draw capabilities varied between slot sizes.bananaforscale - Thursday, January 25, 2024 - link
Look closer, there's a PCIe power connector.beginning - Tuesday, January 30, 2024 - link
It's 60W per portPeachNCream - Thursday, January 25, 2024 - link
Kludge-add an expansion card to solve the non-problem of making your keyboard and mouse reside on a faster USB port.erotomania - Friday, January 26, 2024 - link
Nice attitude but no reader here is dumb enough to do that. This thing ain't cheap, or pretty in your system.PeachNCream - Saturday, January 27, 2024 - link
It's dangerous to speak in absolutes.mindless1 - Sunday, January 28, 2024 - link
Yes, let's just stick to using abacus because much prettier than PC components.I do agree on the non-cheap part. There's only so much upgrading to an existing system that makes sense and the moment they throw a shroud over it, you know it's going to be costly.
frbeckenbauer - Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - link
What is the technical reason for the extra cables? Is USB fundamentally so broken now that you can't just put a controller on a PCIe bus and have it work?meacupla - Wednesday, January 31, 2024 - link
Those are for the internal USB4/TB ports found on Asus mobos.Which is why this card is only compatible with Asus mobos.
Skeptical123 - Wednesday, February 14, 2024 - link
"What is the technical reason for the extra cables" The article notes why."Is USB fundamentally so broken now that you can't just put a controller on a PCIe bus and have it work?" not really at least in that sense because "USB4 by itself does not provide any generic data transfer mechanism or device classes like USB 3.x, but serves mostly as a way to tunnel other protocols like USB 3.2, DisplayPort, and optionally PCIe." - wiki
So this card needs DisplayPort signal/lanes which can either be provided by the integrated gpu on the cpu by the header on the motherboard or by an external gpu with the ports on the back of the card. There is not a way to send these DP lanes over PCIe.
Rοb - Sunday, February 4, 2024 - link
This doesn't seem competitive with MSI's USB4 PD100W released years ago, and supplying an additional 49W (by using a power connector) and isn't locked to one motherboard.Skeptical123 - Wednesday, February 14, 2024 - link
As far as I can tell the "MSI's USB4 PD100W" launched 8 months ago not "years ago". They are both based on the same controller so it's not surprising they are similar.The MSI card has one port that can provide 40 more watts of power, however the second port can only do 27W. The Asus card appears to have the same power budget which makes sense. Rather it is split evenly between the two ports. This allows both ports to provide 20v/3a which is a common spec. Note both cards require a power connector from the PSU.
A big differentiator is the fact that the Asus card can use their special motherboard header to get DisplayPort lanes from the integrated GPU without having to connect extra DisplayPort cables to the card from the outside of the case.
Another possible differentiator is the Asus card notes it supports daisy-chaining. The MSI product page for their card makes no mention of this feature anywhere. The feature does not appear to be a USB4 requirement so that appears to be a major differentiator. USB4 does support TB3 so maybe that’s how it works idk.
Hresna - Saturday, March 16, 2024 - link
I’m confused what you gain with the internal headers… is there any functionality usable over just the PCIe lanes? If these motherboards have internal headers for TB4, why wouldn’t they just have made that a connector on the backplane if there’s already dedicated lanes for it. I don’t understand this product. [I’m not trying to knock it, but to encourage some kind person to perhaps explain it differently than the article did]