Here's How Fast USB-C Ports Are on iPads and Macs Ahead of iPhone 15

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Your point doesn’t prove anything. Even with great local network speeds, a pro user will be out of luck to transfer huge files with a portless iPhone the second they step outside their home. Your point about WiFi 7 fast rollout remains to be proved.

And wired protocols have considerable improvements too. By the time WiFi 7 rolls out, Thunderbolt 5 will also be implemented in more recent devices, achieving double the bandwidth of the most wi-fi 7 could achieve with much more reliability. Again, people with heavy files will not rely on a wireless protocol, Thunderbolt still has a considerable edge over any wi-fi generation. I don’t see that changing in the near future.

What the hell are you talking about "a pro user"?

Wifi 7 is equivalent to TB4 speeds and faster than 10GB local network speeds. The Jump from even Wifi 6e is HUGE!!!

This will be great as I don't have to be tethered to anything by any cables, and can connect to my server, PC, and etc, from anywhere within my home at TB4 speeds. Users that have or want a home server don't have to invest in a 10GB switch or cards.

Using Time Machine wirelessly will be vastly improved. Initial backup will takes only several minutes at most, and normal auto backups will take seconds.

When iPhones and Macs both have Wifi 7, users will literally be able to backup there iPhones to their Mac in a minute or less.

AirDrops from an Apple device with Wifi 7 to another Apple device with Wifi 7 would takes seconds for a large video file.

As far as you mentioning Thunderbolt 5, that will not matter when reading/writing files, as even upcoming gen5 NVME drive speeds will be a bottleneck. Thunderbolt 5 will mostly matter when pushing higher quality video to a display, and etc.

 

[hans1972]

That's true, but still 20 year old standard (superseeded by now 10 year old one) on 1000 USD device? Apple really can't do better? Quite shameful.

And yet, many people wanted Apple to still support a 1950ties technology with the original technology dating back to the 19th century.

 

[3530025]

And yet, many people wanted Apple to still support a 1950ties technology with the original technology dating back to the 19th century.

I mean... With USB 3 people will not lose USB 2.0 support. USB 3 is backwards compatible. So this is not even about losing some old technology. It's about upgrading 20 year old technology to at least 10 year old one (with backwards compatibility)... So it's a win for customers.

 

[3530025]

Wifi 7 is equivalent to TB4 speeds and faster than 10GB local network speeds. The Jump from even Wifi 6e is HUGE!!!

Umm... Theoretically... Did you tried 6e already? Hell even old 802.11ac - theoretical speeds are far far away from the real world speeds. Especially when all your neighbors have wifi as well. The wifi bands gets quickly full and the usable bandwidth (and speed) is quickly gone. Also with higher frequency comes shorter range. Again, did you even tried 6e with 6 GHz? The distance is literally something like 2 meters without any obstacle.

This will be great as I don't have to be tethered to anything by any cables, and can connect to my server, PC, and etc, from anywhere within my home at TB4 speeds. Users that have or want a home server don't have to invest in a 10GB switch or cards.

Yeah, but no. TB4 speeds from anywhere from your home is just pure sci-fi. Firstly real world speeds differs from the theoretical values in the specification. And secondly, if your home is not 2sq ft with no obstacles, 6 GHz simply is not able to travel even through single wall without major signal (and speed) drop.

All what you're talking about sounds nice, but it just is not reality, unfortunately. Wireless is just so limited compared to the wire.

Anyone working in the computer networking industry will confirm my words. When you want stable (and fast) connection it have to be wired (either copper or optical), but wireless reliability just is not there. Especially in case of multiple networks closely together.

 

[chucker23n1]

Wifi 7 is equivalent to TB4 speeds and faster than 10GB local network speeds. The Jump from even Wifi 6e is HUGE!!!

This will be great as I don't have to be tethered to anything by any cables, and can connect to my server, PC, and etc, from anywhere within my home at TB4 speeds.

Those 46 Gbit/s are under ideal conditions. You’ll achieve them in short bursts at low distances, with little interference. Certainly not once you start connecting all your devices wirelessly as you suggest.

(Besides, the storage in an iPhone doesn’t reach 5 GiB/s anyway.)

 

[chucker23n1]

Why not just standardize the whole product line with USB3.2?

Why have a Pro product when the non-Pro gets most of the same features?

