Making connections: The world according to Intel

Evolution explained

By Trevor Pott, 18th November 2011

With the year winding down, I'd like to pull out a crystal ball and peer in. It is not my crystal ball I want to examine here but rather Intel's.

Let's start with the networking. We all know that Intel makes networking gear. Specifically, it makes some of the best PC network interface cards (NICs) available.

It should be a shock to no one, then, that Intel is going whole-hog on 10 Gigabit Ethernet (GbE). Expect to see server LAN on motherboard ports moved entirely to 10GBase-T (10GbE over copper) very shortly.

Intel is also kicking up its 10GbE discrete card line, including some very serious investments into converged networking.

Let's talk about that converged networking for a moment. Until now, you could run Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) only if you had the right NIC.

Intel's idea is different: it is pushing FCoE as a software stack. It calls it Open FCoE. The idea here is that – like CIFS, NFS or iSCSI – anyone with any NIC could choose to run FCoE.

Bolt from the blue

Compliant NICs will do task offloading so the FCoE hit doesn't impinge upon the processor, but it is not a requirement to use Open FCoE. Naturally, Intel's NICs support this, just as they support offloading for all sorts of other networking bits.

Intel's take interests me. The vendor chose not to attempt TCP offloading as an all-or-nothing option. Most operating systems can't get it right, and in some cases full TCP offloading conflicts with various applications.

Intel chose instead to offer the ability to offload elements of the TCP stack one at a time, so you can turn off various bits if they break things.

Another interesting nugget to emerge has been a discussion about Thunderbolt, a 10Gb interface. Does Intel have any plans to use it for networking? The company has said emphatically no.

Intel intends to treat Thunderbolt as a desktop bus interface. There's really nothing that prevents someone from creating a Thunderbolt NIC, but that is not the same as using Thunderbolt as an inter-system interconnect.

Intel is clear here: Thunderbolt is about connecting things to your computer, not connecting computers to one another.

Doomed desktop

Intel's future is not a radical departure but an evolution. According to the writing that has been on the wall for a while now, we are going to ditch the desktop as we know it.

Workstations will still be around, but they will be a lot more niche. USB will connect our widgets to our Ultrabooks, and Thunderbolt will connect our Ultrabooks to their monitors.

Those monitors will contain things like powerful external graphics cards, wired networking and the sorts of static peripherals we already expect from our desktops. Keep your eye on that 27in Apple Thunderbolt monitor. Paired with a Macbook Air Ultrabook-style device, this is Intel's desktop of the future.

Intel prefers to evolve these standards rather than continue to see rampant interface proliferation. It is backing USB, Thunderbolt and Ethernet.

In Intel’s vision of the future of computer connectivity, these are to be the interfaces of the next decade. ®

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

COMMENTS

House Rules Send Corrections

All Reader Comments (2)

Highly Rated

Posted Saturday 19th November 2011 01:17 GMT

Bill Neal

Monitor with GPU?

Is Thunderbolt really faster than PCI-e? Why have we been using bus connections instead of cables all this time? someone please explain the insanity. I DO NOT WANT my computer to look/feel/act like a tablet/smartphone! I'd rather buy a server and add a nice GPU for gaming if there were no more desktops. At least it lasts longer, and their weight is a deterrent for thieves.

Posted Monday 21st November 2011 22:41 GMT

Nexox Enigma

Yup...

"""Is Thunderbolt really faster than PCI-e?"""

Technically, I think Thunderbolt runs PCI-e (4x?) over the cable, along with some other things. I imagine latency is higher, but it should be enough to drive the sort of GPU you'd expect in a reasonable laptop (these Ultrabook toys would clearly have a much less capable GPU.)

That said, I wouldn't give up my desktop - I've had laptops, netbooks, PDAs (remember those?), and smart phones, and they all just make different amounts of compromise to give me a computer that I can move around a bit. My desktop, by comparison, doesn't compromise much (only in price, and maybe energy consumption,) and yields a much more enjoyable operating experience.

Of course, I tend to use computers a bit differently than many people ("You can't possibly need that many open tabs / windows / workspaces / monitors / etc!") and since computers are now used for 2 purposes (streaming video and facebook,) most people probably don't need more than a laptop. In fact, many of them probably don't even need all the buttons on the tablet screen keyboard - a simplified version with a handful of buttons for 'phrases' like 'lol' and 'omfg' would satisfy most of their text input requirements. For all the rest they can just click and drag the pretty pictures.