Interesting timing... I know I am crazy, but I wonder if this could have been announced just in time for Apple to announce an iPad Pro with TB3 support at the WWDC? I could see many uses for a larger iPad that supports genuine "Pro" type accessories - especially with TB3!
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.
Intel Announces Thunderbolt 3 With USB-C, Single-Cable Support for Dual 4K Displays at 60Hz
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be very cool - one port to rule them all.
Of course since we're obliged to be negative on this forum - Apple must have been acutely aware of this while developing the retina MacBook and consciously developed the planned obselecence of having a product with a single half-baked port.
Probably more to do with the fact that the connector is very small, and to be compatible with the ports the photo elements needs to be built into the connector.
Optical Thunderbolt cables already exist. They are an "active" connector, where the plug end is even larger than the copper TB cables. They convert the electrical signal to light, which then travels over optical cable at long distances with no degradation. They have to have both a "send" and a "receive" circuit.
The same thing will come for the USB type-C connection version, it will just take extra time to come to market.
The same thing will come for the USB type-C connection version, it will just take extra time to come to market.
So the new Macbook is even more useless now. Apple had to know this was coming, so why in the world would they push the new Macbook to a soon-to-be-orphaned, half-baked premature version of USB-C?!
Hopefully they will announce a Macbook revision at WWDC next week to fix this mistake pronto. They really should stop selling the current Macbook until TB3 is available and replace all MacBooks sold with premature USB-C so far with fixed ones as soon as possible. With this announcement, non TB3 capable USB-C has become an abomination that should just not be allowed to take root in the wild.
Minimum port configuration for all Macs going forward should be at least dual USB-C/TB3 ports. All iOS should be at least one USB-C/TB3, though dual ports would be better for iPad and Apple TV.
Hopefully they will announce a Macbook revision at WWDC next week to fix this mistake pronto. They really should stop selling the current Macbook until TB3 is available and replace all MacBooks sold with premature USB-C so far with fixed ones as soon as possible. With this announcement, non TB3 capable USB-C has become an abomination that should just not be allowed to take root in the wild.
Minimum port configuration for all Macs going forward should be at least dual USB-C/TB3 ports. All iOS should be at least one USB-C/TB3, though dual ports would be better for iPad and Apple TV.
Yes, but the USB-C connector is smaller than the current DisplayPort connector and the example given was 10GbE fiber, where the cable is passive and is attached to a photo module which uses a diode. These modules are quite large.
In contrast, an electric and optical ThunderBolt cable:
Wise move by Intel. Either join the USB, or a sad lonely death for Thunderbolt. It's been 4 years since the first Macbook Pro with Thunderbolt and I bet 99% of users never lay their hands on the port.
Price was an issue, and compatibility too. Basically no other devices using Thunderbolt except a few select for so called "professionals" devices. Such a waste considering how advanced Thunderbolt really is.
The new Macbook with USB C makes sense, although one port to rule them all share its own problem, like putting all your eggs in one basket, it needs at least 2 USB C ports. Poor thing though Apple did not wait a little longer so it could feat the Thunderbolt 3.
Price was an issue, and compatibility too. Basically no other devices using Thunderbolt except a few select for so called "professionals" devices. Such a waste considering how advanced Thunderbolt really is.
The new Macbook with USB C makes sense, although one port to rule them all share its own problem, like putting all your eggs in one basket, it needs at least 2 USB C ports. Poor thing though Apple did not wait a little longer so it could feat the Thunderbolt 3.
Instead of trying to be smart, why didn't you look where I told you to - here is my spec 2013 Macbook Pro, here are the SOLD listing prices in eBay http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_n..._salic=3&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=50&LH_Complete=1
They range from 890 to £1400 with over £1050 quite often. I'll be able to get more as, like the top post, i'll sell it fully setup dual booting Windows, a year of Apple warranty and a bunch of extra stuff I have in an image i'll deploy.
