Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TOMDM 1138 days ago
That's pretty rough, one of the great things about the Framework was being able to treat all ports the same.

Is there any explenation on why they couldn't achieve this with AMD's new chips?

I'm sure they would have supported that if they were able to.
1 comments
mfer 1138 days ago
It has to do with what the chips can support.

Compare the AMD USB channels [1] with the Intel Thunderbold channels [2]. Intel has more channels for motherboard/system manufacturers to work with.

[1] https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-7-7840u.c3212#ga...

[2] https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/core-i7-1370p.c3055#ga...

link
rektide 1138 days ago
It's such a pity AMD revolutionized bandwidth & interconnectivity on Epyc (128 lanes PCIe) , but has left consumers hanging. Threadripper HDET was 64 lanes (the Pro really was a full Epyc, 128 lanes, 8 channel memory) but now Threadripper is gone.

Meanwhile desktop & mobile have been so capped, at 20 - 24 lanes, right where we were.

The Thunderbolt 4 abilities of Intel chips is just stunning. 160Gbps of connectivity, usable for host to host connectivity... I wish AMD were trying to catch up here, wouldnt compromise their lead by being so far behind here.

link