Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Promises 10Gbps Data Transfers, Coming in 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pro users handling hundreds of GB of data (audio, video, etc.) on a daily basis, for example.
Consumers that have a substantial media library would sure appreciate faster transfer rates. 300 ripped CDs alone can take up to 100-200GB, and with movies you need to multiply that by a factor of at least 10.
But even Intel was putting the NEC USB 3.0 chip in their systems/motherboards long before Ivy Bridge.
Apple fail. (Or Apple marketing decision to try to push some proprietary technology over something useful.)
Yes, because Intel is still the sole manufacturer for the controllers and Apple's still the sole volume buyer of those cables. Intel also have a strong certification project for all third-party manufacturers to go through, this takes extra time to deliver more products to the market. We won't see any progress until '14 at least.
Read Ars' article on why this is still pricy.
It may be cheaper but it's not in the companies' interests to improve the drivers. It is extremely difficult to optimize drivers to speed it up more, companies rather throw more money into hardware to speed it up than to maintain a department of super-smart engineers slaving over the work that can take years to complete.
It is early days yet, and it is a high end bus for high end non-consumer type tasks. Thunderbolt is essentially PCIe on a cable.
If you need thunderbolt, USB is not going to cut it.
Most people don't do anything high end so they don't need it.
I'm aware of the difference between GB and Gb. It was a typo, sheesh.
Thunderbolt currently provides 10Gb/s per lane. It has four lanes. Two in, two out. So Thunderbolt actually offers a theoretical 40Gb/s of collective bandwidth.
Also by the time this comes out Intel will likely have TB controllers that can handle 20Gb/s per lane.
Last edited:
Well it didn't take two years for third party Lightning cables to appear, they were around in a matter of weeks...
Yes it can be expensive to write (decent) drivers, but the OEMs don't care, the drivers are already written and are effectively free with the USB3 chip. The OEMs tend to go with what's cheapest and right now, USB3 is, so that's what gets plonked on most PCs sold. If Intel had Thunderbolt integrated in the system controller chip that's essential for every Intel PC to work, then manufacturers would spend a few dollars more putting a TB port on the PC to scrape a few more sales. But considering TB is yet to reach a critical mass, very few OEMs will take a $30 hit on a port that probably won't get them any more sales at all.
"Entrenched"?! I think that is a bit optimistic.
TB barely has a foothold in the PC market.
TB is dead in the consumer market ... it's last remaining hope is to have some success with the pros. But considering how Apple has neutered the iMac and has not put much love into the Mac Pro ... TB has a very steep hill to climb.
I think it is more of an Intel fail. In case you haven't noticed, Apple supports USB 3.0 now that it is built into Ivy Bridge. Unlike some PC manufacturers, they don't bother putting "extra" USB 2.0 ports.
Also, Intel owns Thunderbolt, and it is up to them to get PC manufacturers to support it. They had a chance when they wrote the 2013 Ultrabook specs, but they decided not to make it mandatory. Had they done so, it might have taken off. Heck, there are manufacturers (like ASUS) who are putting in Micro-HDMI and Micro-VGA ports into their Ultrabooks. This still needs an adapter to connect to a "real" monitor. There's no good reason why Intel couldn't have insisted upon Thunderbolt, since it supports HDMI and VGA adapters, as well. It's also up to Intel to resolve some of the incompatibilities and quirks (such as what can happen when a basic Displayport device is at the end of a Thunderbolt chain).
I agree that after 2 years, Thunderbolt is starting to look like Firewire redux, but it isn't all on Apple.
That did used to be the point of using a version number. When you updated something, you changed it.
A bigger reason is likely to compete with thunderbolt. Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you will ever actually get 10 GB/s copying anything because the CPU can't handle that transfer speed. It's just that standards are prepared for the faster speeds of the future.
If a pro had to handle that much data a Fibre Channel SAN might be a better choice than a DAS. Just saying... large local storage arrays is only a very specific application - and probably one that won't sustain TB for the long term.
true, but it was a hollow victory as optical media is dead and most people haven't bothered to upgrade from DVD.