You've just got to learn to play the game my friend, and stop insisting i'm lying about how easier it to upgrade Macs you've used for two years relatively cost free (I paid a lot less than retail for this when it was released too)
I'm not selling a 13" MBP, its 15" and it was the highest spec at the time (2.7ghz i7, 16gb ram) maybe your inability to read and understand things is why you're not able to play this game too well? You might well just buy new, but there's a large group of people that don't, i've been doing it for years mate.
You don't really get how this works do you? The Macbook was released at the start of April. USB-C has no guarantees about what protocols it will carry its JUST a port, there are many other USB-C devices on the market. Why do you think they should all suddenly carry Thunderbolt 3 JUST because its been announced it'll use the same connector.
For a start of you'll be lucky to see this implemented before 2016 and probably not in a Macbook Pro until virtually April next year - thats a full years of use for the current Macbook with its totally legitimate USB-C port.
You do realise if anything the Macbook shipped with USB 3 speeds instead of genuinely USB 3.1 speeds which were quite genuinely available to implement at the time.
Your second paragraph is the most insanely poorly understand tech rant i've ever seen. Thunderbolt 3 requires Skylake for a start off...thats a long way from being release yet, especially in a form factor that will work in the Macbook (the Macbook uses Core-M intel processors, there's a chance Core-M might NEVER support Thunderbolt 3 speeds as its a mobile device chip)
But for you to demand this strange entitlement that a CONNECTOR TYPE should integrate all future technology NOW is...wow.
well, in this case, the MB cpus will be severe bottlenecks in games / 3D-intensive apps. To properly drive such powerful e-GPUs & Display combinations requires beefy 4 core desktop-class processors or more.
Even on desktop computers, having a powerfull gpu with an entry level cpu isn't wise. Better go with slightly lower-specced gpu and slightly higher-specced cpu.
All in all the cpu & gpu performance needs to be well balanced, otherwise overall performance is hindered by the least performant of the two.
You can use any port to charge. Will be incredibly handy if they add two ports on each side.
I thought this was the year Intel was dropping support for VGA from its chipsets, so no dongle will save one trying to connect to an older projector anyways.
Nah...don't need no stinking kryptonite. Just need a red-sun flashlight and a gun---use it in a cave or a dark, dark room (away from the sun). Superman is also vulnerable to magic....turn him into a Newt! End of story. LOL.
Apple is forcing users to tradeoff off power for peripherals.
Apple is thinking "it works for the iPhone/iPad to have just a single port". However, they are failing to understand how people use their Macs vs. their iOS devices.
Macs aren't used sporadically on the go but often used 8 - 15 hours at a stretch. To do real work. I do not like being forced to aggressively manage the power of my mac; I turn the brightness way up because my eyes see better than with a dim, power saving display. My Macbook Pro at full brightness gets around 4 hours when not plugged in---so I leave it plugged in. If I need to burn optical media (which Apple wants to pretend no longer exists -- use iCloud, right?) or an external hard drive, or hook up to a VGA projector, or to an external monitor, you will be forced to decide whether you want that peripheral or power at the same time. I personally don't like burning DVDs unless I am plugged in, so it puts you into a pickle right off the bat. Same goes with backing up using Time Machine to a hard drive...riskier with no power.
But if you use Timecapsule, Airplay, iCloud -- all Apple premium products for every use case, Apple is convinced there is no tradeoff. Stay plugged in for power ---and use Apple solutions for everything else; there is no need for hooking up peripherals---Apple has you covered for a price. Nevermind that backup is dirt slow to iCloud compared to a real hard drive, and iCloud works great for videos unless your requirement is to burn an actual DVD or BD disc (yes, Apple, people still use them. My wife had to create a batch for her preschool recently. They sell them.) I believe Apple thinks users of this model won't ever need an external monitor, part of why they crippled it with no Thunderbolt or displayport, just plain old USB.
You can rationalize it away if you really are determined to (Apple has done just that), but do you really think adding an additional port on the other side of the Macbook in the same placement would have made the laptop even a micron thicker? They did it because of a well accepted design philosophy -- Less is More (except, dear Apple, when Less is Less!) and because it helps in product differentiation (need the luxury of a port for POWER, too? or for using a display? Spend another $1K and you can have it).
