USB 3.0= 4800 Mbps
Thunderbolt = 10000 Mbps
So it appears that in RAW transfer it's right where it should be. Thunderbolt is more flexible and beats USB 3.0 in cpu usage and latency.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I use to think Thunderbolt is Apple hype, but wow its AWESOME!!!
- Thread starter GadgetGeek407
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB 3.0= 4800 Mbps
Thunderbolt = 10000 Mbps
So it appears that in RAW transfer it's right where it should be. Thunderbolt is more flexible and beats USB 3.0 in cpu usage and latency.
No doubt, TB is great, way more than USB 3. But just because something is better doesn't mean market would be pleased (the same reason why MP3s kill CDs). It's a bit late to the party. Thanks to the 
exclusivity during the first year. 
And please remind me, what did Apple do in 2011 for TB? Right! Almost nothing.
How many TB products and peripheral did come out back then for your lovely Mac? No more than 6! All way overpriced and somewhat buggy products.
Imagine how Thunderbolt would be today if it wasn't for Apple exclusivity. If only Apple hold on for another year, TB will end up being another FireWire scenario.
And, hey .. FW800 is better than USB 2, right?
But now it's starting to be available in PC too, it would make it more standard and cheaper for the mass. So technically, PC saves Thunderbolt.
exclusivity during the first year. And please remind me, what did Apple do in 2011 for TB? Right! Almost nothing.
How many TB products and peripheral did come out back then for your lovely Mac? No more than 6! All way overpriced and somewhat buggy products.
Imagine how Thunderbolt would be today if it wasn't for Apple exclusivity. If only Apple hold on for another year, TB will end up being another FireWire scenario.
And, hey .. FW800 is better than USB 2, right?
But now it's starting to be available in PC too, it would make it more standard and cheaper for the mass. So technically, PC saves Thunderbolt.
Thunderbolt is PCI-Express made external.
Once you realize that Thunderbolt is eventually going to be likely built in an Intel PCH it become clear that expense and lack of product today has no bearing on the eventual success of Thunderbolt.
There will be no USB 4 folks. Thunderbolt is the champ going forward.
If all you are ever going to use it for is copy over the contents of a hard drive one time, then yes, getting a Thunderbolt cable may not be the most economical route. But then neither is going out and buying an external hard drive that might not be used again, either. The OP previously used Migration Assistant over Wi-Fi. If saving money were the sole object, he or she could have done that again (perhaps running Migration Assistant overnight or while at the office).
Well that's my point, Apple exclusivity endangered Thunderbolt in ways Intel can imagine. It almost end up being niche like FW was. Better, but only a very few people actually use it. And it was too late when it came to PC. Luckily TB still have the time now. The hype is still there, and people would embrace it.
Once it comes to PC, it will compete directly with USB 3, and most likely would win more customers and become standard in coming years.
Apple didn't have exclusivity over TB, no one else picked it up because the controller is expensive as hell. Anyone could make products and Apple didn't block anyone...
agreed, anyone can make them but most companies dont have the guts and finances that apple does to take risks. As many people hate on iphone but if it were not for the iphone the cell phone industry would be nowhere near where it is today thanks to Apple. The industry recognizes that, too bad people dont!
Riiiight.
Apple didn't block anyone to make TB peripherals, but no PC mainboards, even the most expensive ones were allowed to use it for roughly one year.
Read:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...derbolt_as_exclusive_to_apple_until_2012.html
or
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/...until-2012-will-anyone-care-by-then-20110225/
Yes, but you must be forget how if iPod and iPhone cable dock still available only in FireWire? Or if iTunes still exclusive to OSX? Yeah right, there will be no iPhone today.
Apple need PCs, and many of their success rely on them. Thunderbolt is no exception.
Last edited:
The way I took it, apple was the only one with it because Intel was waiting long enough in their refresh that it gave apple a year. Not for Apple's sake but simply because the next refresh (wasn't it pine trail at the time) was already well into development.Riiiight.
Apple didn't block anyone to make TB peripherals, but no PC mainboards, even the most expensive ones were allowed to use it for roughly one year.
Read:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...derbolt_as_exclusive_to_apple_until_2012.html
or
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/...until-2012-will-anyone-care-by-then-20110225/
I/O isn't something that just gets thrown into a schematic, it has to be included from the ground up.
