SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Promises 10Gbps Data Transfers, Coming in 2014

[MacRumors]

The trade organization behind the USB 3.0 specification has announced a new upgraded spec that promises higher data speeds over backwards compatible connections.

The new spec enhanced SuperSpeed USB 3.0 spec should deliver a 10 Gbps data rate -- the same as current Thunderbolt connectors -- though don't expect it any time soon. The new protocol should be finalized sometime in 2013, with initial products featuring the connector appearing in late-2014 or 2015, reports CNET.

To take advantage of the double-speed USB 3.0 interface, devices such as computers, hubs, and digital cameras will need new USB controller hardware. However, the new version of USB 3.0 uses the same connectors, so existing USB devices can be plugged into the higher-speed ports.

USB 3.0 cables may or may not work. "Existing SuperSpeed USB cables are not certified to operate at 10 Gbps; it is possible that some existing SuperSpeed USB cables may be capable of operating at 10 Gbps," the group said.

The new devices should be backwards compatible with older USB hardware, though not at the upgraded speeds.

Thunderbolt, which moves data at up to 10Gbps in both directions, appears mostly on Apple devices currently, but devices tend to be more expensive than their USB 3.0-compatible counterparts. However, Thunderbolt does have a strong ally in Intel, with the company pushing the standard heavily.

Article Link: SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Promises 10Gbps Data Transfers, Coming in 2014

[Axemantitan]

I much prefer Thunderbolt. It has much lower CPU usage, and can be used to connect displays. That's not the case for USB.

[MrDc2]

Originally Posted by Axemantitan

I much prefer Thunderbolt. It has much lower CPU usage, and can be used to connect displays. That's not the case for USB.

I think it would be a replacement for USB 2.0, not TB.

[JS82712]

Originally Posted by Axemantitan

I much prefer Thunderbolt. It has much lower CPU usage, and can be used to connect displays. That's not the case for USB.

and how much do thunderbolt accessories cost again?

[DJJAZZYJET]

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

[MrDc2]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Restoring an entire user from an external drive when the internal HD fails.

[simsaladimbamba]

Originally Posted by MrDc2

Restoring an entire user from an external drive when the internal HD fails.

Speaking of drives and HDs, they are most often still a Hard Disk Drive (HDD) and offer slow speeds compared to SSDs.

Firewire 800 would be enough for that, USB 3.0 would be overkill and Thunderbolt would be just a waste for this.

Fast platter based HDDs offer 100 MB/s and a bit more, current SSDs offer 450 to 600 MB/s, but almost no one uses an SSD as backup device, as the GB/price ratio is still to high to make it a valid choice for such a task.
Only if someone uses the fastest SSD to backup to and also the fastest SSD as internal drive, from which one backups, Thunderbolt can at least be satisfied of being used at half its potential.
Or one uses a striped RAID box to backup to, though not really a good choice to backup to, unless the striped RAID is mirrored again, to get even half the speeds TB offers.

In other words, TB is not really that slow to offer advantages over USB 3.0 or Firewire 00, to use it as backup tool.

But then again, those are just numbers, hell I do not even have a 2011 or 2012 Mac, so I am still using "old" technology.

[Tech198]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

I dunno.. Maybie movies, Actually, i think its mostly just porno.

New hardware, doesn't matter what it is. Sata Iv sounds good, but i'm just getting my first SSD.

[bwillwall]

Originally Posted by MrDc2

Restoring an entire user from an external drive when the internal HD fails.

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.

[iChrist]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET
and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Originally Posted by MrDc2

Restoring an entire user from an external drive when the internal HD fails.

Oh yeah. That happens ALL the time.

[ps45]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Not this again. I don't know what you need it for, but others might need it to improve the way they do the work they do for a living.

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

To support future data speeds maybe?

Think about the past, we used to get along fine on a 56k modem. Now that wouldn't do anything but load an IM client. As time goes on so does quality and quality comes for a price. You need to upgrade speeds on our data transferring to cope with the data increase that comes with quality. Imagine if we were still on USB1, taking raw photos off a camera would be an afternoon process. Scanning at 1600dpi would break the computer, video import I don't even want to think about. We are getting 4k TVs these days that means 1080p which you are probably used to will look like dog poop. You want to import 4k resolution footage from your gopro hero 3 over USB2? Nah you don't, the battery wouldn't outlast the transfer hahahaha

[RobertMartens]

Originally Posted by turtlez

You want to import 4k resolution footage from your gopro hero 3 over USB2? Nah you don't, the battery wouldn't outlast the transfer hahahaha

You are talking about problems that are at least 5 years way. Thunderbolt is out now.