Because the average consumer will know what icon looks like? Or will they think, "it fits! it must/should work!"
What should happen:
USB and Thunderbolt are both Intel technologies. Sure, Apple is involved with Thunderbolt and there is a USB consortium, too, but Apple and Intel are big heavies for both platforms. So if you are going to unify them, do it already. Follow precedence.
So, Rebrand. No more Thunderbolt name. Just USB.
Call it USB 4 (or whatever; a USB-C connector is THE "USB 4" connector (or whatever you call it.) Use new USB xxx branding.
To make it happen, we need Intel to talk to itself, and Apple to talk to itself, and agree to eradicate confusion.
USB and Thunderbolt are both Intel technologies. Sure, Apple is involved with Thunderbolt and there is a USB consortium, too, but Apple and Intel are big heavies for both platforms. So if you are going to unify them, do it already. Follow precedence.
So, Rebrand. No more Thunderbolt name. Just USB.
Call it USB 4 (or whatever; a USB-C connector is THE "USB 4" connector (or whatever you call it.) Use new USB xxx branding.
- High-speed USB 4 - uses Thunderbolt chipset. Handles everything lesser, too, like USB. Downwards compatible. More expensive, expect it in higher end devices.
- Low-speed USB 4 - uses USB 3.1 chipset. The cheaper version. Great for most uses, except displays or really really fast SSDs.
To make it happen, we need Intel to talk to itself, and Apple to talk to itself, and agree to eradicate confusion.
Bah. So in what way is this announcement something to get excited for? You still need expensive cables, OEMs still need special support for TB inside the device, meaning most OEMs will probably not include TB in their devices - which will keep TB accessories expensive and a niche market..?
According to Wikipedia, a single lane of PCIe 3.0 is 7.877Gbps. So four lanes will top out at 31.508Gpbs. Even if the cable can theoretically deliver 40Gbps, there's no way it can actually deliver more than the bus that drives it. In other words, TB3, as it will be implemented this year, is going to top out at about 30Gbps, not 40.The ArsTechnica article said:
It's certainly convenient, but inevitable? Because everybody has USB ports? Today, there are probably more devices with Mini DisplayPort connectors than with USB-C connectors. And not just from Apple. One could make a good argument for either connector.
This announcement is talking about Thunderbolt, not USB.
TB3 is supporting DisplayPort 1.2, which means that HDMI 2.0 won't be in there. According to Wikipedia, DisplayPort 1.3 introduces this capability.
As for USB-C itself, that's a completely different question. It might be possible, but probably not if the port is going to be used to carry ThunderBolt 3.
Absolutely correct. The USB standard is 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, etc. Any of them can theoretically be carried via a USB-C connector (and you could get any of them, depending on what speed device you plug in to it.)
Yes, it's confusing, but there's not a whole lot that can be done. The USB standards body defined the connector for use with USB protocols. They developed it with the ability to carry other content along with USB so that (for example) Apple could multiplex power and video. And as a side effect, it can carry just about anything else, including Thunderbolt 3.0. But it's still a USB connector.
The nice thing here is, that if computer makers do it right, that you shouldn't have to care (as much) about where you plug in your devices. If you've got (for example) a power plug, a monitor, a few USB devices and a TB device or two, you can just plug in all the cables randomly to a bunch of USB-C ports and expect it to just work.
I'm sure that in practice, it won't be quite as nice (e.g. only charge the laptop through port 0, only provide TB on ports 1 and 2) but there is at least the potential for doing it the way I described. If there are only a small number of ports, it might even be practical.
Dongles will, unfortunately, be necessary for backward compatibility, but hopefully we'll be able to use cheap passive dongles for most of our devices.
Maybe, maybe not. According to the article, an active cable (the real expensive kind) should only be needed if you need the 40Gbps speed or extra-long length.
As for the adapter itself, that will depend on what it's doing. A passive adapter (e.g. to a USB-A connector or to a DisplayPort connector) should be pretty cheap. Something that has an embedded device controller (e.g. an Ethernet port) will cost more. And a high-performance device (e.g. a docking station that provides lots of different ports and maybe a hard drive or two) is going to be expensive - but it would be even if the interface was plain USB 3.
