Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Shares Details on Thunderbolt 4, Launching Later This Year

jaytv111 said:
In fairness Intel initially said VT-d was required, then clarified that DMA protection was required. It was Intel that caused the confusion initially, but Macrumors needs to update the article.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
[automerge]1594223439[/automerge]
one more said:
I wish the industry could already agree on one universal standard (like USB, for example) and stick to it, focusing on advancing it further. Would be so much simpler for customers and reduce all these cables piling about.
Click to expand...

It's not really feasible. There's a conflict between cheap, simple cables, which are more than good enough for most USB devices, and expensive, complex cables, which are required for high-end needs such as 6K displays, external GPUs, etc.
 
boss.king said:
That was honestly a terrible video.

He highlighted the USB A port for mouse and keyboard support, then used wireless peripherals that might as well just have used bluetooth.

He mentioned "less cable clutter" while waving his hand over a maze of cables snaking over one another.
Click to expand...

He then goes on to compare “how thin and clean these cables are compared to your traditional display port and HDMI cables”. Haha, what a joke. This whole video just screamed desperate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Val-kyrie
Man, the lack of understanding of what the devkit mac is and what it represents is astounding..... it is NOT a final product, it is an iPad Pro in a box. Seems it doesn't matter how many times Apple or other forum members explain it, people just don't listen.

Intel says they are building their controllers into their CPUs, so I question whether its even an option to get an Intel branded TB4 host controller chip. Apple would likely have no choice than to build it into their CPUs, but that shouldn't be an issue. TB really isn't a complex interface. Its just a serial mux/demux for several existing protocols which are already in the system, such as DP and PCIe.

Intel also opened up licensing to gain better adoption, they no longer require an Intel controller.

Apple has invested so much in the TB* interfaces as a single port for everything in recent years, far beyond what they did for FireWire which remained unadopted elsewhere. They also are required to support at least TB3 to gain the USB4 host controller certification. TB3 and beyond will continue to be supported by Apple Silicon Macs.


Any argument otherwise simply ignores facts and public knowledge. I can't believe we are 3 pages into a "The Dev Kit didn't have TB ports so OMG, TB is dead on Mac"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neberheim, OddyOh and endlessike
Thunderbolt vs usb has gone back and forth for too long (usb has always won because of cost). Maybe I'm getting a bit impatient... but here we are in 2020 still talking about the next new wired connection. yawn.
 
ksec said:
Where did you get that idea?

Or Do you mean USB 4 including the TB3 allows for 40Gb/s offering the same speed?

You had always needed to get certified for TB3, regardless whether it was inside the USB 4 spec or not. USB 4 on itself without TB tech was never a replacement for TB. It wasn't then when it was designed, it wasn't now. And it isn't intended to be. And it never would be due to the nature of USB spec.

The whole point of TB is Quality Assurance. ( At least some form of it ). And minimum requirement. Unlike USB spec which offers ample of room to choose from.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last statement: "The whole point of TB is Quality Assurance.... And minimum requirement. Unlike USB spec which offers ample of room to choose from."

That is the primary difference. Otherwise, USB can replace TB--correct me if I am mistaken:
USB and TB both have a maximum bandwidth of 40Gbps (32Gbps after overhead)
USB and TB both use the USB Type-C port
USB and TB both support Power Delivery
USB and TB both support DP 2.0 Alt Mode
USB and TB both support PCIe

The differences are in the minimum specs and the fact that USB 4 is more like a buffet whereas TB 4 is more like a 3 course meal--USB allows OEMs to implement the features that suit them whereas TB 4 has more rigid minimum standards. As just one example, TB requires PCIe support of 40Gbps whereas USB allows PCIe support at either 40 Gbps or 20Gbps. More differences and a comparison can be found here.

I personally prefer TB, but I believe Apple will go with USB4 and implement more, if not all, of its features. Apple could use USB4 implementation to segregation consumer from professional laptops (e.g. MacBook gets 20Gbps PCIe whereas the MacBook Pro gets 40Gbps PCIe).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ksec
Val-kyrie said:
I agree with your last statement: "The whole point of TB is Quality Assurance.... And minimum requirement. Unlike USB spec which offers ample of room to choose from."

That is the primary difference. Otherwise, USB can replace TB--correct me if I am mistaken:
USB and TB both have a maximum bandwidth of 40Gbps (32Gbps after overhead)
USB and TB both use the USB Type-C port
USB and TB both support Power Delivery
USB and TB both support DP 2.0 Alt Mode
USB and TB both support PCIe

The differences are in the minimum specs and the fact that USB 4 is more like a buffet whereas TB 4 is more like a 3 course meal--USB allows OEMs to implement the features that suit them whereas TB 4 has more rigid minimum standards. As just one example, TB requires PCIe support of 40Gbps whereas USB allows PCIe support at either 40 Gbps or 20Gbps. More differences and a comparison can be found here.