[ECUpirate44]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Imagine if all engineers had that mindset

[a0me]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

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.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by nuckinfutz

Because Ivy Bridge was the first Intel chip with native USB 3.0 support in their Hub.

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.)

[coolspot18]

Originally Posted by a0me

Pro users handling hundreds of GB of data (audio, video, etc.) on a daily basis, for example.

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.

[NedBookPro]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Ahh.. I remember the days of 1200 baud modems when they just came out. Cost $300 at the time, and one would wonder why anyone would need something faster. Why on earth would anyone even consider the dizzying speeds of a 2400 baud transfer?



.

[macs4nw]

Originally Posted by NedBookPro

Ahh.. I remember the days of 1200 baud modems when they just came out. Cost $300 at the time, and one would wonder why anyone would need something faster. Why on earth would anyone even consider the dizzying speeds of a 2400 baud transfer? .

Nail
^
head

[Bubba Satori]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Is this a trick question?

For me it would be for moving around thousands of 50MB RAW files
and 100GB of video footage a day. Cutting the time to do that in half might be helpful.

[riz22]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Editing video without an external hard drive is one reason. Creative professionals will always have the need for max bandwidth... For consumers, not so important for sure.

[MadDawg2020]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Video editing for one...
Backing up your system in minutes instead of hours another...

----------

Originally Posted by Tech198

If they start calling it "Superspeed USB" that will confuse me like crazy.
"Now faster"


FYI.. You can get cheap TB cables from other sources. MonoPrice.

But i still agree, lack of hardware support by manufactures.

Yes but lack of hardware support really doesn't matter the tech is BACKWARDS COMPADABLE which means your USB puck mouse from your original iMac along with any USB printer, scanner or camera will work NO PROBLEM.

This is why USB works! The technology can evolve and not be a problem to the end user and you don't have to force users to adapt to a new interface and $50 cables to use with devices that don't exist!

[coolspot18]

Originally Posted by MadDawg2020

Video editing for one...
Backing up your system in minutes instead of hours another...

Is video editing the only application? If so, Thunderbolt's life is very bleak.

Originally Posted by johnmacward

I know that's specialised so lets take a real world example - Time Machines system restores that are done within a minute. Backups that happen in seconds. Music, image and video library, iPhoto, Aperture database transfers... the list goes on and on...

Not possible unless computers have a massive internal disk array.

So it's a pointless example (for now) of the use of Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt needs exciting applications that are possible TODAY, not fluff or niche applications to survive.

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

In reality, we've seen it for the last close to 2 years. Some of you just want to ignore it. Jason Ziller, from Intel, which I've quoted time and time again explained it 2 years ago. You guys just don't want to accept it : Thunderbolt is not consumer level tech and consumer level devices aren't really in the pipeline.

It's unfortunate it was included in the iMac in this case ... the iMac is hardly a workstation machine.

I still think real-professionals who need to move this much data will stick with tried and true technologies such as Fibre Channel. The costs are not that much - but you get even more storage and more peripheral choices. There's even an article on SmallNetBuilder about building your own FiberChannel SAN for < 1000.00USD!

[johnmacward]

Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET

and we need 10gb data transfer for what exactly.

Famous last words - think about it, who complains about SSD speeds nowadays - "SSD'd are just too fast". Imagine transferring DVD or BluRay images, video files in the 100's of gigs over in a matter of seconds.

I know that's specialised so lets take a real world example - Time Machines system restores that are done within a minute. Backups that happen in seconds. Music, image and video library, iPhoto, Aperture database transfers... the list goes on and on...

There's never any point in complaining about faster speeds because they are always better than slower and although the price isn't right at the moment, faster is ALWAYS better and inevitable.

[iKanit]

I use Macbook Retina, but I less prefer Thunderbolt. How can you accept interface system which cost you $59 only for a cable?