I took it as just the natural lag in the development cycle from intel.
Right, so the scenario you proposed earlier is a farfetched one. An external drive has added utility, including the ability to back up. The cable is just that, a cable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited about the future of the port. If the docks coming up end up reasonably priced at some point I'll be buying one for sure, and I already have a few adapters (although DP does the adapters i have too). The external GPU does seem kind of neat, if you only wanted a single computer, but I do have a pretty powerful desktop and wouldn't spend the money on something like that.
I think that's just the way Intel paid Apple for using mDP interface for display signal in their Thunderbolt. Apple gets a head start, claiming the trophy. Nothing's wrong, but you saw how lack of market and development there. Having 10 - 15% of computer marketshare, not anyone would be interested in you.
It was a waste-of-time head start.
And I don't think an I/O has to be included on chip to be matured. USB 3.0 was already popular before Intel build it in into Ivy Bridge.
For the same reason, Apple refused to use USB 3.0 before 2012. It wasn't supported natively by CPU? Yet Apple rushed into Thunderbolt using external controller.
That was hmm .. How about some consistency?
When the GF's starup disk is full and her computer won't boot, you can use target disk mode to delete some of the GBs of TV shows on her hard drive to fix it!
Let's clear some things up:
There are no USB 3 or Thunderbolt hard drives or SSD's. There are SATA drives with USB 3 or Thunderbolt bridges, and both USB 3 and Thunderbolt will saturate a SATA interface, except maybe a SATA 6 RAID.
In terms of storage/backup performance, both Thunderbolt and USB 3 totally kill WiFi. They're at least ten times faster than USB 2, but in real-world use, they'll give you twice the speed of USB 2, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at. But that's where it ends... Any side-by-side comparison between TB and USB 3 for storage speed will show tiny differences, maybe because of protocol or driver design.
On my MBA, Thunderbolt is pretty useless, because it uses the single display interface connector. That said, the eventual use of Thunderbolt as a docking connector that can give me display/storage/network/keyboard/mouse in a single cable to my display is a powerful offering. It would be even better if it powered the Mac, but two cables instead of five is still terrific. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to part with $999 USD for a Thunderbolt display, but maybe a docking option will be available in the future.
There are no USB 3 or Thunderbolt hard drives or SSD's. There are SATA drives with USB 3 or Thunderbolt bridges, and both USB 3 and Thunderbolt will saturate a SATA interface, except maybe a SATA 6 RAID.
In terms of storage/backup performance, both Thunderbolt and USB 3 totally kill WiFi. They're at least ten times faster than USB 2, but in real-world use, they'll give you twice the speed of USB 2, which is certainly nothing to sneeze at. But that's where it ends... Any side-by-side comparison between TB and USB 3 for storage speed will show tiny differences, maybe because of protocol or driver design.
On my MBA, Thunderbolt is pretty useless, because it uses the single display interface connector. That said, the eventual use of Thunderbolt as a docking connector that can give me display/storage/network/keyboard/mouse in a single cable to my display is a powerful offering. It would be even better if it powered the Mac, but two cables instead of five is still terrific. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to part with $999 USD for a Thunderbolt display, but maybe a docking option will be available in the future.
I agree, the obsolescence factor is always a concern if a standard is slow to gain traction. I was disappointed when a relatively last minute downgrade was made to copper from fiber. If they had retained fiber optics as originally designed, the speed would have been so much faster, and future longevity would be assured. After all the time that was spent in R&D, testing & patents, the downgrade to copper was the last thing I expected.
The downgrade to copper didn't bother me, as performance was unchanged. But the downgrade to active copper, with $50 cables, is something Apple should have never agreed to. $89 hard disk with $50 cables? No thank you!
I hope that many of the above posts just have a bunch of typos... you know that Thunderbolt is NOT "Apple's own thing" but it's Intel's "own thing"? Of course Apple had some serious / aggressive marketing around it and many people live under the impression it's something Apple invented... in reality, they just adopted it and invested more money / effort into marketing it than other's did.
Thunderbolt it not Apple's... you should praise Intel engineers if you really want to praise someone.
Thunderbolt it not Apple's... you should praise Intel engineers if you really want to praise someone.