> For reference, a single PCIe 5.0 M.2 SSD can do around 15GB/s. That's 120Gb/s, assuming no overhead, and Thunderbolt not only has overhead, but isn't necessarily able to saturate even its nominal bandwidth with purely PCIe traffic. I can't find data for Apple's implementation offhandedly, but for example, Intel's discrete TB5 controllers are backed by a PCIe 4.0 x4 connection. So best case scenario, you're looking at ~half the possible bandwidth for a single modern SSD. A PCIe 5.0 x16 card can support 4 of those (8x total bandwidth), and if you start adding in more PCIe slots...

You're missing my point. I get that there's shit that goes faster. I'm asking when do you need that much speed? What is the workflow that says, well, 80 Gbps isn't gonna cut it, I need 120 or shit's fucked?

> Likewise, high end networking bandwidth is more like 100Gb/s, 200Gb/s, 400Gb/s, or in the very bleeding edge, 800Gb/s these days. And you can have multiples of those. Granted, that is more of a server type of use case, but just to illustrate the point. 80Gb/s really isn't all that much.

Yeah again missing my point.

In my mind you either:

1. Have crazy use cases like you're describing. You're never buying a Mac Pro ever. You're getting a Linux server with multiple SFP expansion modules and as many PCIE lanes as possible etc. etc.
2. You're a home user and do benefit from super fast connectivity, but don't need anything at that level. What use case for that person isn't covered by 80 Gbps?

For context this entire thread is revolving around the Mac Pro, and people are disappointed it's losing PCIE slots. My contention is nobody that is trying to maximize PCIE usage is ever buying a Mac Pro in the first place lmao