# Who Wants OCuLink Support on the Framework Laptop **URL:** \ **Category:** General Topics\ **Created:** [August 12, 2025, 3:32pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734 "2025-08-12T15:32:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Benjamin3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Benjamin3](https://community.frame.work/u/Benjamin3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2025, 3:32pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/1 "2025-08-12T15:32:39Z")
Hi @all, first I have Apologies if this topic has already been asked to often; I couldn’t find much discussion about it, so I thought it might be worth bringing up. I think OCuLink could be a perfect addition to the modular and repairable design of the Framework Laptops. It offers: Full PCIe bandwidth with minimal latency, unlike Thunderbolt’s protocol overhead Better GPU performance for gamers, creators, and developers who need more than mobile GPUs can deliver. Sustainability benefits – GPUs can eqsy be replaced or upgraded over time. Lower cost upgrades using standard desktop GPUs Reuse across devices – one OCuLink GPU dock could work with multiple laptops or small form factor PCs - from framework or other vendors. With a clean, well-designed OCuLink eGPU dock, Framework could make high-end GPU power accessible while keeping the laptop light, efficient, and long-lasting. Would anyone else here be interested in this kind of feature? ---
**Author:** ![Aurelien\_D](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/user_avatar/community.frame.work/aurelien_d/32/16071_2.png) [@Aurelien\_D](https://community.frame.work/u/Aurelien_D)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2025, 3:40pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/2 "2025-08-12T15:40:23Z")
@Benjamin3 Make a poll ! We need numberz !!! ---
**Author:** ![Benjamin3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Benjamin3](https://community.frame.work/u/Benjamin3)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2025, 3:47pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/3 "2025-08-12T15:47:47Z")
No idea got to do that. Maybe I don’t have the rights to, cause I’m new.🤷‍♀️ ---
**Author:** ![bron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8c91f0/32.png) [@bron](https://community.frame.work/u/bron)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2025, 3:51pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/4 "2025-08-12T15:51:52Z")
Love this idea! What are the tradeoffs? How much room will it take up, how much more will it cost, what’s the impact to battery life, do you need to worry about thermals? “Do you want a pony?” is not a real useful poll. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![fish\_177](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a4c791/32.png) [@fish\_177](https://community.frame.work/u/fish_177)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2025, 5:23pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/5 "2025-08-12T17:23:57Z")
Personally, I don’t think they should incorporate oculink. TB5 / USB4 80G is just starting to roll out which means future platforms should support it, and oculink was iirc originally designed as an internal connector and isn’t designed to survive that many insertion cycles. But, just my opinion! ---
**Author:** ![Tom1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b487fb/32.png) [@Tom1](https://community.frame.work/u/Tom1)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2025, 2:49am UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/6 "2025-08-13T02:49:28Z")
> [@fish\_177](#): > > […] isn’t designed to survive that many insertion cycles. I was curious so I looked it up. From what I can tell, oculink uses the sff8612 connector which [section 7 for the performance requirements](https://members.snia.org/document/dl/51522) says to read sff8611. [Section 7 of sff8611 says that external connectors are rated for 10,000 insertion cycles](https://members.snia.org/document/dl/27937). Wikipedia says USB type C is rated for 10,000 cycles. Seems like a wash to me. I think the bigger hurdle is the framework 13 has the type c hole as part of the bottom case (idk about 12 or 16 but I assume they’re the same), so they’d have to introduce a new case and a new motherboard. Type c only has 24 pins but oculink has 36 pins so they couldn’t connect the oculink wires to the type c connector. Maybe they could make a 36-wire cable that fits through the type-c hole and connects to an expansion card with an oculink receptacle. If they could pull that off then they’d only need new motherboards. ---
**Author:** ![James3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@James3](https://community.frame.work/u/James3)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2025, 6:15am UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/7 "2025-08-13T06:15:04Z")
Before Josh went silent, he told me he had 150 orders for the oculink adapters. I would favor some sort of Photonic interconnect instead of copper cable. ---
**Author:** ![fish\_177](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a4c791/32.png) [@fish\_177](https://community.frame.work/u/fish_177)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2025, 1:57pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/8 "2025-08-13T13:57:07Z")
I think I may have gotten confused by the internal connector rating; my mistake. Even so, I think USB4 80G is the path forward rather than oculink. It’s very likely to be included on any future soc/sip, it’s more versatile, and it fits the existing internal USB C to adapter card paradigm perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![Benjamin3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Benjamin3](https://community.frame.work/u/Benjamin3)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2025, 6:00pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/9 "2025-08-13T18:00:59Z")
You’re right — USB4 has many advantages , but … it’s tunneling which leads to overhead and higher latency because PCIe has to be encapsulated. OCuLink is native PCIe: no translation, lower latency, and closer-to-desktop performance. ---
**Author:** ![Benjamin3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Benjamin3](https://community.frame.work/u/Benjamin3)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2025, 6:02pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/11 "2025-08-13T18:02:07Z")
Who’s Josh? ---
**Author:** ![James3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@James3](https://community.frame.work/u/James3)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2025, 9:04pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/12 "2025-08-13T21:04:21Z")
Josh\_Cook from this thread: > [@OcuLink Expansion Bay Module](https://community.frame.work/t/oculink-expansion-bay-module/31898/28): > > Oh no, I think that would be better. As one of the other clever types observed, if you can run dual 4i connectors you’re compatible with any other laptop on the market that uses a 4i-M.2 adapter! Much wider market potential. Next stop would be producing a dock that can receive a pair of 4i connectors and be powered by a standard ATX PSU. Partnering with another guy who’s already making a dock might help, if you can work something out. Good on you for having a go! So what’s MOQ mean - is that … He started designing an expansion bay oculink interface, but never finished and then disappeared. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex001/uploads/framework3/original/1X/64c81a89f963ddb07633887baceb642a4b056046.png) [@system](https://community.frame.work/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2026, 9:05pm UTC](https://community.frame.work/t/who-wants-oculink-support-on-the-framework-laptop/73734/13 "2026-02-09T21:05:01Z")
Closed on February 9, 2026, 9:05pm UTC This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.