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Umm... Theoretically... Did you tried 6e already? Hell even old 802.11ac - theoretical speeds are far far away from the real world speeds. Especially when all your neighbors have wifi as well. The wifi bands gets quickly full and the usable bandwidth (and speed) is quickly gone. Also with higher frequency comes shorter range. Again, did you even tried 6e with 6 GHz? The distance is literally something like 2 meters without any obstacle.


Yeah, but no. TB4 speeds from anywhere from your home is just pure sci-fi. Firstly real world speeds differs from the theoretical values in the specification. And secondly, if your home is not 2sq ft with no obstacles, 6 GHz simply is not able to travel even through single wall without major signal (and speed) drop.

All what you're talking about sounds nice, but it just is not reality, unfortunately. Wireless is just so limited compared to the wire.

Anyone working in the computer networking industry will confirm my words. When you want stable (and fast) connection it have to be wired (either copper or optical), but wireless reliability just is not there. Especially in case of multiple networks closely together.

I clearly said in my post (last paragraph) that the drive will be the bottleneck. If you think I'm expecting 40GB speeds, you're highly mistaken.

But check the speedtests on Youtube. Users are getting over 3gb per second. This is equivalent to TB4 speed tests from NVME drive to drive.

As far as range goes, obviously it will have a worst range for a single router. But Mesh routers work very well in maintaining connection and speed.

And yes, I've tried the Eero Mesh Router 6e, and it maintained connection and speeds were only slightly decreased up to 300ft.

 

[3530025]

I clearly said in my post (last paragraph) that the drive will be the bottleneck. If you think I'm expecting 40GB speeds, you're highly mistaken.

I never talk about drive... I was talking just about transmit speed itself.

But check the speedtests on Youtube. Users are getting over 3gb per second. This is equivalent to TB4 speed tests from NVME drive to drive.

I've checked and real world speeds are ~3 Gbps. It's nowhere near to 40 Gbps of Thunderbolt 4. So it just futher confirms my points.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I never talk about drive... I was talking just about transmit speed itself.


I've checked and real world speeds are ~3 Gbps. It's nowhere near to 40 Gbps of Thunderbolt 4. So it just futher confirms my points.

What point are you making that I didn't already say?

To make myself as clear as possible ..... Wifi 7 will allow me to transfer data back and forth between devices, PC, Macbooks, and Servers on the same local network, at pretty much the same speeds as my 10GB network and Thunderbolt 4 connections.

Why is this important to myself and others? Because I don't want to be physically tethered to my local network all the time. Would like to work with video, audio, and other large files, from my server wirelessly while in my bed, kitchen table, couch, and etc.

And as I mentioned in my post #151. Features like Airdrop that use direct wifi to wifi connection will greatly improve. As well as the notorious slow wireless TimeMachine.

 

[3530025]

What point are you making that I didn't already say?

To make myself as clear as possible ..... Wifi 7 will allow me to transfer data back and forth between devices, PC, Macbooks, and Servers on the same local network, at pretty much the same speeds as my 10GB network and Thunderbolt 4 connections.

What point I'm making? Excuse me, but maybe read my posts again.

~3 Gbps in ideal conditions is far from 10 Gbps wired network and it's even more far from 40 Gbps Thunderbolt.

Is it enough for you? Great. But is it comparable to the speed of Thunderbolt 4? Not at all. And in your first post I was reacting to, you were claiming wifi 7 will have 40 Gbps thunderbolt speeds. And that's not true and it proves even that YouTube test you were pointing me to.

 

[davidh2k]

Going portless is against environment.
Wireless charging is very inefficient compared to the cable. And always will be.

There are good implementations of wireless charging (not for phones though) that are equivalent in efficiency compared to wired charging:

Wired vs wireless charging efficiency for EVs: A comparison

Wired vs Wireless Charging Efficiency for EVs: A Comparison

witricity.com

 

[3530025]

There are good implementations of wireless charging (not for phones though) that are equivalent in efficiency compared to wired charging:

Wired vs wireless charging efficiency for EVs: A comparison

Wired vs Wireless Charging Efficiency for EVs: A Comparison

witricity.com

It's not equivalent at all.

Wireless charging operates within a narrow band of efficiency (88-93%)

But still impressive.

Anyway marketing talk a side, I will believe when it will work as a product in real life backed by real life tests. Marketing talk is not usually 100% truthful...

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

What point I'm making? Excuse me, but maybe read my posts again.

~3 Gbps in ideal conditions is far from 10 Gbps wired network and it's even more far from 40 Gbps Thunderbolt.