I personally prefer TB, but I believe Apple will go with USB4 and implement more, if not all, of its features. Apple could use USB4 implementation to segregation consumer from professional laptops (e.g. MacBook gets 20Gbps PCIe whereas the MacBook Pro gets 40Gbps PCIe).
Click to expand...


Why bother? Just to the full implementation and you already get everything needed for USB4. They only need to design the silicon once, and the OS already supports it.
 
dguisinger said:
Man, the lack of understanding of what the devkit mac is and what it represents is astounding..... it is NOT a final product, it is an iPad Pro in a box. Seems it doesn't matter how many times Apple or other forum members explain it, people just don't listen.

Intel says they are building their controllers into their CPUs, so I question whether its even an option to get an Intel branded TB4 host controller chip. Apple would likely have no choice than to build it into their CPUs, but that shouldn't be an issue. TB really isn't a complex interface. Its just a serial mux/demux for several existing protocols which are already in the system, such as DP and PCIe.

Intel also opened up licensing to gain better adoption, they no longer require an Intel controller.

Apple has invested so much in the TB* interfaces as a single port for everything in recent years, far beyond what they did for FireWire which remained unadopted elsewhere. They also are required to support at least TB3 to gain the USB4 host controller certification. TB3 and beyond will continue to be supported by Apple Silicon Macs.


Any argument otherwise simply ignores facts and public knowledge. I can't believe we are 3 pages into a "The Dev Kit didn't have TB ports so OMG, TB is dead on Mac"
Click to expand...

Your point is valid: Dev kits do not represent a final-shipping ARM-based Mac.

However, USB4 is simply a looser implementation of TB4. As such, there is no need for Apple to pursue the TB brand when it can implement the same features and simply call it USB4. You can attain the same features in USB4 as you can in TB4, but without paying Intel for "certification" and without using an Intel controller. This makes perfect sense from Apple's viewpoint. They are not attached to names like we are.
 
dguisinger said:
Intel says they are building their controllers into their CPUs, so I question whether its even an option to get an Intel branded TB4 host controller chip. Apple would likely have no choice than to build it into their CPUs, but that shouldn't be an issue. TB really isn't a complex interface. Its just a serial mux/demux for several existing protocols which are already in the system, such as DP and PCIe.
Click to expand...
Intel announced two TB4 host controllers today (JHL8540 and JHL8340) and said that they can be used with non-Intel CPUs as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple used them in their ARM platform.

Generally, TB4 will be USB4 compliant, but with higher minimum requirements. The mandatory DMA protection is very significant (the lack of that requirement kept some big OEMs from adopting TB in the past).
 
  • Like
Reactions: canhaz
Tarantularock said:
Thunderbolt vs usb has gone back and forth for too long (usb has always won because of cost). Maybe I'm getting a bit impatient... but here we are in 2020 still talking about the next new wired connection. yawn.
Click to expand...

Impatient for what? TBx and USBx were never marketed as fulfilling the same role, just like your Ethernet port and your PCI slot aren't replacements for each other. Yes there is overlap, but USB is not a replacement for TB.... though with TB you can host a full USB 3.2 controller (Just like Ethernet or USB is not a replacement for PCIe, but with PCIe you can host a Ethernet or USB controller)
[automerge]1594225071[/automerge]
Rigby said:
Intel announced two TB4 host controllers today (JHL8540 and JHL8340) and said that they can be used with non-Intel CPUs as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple used them in their ARM platform.
Click to expand...

Nice, good to see Intel going beyond trying to force their new CPUs in order for folks to get TB4
 
dguisinger said:
Why bother? Just to the full implementation and you already get everything needed for USB4. They only need to design the silicon once, and the OS already supports it.
Click to expand...

Market segmentation.

Apple did this when they used PPC CPUs to differentiate between the consumer MBs and the professional MBPs--the former could only mirror a display but the latter could extend the display. A simple hack enabled the MB to extend its display like the MBP, but most consumers would not be savvy enough to implement the hack.
 
Val-kyrie said:
Your point is valid: Dev kits do not represent a final-shipping ARM-based Mac.

However, USB4 is simply a looser implementation of TB4. As such, there is no need for Apple to pursue the TB brand when it can implement the same features and simply call it USB4. You can attain the same features in USB4 as you can in TB4, but without paying Intel for "certification" and without using an Intel controller. This makes perfect sense from Apple's viewpoint. They are not attached to names like we are.
Click to expand...

The cost of certification is next to nil for the richest company in the world, just saying. You are basically saying Apple can be lazier and offer a worse connection than their Intel macs... all indications are the Apple silicon team is not at all lazy and is one of the best teams in the world. I would be shocked if they didn't offer full TB3 or even TB4 out of the gate.
[automerge]1594225317[/automerge]
Val-kyrie said:
Market segmentation.

Apple did this when they used PPC CPUs to differentiate between the consumer MBs and the professional MBPs--the former could only mirror a display but the latter could extend the display. A simple hack enabled the MB to extend its display like the MBP, but most consumers would not be savvy enough to implement the hack.
Click to expand...