It's a dual-mode port. USB 3 and Thunderbolt. If you plug in a USB cable, you're going to get just the USB capabilities. If you plug in a TB cable (and have a TB device at the other end), you'll get the TB capabilities.
This shouldn't be any more confusing than TB1/2 and Mini DisplayPort. With those, if you plug in a MiniDP cable, all you get is video. If you plug in a TB cable, then you can get all of TB's capabilities.
The only real potential for confusion will be if a single computer has a whole bunch of USB-C ports, some of which support TB and some don't. Then you'll have to look for markings on the case to know which is which.
If I read the article right, that 100W limit is for charging your laptop via USB-C. It will provide 15W to bus-powered peripherals.
Last edited:
Per multiple articles, regular USB type-C cables (such as comes with the Retina MacBook as its charging cable,) will work for Thunderbolt connections, but they will be restricted to 20 GB/s, rather than the full 40 Gb/s.
Note that this is still twice as fast as USB 3.1, and just as fast as Thunderbolt 2. And it still allows for the full array of Thunderbolt protocols - PCI Express, DisplayPort, USB, power delivery, etc. Just with a lower maximum bandwidth. A standard USB type-C cable would still have enough bandwidth for even a 4K display (although only a single - you couldn't daisy chain a second one without using a proper Thunderbolt cable at least to the first one.)
True, but the concept behind Thunderbolt is that it has both the PCIe connections *AND* DisplayPort. Some of that 40 Gb/s is expected to be used for display data. And USB 3.1 allows up to 10 Gb/s, and that takes some bandwidth. So even without using a display protocol, you can get the full speed of the PCIe lanes *PLUS* full USB 3.1 speed.
A good example of this is the MacBook - it uses a USB type-C port with USB power delivery - yet there is no way it is going to provide 100 Watts of power to anything. And its power brick only provides 28W. 100W is the maximum, as you say. I'm sure that the vast majority of devices won't offer the full 100W.
Last edited:
This would be nice, but where's your proof? It would be nice if I could charge my laptop from any USB-C port, but I doubt any standard is going to mandate this capability. It will likely be up to the companies designing the motherboards.
Well, you can always buy an active VGA adapter (e.g. one that attaches via normal HDMI). They will cost more than a passive adapter (a quick Google search shows that Belkin makes one that sells for about $50,) but they do exist. It wouldn't surprise me to find similar adapters with a USB-C connector that can tap the DisplayPort signal directly.
The big difference is that USB 2.0 was an evolution of USB 1.0. Thunderbolt has nothing at all in common with USB, aside from the fact that version 3 is using the same shape connector.
Your approach would, IMO, be far more confusing to users than what is being proposed right now.
We don't know how expensive those cables will be.
TB1/2 cables cost a lot because they have active transceivers in them. The article says that TB3 will support passive cables (meaning much less expensive) for speeds up to 20Gpbs and up to 2m length. You'll only need active (read "expensive") cables if you need the 40Gbps bandwidth or long lengths (in which case, optical cables will be needed.)
Note my correction. After re-reading the ArsTechnica article (look at the Intel slides), it appears that the 100W limit is upstream (into the computer) for charging laptops. The downstream power (into peripherals) is 15W.
But the argument still holds - you'll actually be limited by the implementation. If the laptop can only draw 30W for charging, a 100W adapter won't gain you anything. And if the laptop can only deliver 10W to a peripheral, it will not be get 15W, even if the protocol says it can request that much.
Ha! My "inability" to read that you were talking about the 15" stems from the fact that you never mentioned the 15" and I clearly mentioned the 13".
So what does that say about your (in)ability to read? It took you 2-3 posts to figure that out.
You talk a good game sport but I ain't buying what you're selling.
You said you maxed it out when you bought it?
Even if you bought VAT free, you would still be around 1600 pounds for that puppy (assuming it's the dGPU version, you're very vague on the details)?
Instead of talking game how about you just let me know what you payed for it?