SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Promises 10Gbps Data Transfers, Coming in 2014 - Page 4 - MacRumors Forums
Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:16 PM   #76
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Cue comparisons to thunderbolt by people who have no idea what they're talking about...
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:25 PM   #77
a0me
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJJAZZYJET View Post
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.
__________________
iMac 24"; MacBook Pro 15"; iPhone 4; iPhone 5s; iPod touch; tv
a0me is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:31 PM   #78
mrsir2009
macrumors 604
 
mrsir2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by avanpelt View Post
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.
Yep - It’s been ages now, and TB is simply not catching in any serious way.
mrsir2009 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:32 PM   #79
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckinfutz View Post
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.)
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable
AidenShaw is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:34 PM   #80
MikhailT
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post
Well Apple's cable was $49.99 in 2011, and it's still $49.99 now…
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijahg View Post
That is a problem I agree, but as drivers improve that'll be mitigated to some extent. FW devices can write directly to memory locations, bypassing the CPU altogether. I presume that's the same case with TB. USB has to go through the CPU first.

As almost always is the case, software is cheaper than hardware. Which is really the main reason USB is cheaper than TB, the protocol is handled almost entirely by the CPU. Trouble is, USB works well enough for most, and as with Betamax and VHS, the cheapest product unfortunately always seems to "win".
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.
MikhailT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:50 PM   #81
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
Yep - It’s been ages now, and TB is simply not catching in any serious way.
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.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:52 PM   #82
APlotdevice
macrumors 68020
 
APlotdevice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
You mean 10 Gb/s ("GB/s" means 10^9 bytes per second, whereas "Gb/s" means 10^9 bits per second).

And how is T-Bolt at 10 Gb/s "much faster" than the new 10 Gb/s USB proposal?
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.
__________________
Pebble SmartWatch - iPhone 5c - 11" Macbook Air '13 - TV - HTPC - Numerous Consoles
There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.

Last edited by APlotdevice; Jan 7, 2013 at 03:34 PM.
APlotdevice is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:53 PM   #83
Elijahg
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikhailT View Post
Yes, because Intel is still the sole manufacturer for the controllers and Apple's still the sole volume buyer of those cables.
Well it didn't take two years for third party Lightning cables to appear, they were around in a matter of weeks...

Quote:
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.
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.
Elijahg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:53 PM   #84
coolspot18
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
Hmmm. 2015. By then TB 2.0 fiber will be entrenched. Intel and Apple are both backing it and the other "standards" will be on the "many" PC's.

"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.
coolspot18 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:54 PM   #85
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
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.)
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.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:55 PM   #86
JAQ
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purgatory MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nermal View Post
Shouldn't this be USB 3.1?
That did used to be the point of using a version number. When you updated something, you changed it.
JAQ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 09:57 PM   #87
bwillwall
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDc2 View Post
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.
bwillwall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:00 PM   #88
coolspot18
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by a0me View Post
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.
coolspot18 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:03 PM   #89
Axemantitan
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
And VHS was more widely used than Betamax, but Betamax was the better technology.

Those who don't learn from history…
And Blu-Ray both won the format war and was the superior technology.
__________________
√-1 2^3 Σ π

Favorite website: http://www.mammals.org/
Axemantitan is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:05 PM   #90
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axemantitan View Post
And Blu-Ray both won the format war and was the superior technology.
true, but it was a hollow victory as optical media is dead and most people haven't bothered to upgrade from DVD.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:07 PM   #91
quietstormSD
macrumors 6502a
 
quietstormSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
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.
__________________
Early 2011 13" MBP 2.3GHz Intel Core i5; iPhone 4S 32GB white on at&t; iPod Shuffle 4th gen; iPad Air WIFI 32GB silver/white

Twitter: @KarchaInSD
quietstormSD is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:14 PM   #92
APlotdevice
macrumors 68020
 
APlotdevice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axemantitan View Post
And Blu-Ray both won the format war and was the superior technology.
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.)
__________________
Pebble SmartWatch - iPhone 5c - 11" Macbook Air '13 - TV - HTPC - Numerous Consoles
There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.
APlotdevice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:22 PM   #93
SCalkins
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Indianapolis, IN
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
Yep - It’s been ages now, and TB is simply not catching in any serious way.
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".
SCalkins is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:27 PM   #94
msandersen
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Send a message via AIM to msandersen
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmcc View Post
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.)...
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.
__________________
People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term
security, deserve neither freedom nor security.
-Benjamin Franklin
msandersen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:36 PM   #95
noiseordinance
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
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.
noiseordinance is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:40 PM   #96
Virinprew
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Just give me the better port.
Virinprew is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:41 PM   #97
solamar
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
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..
solamar is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:42 PM   #98
Yamcha
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
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..
__________________
iMac 27" | Intel Core i5 3.2GHz | 8GB Memory | 1TB Hard Drive | GeForce GTX 675MX 1GB | OSX Mavericks 10.9.1 | Windows 8.1 64-Bit
Yamcha is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:44 PM   #99
turtlez
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Buh-bye Thunderbolt. It was nice knowing you. Or not.

Actually, only a very tiny number of people got to know you. Oh well. Those folks can throw their Thunderbolt cables into the drawer beside the old FireWire cables.
unless of course, they use them for multiple displays yeah?
turtlez is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2013, 10:44 PM   #100
CQd44
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburg, Texas
Send a message via AIM to CQd44 Send a message via MSN to CQd44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCJ001 View Post
Thunderbolt cables cost $49.00 each with free shipping.
That isn't really a whole lot better.
__________________
C2Q Q9550 @ 3.2 GHz, GeForce 570GTX, 8 GB DDR2-1200 RAM, 2 TB + 1 TB + 500 GB + 300 GB Storage + 30 GB SSD
LG Nexus 4 running Android 4.2.1
ASUS U43JC bamboo laptop. So nice!
CQd44 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USB 3.0 High-Speed and SuperSpeed EnigMoiD MacBook Air 10 Jan 4, 2014 11:48 PM
USB Finalizes 10Gbps SuperSpeed+ Standard as USB 3.1 MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 187 Dec 6, 2013 05:49 AM
Google Launches Newsstand App for Android, Promises iOS App in 2014 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 127 Nov 30, 2013 02:11 AM
USB 3.0 speed being increased to 10gbps. Set to make thunderbolt next to obsolete? rmwebs Mac Peripherals 2 Jan 6, 2013 07:22 PM
What's the difference between USB 3.0 SuperSpeed vs High-Speed Bus? sunsluv MacBook Pro 3 Jun 21, 2012 07:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC