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

[Mr. Retrofire]

SATA IV (12 GBit/s), please! ;-)

Btw, holy ****:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...sata-express/1
(2 GByte/s)

[mmcc]

In my experience, USB3 is not performing to its theoretical potential. For example, there are problems with driver performance where the device driver loads the CPU to an extent that if you try to perform multiple tasks on a computer while using the USB3 port, the overall performance can be less than USB2! (I have a documented case of this for a machine-vision camera application.)

Also, I have experienced problems with drivers recognizing USB3 Super Speed devices. The device manufacturers blame Intel or the USB3 chip-maker. Trying to contact Intel or the chip-maker about the same is a waste of time (if the device maker can't get support, how can I expect help for a device issue).

If you have a USB3 device with a properly- and smartly-written driver and do not run anything else at the same time you use it to do some single task on your computer, then perhaps it may perform to its potential.

Otherwise, enjoy the compatibility and driver issues as well as excessive CPU loading to service the port.

If Thunderbolt performs closer to the way in which Firewire better utilizes its bandwidth, more power to it! USB3 has been a disappointment.

[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.

[gorskiegangsta]

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 it's also much more expensive and requires built in controller on each end in order to avert signal loss. The two cater to different usage scenarios, with some overlap, and both have their pros and cons.

IDK, at the rate TB adoption is going (from none in early 2011 - to virtually none in early 2013), Hi-Speed USB3 may even beat it to the mass market

[somethingelsefl]

Thunderbolt, AirPlay, AirPrint...these are all pretty darn good ways to transfer data that have yet to get any meaningful traction! Even worse, Apple may lose even more ground "SUPER-SPEED USB?!" which is a year away?

Apple has another FireWire on it's hands unless it does something FAST. And I'm sort of bummed about that.

[Aidan5806]

While USB 3.0 is more widely used than Thunderbolt, Thunderbolt is still the better technology, on performance and practicality. Thunderbolt has a much larger variety of uses, beyond just data transfer (i.e. High res Display out, external graphics support, support for other port types through adapters, ect.) as well as offering high throughput. The majority of thunderbolt buses are quad channel and thunderbolt is bidirectional, with a max throughput of 80gbps. This new USB standard still wont come close to that versatility.

[Lesser Evets]

Aside from nicer transfer speeds for anything, these hi-speed ports are going to be needed for the new video standards which are exploding across this decade. Soon we have 4x and 8x HD TV to shovel down wires.

Everything else is almost dust down a drain pipe.

[avanpelt]

Originally Posted by APlotdevice

Thunderbolt will at the very least remain popular in the professional world, just as FireWire did for a many years. It could even be a little more successful simply because it doubles as a video connector.

True, but if all I use the Thunderbolt port for is as an external display port (which is truly all I've ever used it for), how is that keeping Thunderbolt alive? It's supposed to be about so much more than video, after all.

I'd rather have the old Mini-Display Port back, lose the Thunderbolt port, and gain two USB 3.0 ports (instead of the two USB 2 ports I have now) on my 2011 MacBook Pro.

[shabbasuraj]

I still want a firewire thumb drive. There I said it.

[nicehhan]

Originally Posted by avanpelt

This new SuperSpeed USB 3 will likely win out and we'll see the slow death of Thunderbolt just like we saw the slow death of FireWire. A committed following sung the praises of FireWire to the bitter end and that will likely happen with Thunderbolt, as well.

The way I look at it, Firewire died out, in part, because it just doesn't fit in modern laptops, while also because Firewire didn't have a bit user base. TB has a smaller connector than USB and, with Intel behind it, could easily become widely used, much more so than Firewire. TB also has a much wider range of uses than USB. I wouldn't be so quick to write it off.

[TMar]

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.

It IS possible to do display over USB and are we back in the USB 1.0 days? Really CPU usage?

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by simsaladimbamba

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.

Bad boy! ;-)

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by Tech198

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

It's already SuperSpeed. The Register explained it better than I can:

And speaking of that market, the USB folks have painted themselves into a bit of a corner as to how they're going to brand the new 10Gbps-and-over specification. When the first 1.5Mbps Universal Serial Bus spec was formally released in January 1996, it was called – logically enough – USB. When it bumped up to the 480Mbps version 2.0 in April of 2000, it was renamed Hi-Speed USB. Then the 5Gbps USB 3.0 arrived in November 2008, dubbed SuperSpeed.

When we asked Ravencraft and Saunders what this next amended version of USB 3.0 would be called, they demurred. "Developing the brand is something we have to do in parallel with developing the spec update," Saunders told us.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by avanpelt

True, but if all I use the Thunderbolt port for is as an external display port (which is truly all I've ever used it for), how is that keeping Thunderbolt alive? It's supposed to be about so much more than video, after all.

I'd rather have the old Mini-Display Port back, lose the Thunderbolt port, and gain two USB 3.0 ports (instead of the two USB 2 ports I have now) on my 2011 MacBook Pro.

It won't have to be. Like FireWire, Thunderbolt is going to be the preferred choice for all sorts of high end hardware. As our have already pointed out, in practice Thunderbolt is already much faster... it's 10GB/s per lane, with four lanes (two each way)... and doesn't put as much strain on the CPU.

[ufwa]

The problem besides having backward support with something existing like USB2. There is practically zero support for Thunderbolt/lightpeak outside of getting a new Mac.

There are only a handful of motherboard that have a thunderbolt port on the market. The enthusiast will get their hands on it but you don't see Dell, HP and other getting on board. At least not yet.

If you don't have a new computer, with USB3 you could at least buy a pci express card and open up the use USB3 devices without falling back to usb2.

No option exists for thunderbolt.

I'm not going to run out and buy a new computer.

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

Yet another technology to kill yet another Apple technology that no one ever adopts. Intel may be behind it, but they are also behind USB.

Sure, TB is better, but it isn't because the cables are too damn expensive.

Sure, Firewire 400/800 was better than USB 2.0, but Apple charged too much to license it (so I remember). Apple also should not have changed the FW800 connector.

I guess, if it takes Apple to develop a technology so that USB can continue to improve, so be it.

[hfg]

I bet we see a lot of confusion with consumers, who will try to connect together a mixture of USB-2, USB-3, and SuperSpeed components, cables, computers, etc. and wonder why it all isn't working as expected. I believe there is even an issue with USB-3 hubs in the order in which USB-2 and USB-3 devices are plugged in which can limit transfer speeds to that of the slower USB-2 device.

[scottsjack]

I'll take USB 3 all the way. If you're going to live in the real world, rather than the fantasy world that is Apple, the smart connectivity solution is USB. Sure TB maybe a bit faster and less processor intensive yet USB is the world standard. I would not buy any computer or peripheral without USB3.

[A Hebrew]

And in 2020 Apple will feature them.

[Navdakilla]

Originally Posted by iKanit

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

Exactly my thoughts.. Ridiculous

[ghettochris]

Originally Posted by saud0488

Yeah I don't get it either. Thunderbolt is on it's way to failing miserably so USB 3.0 would be fine at 5 Mbps.

yeah, just like firewire failed. lots of pro stuff out for TB already, and if TB and usb 3 run at the same speed, TB wins hands down. Less cpu usage, and basically an extention of PCI interface. It makes the macbook air and mini extremely expandable. USB is fine for mice, and USB flash drives, but they're slow as hell and won't utilize this at all. I hate USB for every reason other than everything uses it and it's standard, but it sucks for hard drives, sucks for pro video, and sucks for PCI type stuff. good for mice, keyboards, and webcams, that's about it.

Thanks for such an awesome standard apple, thunderbolt and the lightning connector make me happy. Micro USB sucks and would have pissed me off incredibly if it ended up on my iphone. All connectors should be reversible like lightning, but I don't mind so much on thunderbolt as I don't plug/unplug nearly as often as my iphone.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by shabbasuraj

I still want a firewire thumb drive. There I said it.

I got a few 2 years ago. Wanna buy one?

[convergent]

Just what we need, a new "standard" that isn't standard. Rather than simply calling it USB4, we now have slow and fast USB3.

[ghettochris]

Originally Posted by scottsjack

I'll take USB 3 all the way. If you're going to live in the real world, rather than the fantasy world that is Apple, the smart connectivity solution is USB. Sure TB maybe a bit faster and less processor intensive yet USB is the world standard. I would not buy any computer or peripheral without USB3.

It's not meant to replace usb 3, and I doubt apple will stop putting usb 3 ports on their computers because they have TB, but if the macbook air and mac mini didn't have TB they would be much less useful to pros. it's basically an external PCI connection, which is extremely useful to anyone pushing the limits of their machine. TB is useless to the masses of casual users (why it gets the hate), but is a gift from the gods for the power users, who don't care that the cable is $60. You get what you pay for.