This is 2020, people expect a lot more out of their machines now than they did in 2004. Cutting features that have been standard for years to segment a market isn't going to fly
 
Val-kyrie said:
Market segmentation.

Apple did this when they used PPC CPUs to differentiate between the consumer MBs and the professional MBPs--the former could only mirror a display but the latter could extend the display. A simple hack enabled the MB to extend its display like the MBP, but most consumers would not be savvy enough to implement the hack.
Click to expand...

If they wanted to do that, they would've left out Thunderbolt 3 on the 2018 Air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dguisinger
Want to bet that Apple goes USB-4 rather than Thunderbolt in the next iteration? Because that shouldn't require intel chips (and is backwards compatible)
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilhoitm
idmean said:
I only see minimum speed requirements here...
Click to expand...
Val-kyrie said:
That is nonsense from Intel. USB 4 can handle the same bandwidth as TB 3/4; however the USB 4 spec allows for bandwidth as low as 10Gb/s while still being labeled USB 4.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. I mean, I’m not an Ars Technica staff member, but I know my way around and Intel managed to confuse me. I feel bad for the standard person just needing to buy a cable or PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Val-kyrie
I'm confused. DisplayPort 2.0 seems to have specifications which blow this away. Does Apple no longer use DisplayPort? What's the difference between that and Thunderbolt?
 
wilhoitm said:
Is Thunderbolt 4 going to work with Apple's own Silicon Chips? I thought an Intel Chip was needed for Thunderbolt to work? 🙄
Click to expand...
No. There are actually AMD motherboards with certified TB3 ports (e.g. this one). Apple hasn't publicly said anything about the chipset of their ARM platform, but I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted the Intel TB4 host controllers. The TB4 DMA protection requires an I/O MMU with something equivalent to VT-d support. Apple already has a capable I/O MMU in their iPhone chipset, so it's not impossible that they could support it. But we won't know until they release more details.
 
RichFairbrother said:
I'm confused. DisplayPort 2.0 seems to have specifications which blow this away. Does Apple no longer use DisplayPort? What's the difference between that and Thunderbolt?
Click to expand...

Apple uses Displayport currently (in all Thunderbolt products, and in USB-C equipped products (Macbook 12 inch, iPad Pro with USB-C). It will continue to use it, for instance the XDR is using Displayport on the back-end (tunneled through Thunderbolt or as USB alt mode), and I can't imagine they will just not continue to make an XDR display.

DP is used in all Thunderbolt versions, but they don't have to support 2.0. Presumably they are quoting TB4 with DP 1.4 as the display back-end. But they could add DP 2.0 support, just is kind of an unknown since DP 2.0 could suck up the entire cable bandwidth (both directions) and Intel doesn't really want that, but USB-IF I think allows that with plain USB. But we've yet to see DP 2.0 in real products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RichFairbrother
dguisinger said:
The cost of certification is next to nil for the richest company in the world, just saying. You are basically saying Apple can be lazier and offer a worse connection than their Intel macs... all indications are the Apple silicon team is not at all lazy and is one of the best teams in the world. I would be shocked if they didn't offer full TB3 or even TB4 out of the gate.
[automerge]1594225317[/automerge]


This is 2020, people expect a lot more out of their machines now than they did in 2004. Cutting features that have been standard for years to segment a market isn't going to fly
Click to expand...

The "richest company in the world" will become richer by not paying the fees. Stockholders will be happy, as will Tim when he receives his compensation.

The segmentation could be in terms of bandwidth (i.e. speed of I/O). How else do you think Apple is going to segment their products?
[automerge]1594229830[/automerge]
cmChimera said:
Oh I see. I mean, I’m not an Ars Technica staff member, but I know my way around and Intel managed to confuse me. I feel bad for the standard person just needing to buy a cable or PC.
Click to expand...

I hope you didn't take that personally. My comment was meant for Intel, not you. This is Intel's marketing at its finest--confusing the real issues.


Rigby said:
No. There are actually AMD motherboards with certified TB3 ports (e.g. this one). Apple hasn't publicly said anything about the chipset of their ARM platform, but I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted the Intel TB4 host controllers. The TB4 DMA protection requires an I/O MMU with something equivalent to VT-d support. Apple already has a capable I/O MMU in their iPhone chipset, so it's not impossible that they could support it. But we won't know until they release more details.
Click to expand...

As far as I know,there is only ONE AMD motherboard with TB and it took literally years to get it certified by Intel.
 
Last edited:
Val-kyrie said:
The "richest company in the world" will become richer by not paying the fees. Stockholders will be happy, as will Tim when he receives his compensation.

The segmentation could be in terms of bandwidth (i.e. speed of I/O). How else do you think Apple is going to segment their products?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, they will dominate the market by crippling their product and making it worse than their existing products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back