Can USB-C replace Thunderbolt?

[AdonisSMU]

Dayum! This has me thinking I should just wait a bit...

 

[bkkcanuck]

I search the Intel website for Thunderbolt 2, and get results, Thunderbolt 3, nothing.

When I search Google, most of the news about Thunderbolt 3 was April 2014, with one in November 2014.

I would wonder why Apple is adopting a protocol that directly competes with Thunderbolt? Why not spend the same effort and push Thunderbolt 3 into release?

You won't hear anything more about Thunderbolt 3 until after Skylake has been released. Intel has been extremely tightlipped about Skylake which leads many to believe there is more major changes in store for Skylake architecture than has been announced (i.e. Morph Core for the high end of Skylake). Don't know if it is true or not, but they have been tight lipped. Thunderbolt 3 is part of Skylake as well as more PCIe 3.0 and more PCIe lanes.

USB 3.1 will suite the vast majority of the needs (and cheaper), but it still has lower overall bandwidth and higher latency (although there may be a vast improvement). I still would not use USB 3.1 for PCIe bus expansion, nor would I use it for SAS storage expansion because of the issue with the latency.

Simply put, USB 3.1 devices will be cheaper than Thunderbolt.... Thunderbolt devices encompass the high end, but the low end... who is going to spend the extra money for things like Thunderbolt webcams, keyboards, and mice, and thunderbolt flash keys.

 

[Steve USB]

You won't hear anything more about Thunderbolt 3 until after Skylake has been released. Intel has been extremely tightlipped about Skylake which leads many to believe there is more major changes in store for Skylake architecture than has been announced (i.e. Morph Core for the high end of Skylake). Don't know if it is true or not, but they have been tight lipped. Thunderbolt 3 is part of Skylake as well as more PCIe 3.0 and more PCIe lanes.

USB 3.1 will suite the vast majority of the needs (and cheaper), but it still has lower overall bandwidth and higher latency (although there may be a vast improvement). I still would not use USB 3.1 for PCIe bus expansion, nor would I use it for SAS storage expansion because of the issue with the latency.

Simply put, USB 3.1 devices will be cheaper than Thunderbolt.... Thunderbolt devices encompass the high end, but the low end... who is going to spend the extra money for things like Thunderbolt webcams, keyboards, and mice, and thunderbolt flash keys.

I agree with your assessment. The next year or so will be interesting.

 

[bkkcanuck]

Hi All,

I'm interested in buying a Macbook, does anybody know if USB-C is able to replace thunderbolt?

Thunderbolt has low overhead compared to USB, since it connects directly to PCI-E, however, with USB-C's alternate mode, it could be used to connect PCI-E as well.

With max speed of 10Gbps on USB-C vs 20Gbps on Thunderbolt 2, I find it capable of attaching something like a external GPU that uses alternative mode of USB-C.

If you see Thunderbolt 2 PCI-E enclosures, they are usually a few hundred bucks, and one reason why it's expensive is that Thunderbolt 2 requires licensing fee from Intel. But not USB-C. Hence in the future, can we find PCI-E enclosures for USB-C?

If you are going to spend money on an external PCIe expansion for an external GPU (I believe a "few hundred" is a slight understatement) you might be better served going for a macbook + a mac pro -- as opposed to trying to get it in one machine. If you don't need an external GPU or SAS storage array, then it is all about how much power you need for your uses.

Although the GPUs will likely work based on user feedback, very few are "certified" and supported to work. Not to mention the Mac Pro is likely to last longer than a laptop anyway (my 2008 Mac Pro is still going strong - the only reason that is pushing me to upgrade is wanting 3 x 4K 40" monitors ).

If you are not in a rush, wait til the fall until the whole line is refreshed with Skylake and associated technology -- then choose.