Considering there are not many USB 3.0 devices out there, I don't expect this development to be anything special. I'm would like to see more mobile handsets (including iDevices) compatible with USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt.
Eh, both formats had the advantages and disadvantages. Blu-Ray can store more data, and the discs are more durable, but has considerably longer seek times due to the fact that it must physical speed up or slow down when moving to a different part of the disc. This is why early PS3 games were so dependent on HDD installs. (later ones reduced the need for this by copy critical data to several areas of the disc.)
Your exactly right:
http://m.cnet.com/news/optical-thunderbolt-cables-in-mass-production-coming-soon/57561610
Because its completely pointless for a Fortune 500 company to support a product "that's not catching in any serious way". If your comparing it to the IPhone I agree, it's not catching "in any serious way".
Reminiscent of USB2, which in all marketing material I've seen on the side of boxes quotes 480Mb/s, which in the Firewire 400 days was theoretically faster; at no time have I ever seen an asterisk stating * Actual transfer speeds may be less. USB and Firewire, and now its successor Thunderbolt, are different speeds incorporating their own dedicated controller speeds, which makes them more expensive but also more reliable with constant transfer speeds that doesn't tax the CPU. While USB2 could theoretically reach 480mb/s in bursts, actual speeds transferring any decent amount of data is closer to 280-300 Mb/s. This false marketing was effective though, USB is a 'known' quantity to most, something familiar with a similar plug. USB 3 has the advantage of its name and backwards compatibility. Presumably this new 'super-duper speed' or whatever they decide to call it will presumably feed off the same legacy. We won't hear about any backwards compatibility issues, whereas pros and industries which truly need fast cabling will do their own testing and will go for what suits their purpose as long as the peripherals are there, which likely will be Thunderbolt for a litany of reasons. But will the Pro market be enough to sustain Thunderbolt? It wasn't with Firewire. Apple is counting on Thunderbolt being their edge in the Pro market.
I'd take 4 USB 3.0 ports over 2 USB 3.0 and 2 TB ports on my rMBP any day of the week. By the time TB takes off, IF it takes off, I'll be looking to buy a new computer anyways, so they are essentially worthless for my purposes.
TB is going 100GB,
TB is going 100GB, sooooo kinda this is more of a keep up move on USB's part..
IF you even consider them on the same usage scenario..
Thunderbolt is PCIe port on a cable.. One major difference and use, is true docking stations for laptops.. where you can get an external box, with PCI slots, and use true high-end video cards and other add-ons cards you could never put on a laptop with 100GB bus speeds. Disconnect, you're on the move and when back at your home/office, you're running a high-end system.
I know a few (I think Belkin was one) have working TB Dock models focused on this; scheduled for release in 2013.. Now I have to look them up again.. been a few months..
TB is going 100GB, sooooo kinda this is more of a keep up move on USB's part..
IF you even consider them on the same usage scenario..
Thunderbolt is PCIe port on a cable.. One major difference and use, is true docking stations for laptops.. where you can get an external box, with PCI slots, and use true high-end video cards and other add-ons cards you could never put on a laptop with 100GB bus speeds. Disconnect, you're on the move and when back at your home/office, you're running a high-end system.
I know a few (I think Belkin was one) have working TB Dock models focused on this; scheduled for release in 2013.. Now I have to look them up again.. been a few months..
Happy to see this, provided the external USB 3.0 SuperSpeed devices are not overly expensive.
Although even if they are priced similarly to Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 SuperSpeed will still be a much better alternative, as It's backwards compatible. That'll mean we can hook it up to much older hardware, without having to worry about adapters and that crap..
I really like the way USB is going..
Although even if they are priced similarly to Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 SuperSpeed will still be a much better alternative, as It's backwards compatible. That'll mean we can hook it up to much older hardware, without having to worry about adapters and that crap..
I really like the way USB is going..