No, it's not far from the speeds of a 10gb wired network or 40Gbps thunderbolt when transferring data from drive to drive through a local network. The speeds will be the pretty equivalent because of the drive bottleneck. Even Thunderbolt 5 will be around the same speeds depending on the drive, even though TB5 by itself is 2x faster than TB4.

And in your first post I was reacting to, you were claiming wifi 7 will have 40 Gbps thunderbolt speeds. And that's not true and it proves even that YouTube test you were pointing me to.

My first post was a picture of Wifi 7 specs. I NEVER mentioned, I expected 40Gbps in transfer speeds.

 

[davidh2k]

It's not equivalent at all.

But still impressive.

Anyway marketing talk a side, I will believe when it will work as a product in real life backed by real life tests. Marketing talk is not usually 100% truthful...

You omitted the fact that this 88-93% is not compared to wired charging but to what is lost from
the socket - and that even wired chargers have losses that are in a similiar region, if not worse:

A dozen USB chargers in the lab: Apple is very good, but not quite the best

When you buy a USB charger, how do you know if you're getting a safe, high-quality charger for your money? You can't tell from the outside...

www.righto.com

Also, as far as I read, the chargers i mentioned already exist (I think BMW was one that is involved in those chargers).

 

[3530025]

Also, as far as I read, the chargers i mentioned already exist (I think BMW was one that is involved in those chargers).

All right then. Do you please have any reviews and real world videos other than from the company itself? I was searching and all I could find are their own promotional videos and marketing claims.

Also they're saying they are ready for prime time at least 7 years now - yet their technology is still not there yet. (Prove me wrong by sourcing few real world customers of their technology, thank you)

 

[3530025]

No, it's not far from the speeds of a 10gb wired network or 40Gbps thunderbolt when transferring data from drive to drive through a local network. The speeds will be the pretty equivalent because of the drive bottleneck.

"In its test, it found that the M1 MacBook Pro 14 had a write speed of 3,950MB/s, while its read speed was clocked at 4,900MB/s." iPhone 14 speeds are around 1.4 GB/s (~11 Gbps) for comparison.

I don't know what drives are you using. If you're using floppy drives still, then I believe drive is bottleneck for you.

For others using modern NVMe drives, with speeds around 4 GB/s (roughly 32 Gbps) drives are definitely not bottleneck when using 3 Gbps Wifi 7... The wifi is bottleneck.

So my point still stands. Wifi 7 with ~3 Gbps speeds is not comparable to 40 Gbps thunderbolt. And no, drives are not bottleneck - if we talk about modern drives.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

"In its test, it found that the M1 MacBook Pro 14 had a write speed of 3,950MB/s, while its read speed was clocked at 4,900MB/s."

I don't know what drives are you using. If you're using floppy drives still, then I believe drive is bottleneck for you.

For others using modern NVMe drives, with speeds around 4 GB/s (roughly 32 Gbps) drives are definitely not bottleneck when using 3 Gbps Wifi 7... The wifi is bottleneck.

So my point still stands. Wifi 7 with ~3 Gbps speeds is not comparable to 40 Gbps thunderbolt. And no, drives are not bottleneck - if we talk about modern drives.

I don't know the technical reason behind this, but transfer speeds never match the disk speed test.

My main PC NVME drive is 3100 MB/s read and 3000MB/s write. My other NVME drive in the same PC is 2868MB/s read and 2826MB/s write. Transfering a 13gb file from one drive to another tops out at around 970MB/s.

From my server which uses HDDs on Raid, the disk speed test is 1312MB/s read and 1233MB/s write. Transferring the same 13gb file from my main drive on my PC to my server via 10gb network tops out around 550MB/s.

So I don't understand why you think a 3 Gbps network speed will transfer files, whether physically connected or not, at 3 Gbps. Even if both drives are rated slightly above 3 Gbps.

 

[3530025]

I don't know the technical reason behind this, but transfer speeds never match the disk speed test.

My main PC NVME drive is 3100 MB/s read and 3000MB/s write. My other NVME drive in the same PC is 2868MB/s read and 2826MB/s write. Transfering a 13gb file from one drive to another tops out at around 970MB/s.

From my server which uses HDDs on Raid, the disk speed test is 1312MB/s read and 1233MB/s write. Transferring the same 13gb file from my main drive on my PC to my server via 10gb network tops out around 550MB/s.

So I don't understand why you think a 3 Gbps network speed will transfer files, whether physically connected or not, at 3 Gbps. Even if both drives are rated slightly above 3 Gbps.

Well I know nothing about your network setup, so it's hard to argue over this. I don't even know how did you benchmark your drive, whether RAM cache has been used, how do you transfer your files, which protocol has been used.

With that said there's no reason drive should be bottleneck when transferring over network. Drives does not care how you transfer data to them. So there's clearly just network bottleneck on your side OR you transfer different stuff than you benchmarked. TCP overhead is around 3%.

Try to transfer single file via thunderbolt 4 from external NVMe to your PC and you'll match benchmarked speeds - and confirm that network is the bottleneck here at the same time.

 

[chucker23n1]

I don't know the technical reason behind this, but transfer speeds never match the disk speed test.

My main PC NVME drive is 3100 MB/s read and 3000MB/s write. My other NVME drive in the same PC is 2868MB/s read and 2826MB/s write. Transfering a 13gb file from one drive to another tops out at around 970MB/s.

From my server which uses HDDs on Raid, the disk speed test is 1312MB/s read and 1233MB/s write. Transferring the same 13gb file from my main drive on my PC to my server via 10gb network tops out around 550MB/s.

So I don't understand why you think a 3 Gbps network speed will transfer files, whether physically connected or not, at 3 Gbps. Even if both drives are rated slightly above 3 Gbps.

3 Gbps = 3 Gbit/s = ~375 MiB/s, not 3 GiB/s.

If your disk does 3100 MiB/s, you’re gonna need at least 24,800 Mbit/s throughput (realistically, with overhead and all, closer to 31,000) to transfer that. Which you’re not gonna get wirelessly.

 

[ThomasJL]

That's true, but still 20 year old standard (superseeded by now 10 year old one) on 1000 USD device? Apple really can't do better? Quite shameful.

Whoever the people are who clicked the dislike button on that post are truly Tim Cook apologists willing to defend his blatantly greedy and anti-consumer actions.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Try to transfer single file via thunderbolt 4 from external NVMe to your PC and you'll match benchmarked speeds - and confirm that network is the bottleneck here at the same time.

I'm going test that later.

But regardless, I know I'm not going to get close to the physical transfer speeds I mentioned, wirelessly, with anything other than Wifi 7.

 

[ackmondual]

Portless is a bad idea for many reasons. Inefficiency, meaning that one is required to use wireless headphones, have the phone against your head or speaker.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I have a Google Pixel 6. I'm annoyed that I had to give up the headphone jack on my Pixel 4A. At this point, wireless headphones would probably be a "sidegrade"... I'd have to keep it charged, and connect to it through the device (unless I can set it to connect automatically). OTOH, don't have to carry with me the USB-C to 3.5mm dongle.

Part of me wants to see Apple go portless (and perhaps take other manufacturers with them), and reap the consumer whirlwinds they sew.

 

[Mark0019]

while 99% of the rest of us will continue to use the cable as for charging only

switching to usb-c before iPhone going portless is pointless and terrible for the environment

Never, best feature which came to iPhone in the last 5 years at least, waiting 2 years now already for it, portless iPhone is just stupid, you want to transfer 300gb portless good luck, if these are all video files it’s not to slow but there are files which are so slow over wireless and they also will not get better any time soon, even with super wifi connections, you want to loose most of the energy when charging in heat, don’t get why a iPhone should be portless and I don’t see apple bring that any time soon and good so, charging without Cable will always be inefficient.

 

[SpaceCrystal]

indeed and very strange...or Apple is thinking going port-less after 4-5 years of usbC iPhones

how can be wireless charging very inefficient compared with decades of 5W charging?!
yes if we compare todays usbC to wireless, you are right....but wireless is the way, in the car in the furniture in everything 20 years from now

You're living in a dream world. Wireless charging will never be 100%, nor will it ever be better than wired charging.

If Wireless charging were flawless, USB-C cables, etc. within wired charging would've been done away a long time ago.

 

[SebCohen]

I’d complain but the only real need for the thunderbolt speeds is the exporting of ProRes footage from the Pro devices.

Whilst I’m sure plenty of people still do it I imagine the amount of customers bothered by slow iTunes transfer rates is quite small.

Do you shoot 4K video of your kids/dogs/hiking/whatever? Have you seen the size of a 1min file? Have you ever been on holiday shooting more than 1 video? Asking for a friend.