Where there's a dongle, there's a way.
Mini Thunderbolt 4, Micro USB 5, and more
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.
Thunderbolt 3 and USB Converge With New 40 Gbps USB4 Specification
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where there's a dongle, there's a way.
Mini Thunderbolt 4, Micro USB 5, and more
I don't think its any surprise that USB-A cables won't be getting any faster. Apart from the renaming-old-protocols madness, the significant new features of 3.2 already depend on USB-C cabling. By the time USB 4 products actually hit the shelves - maybe 2021 or 2022 - USB-C might be sufficiently well established that pro laptops really don't need USB-A ports any more.
Looking at that paragraph in The Verge, it sounds like that idea is still at the rainbows and kittens stage: "the group wants to produce a list of features each kind of USB 4 device will have to offer" - so there would still be "different kinds" of "USB 4" device, which means some additional layer of terminology. Also (as pointed out in the article). since the point is to make TB3 an "open standard" that makes it kinda difficult to mandate anything like that.
Also, the TB3 protocol still requires a special 'active' TB3 cable to do 40Gbps cables longer than 0.5m, and those cables don't support USB3.1 or other alternative modes. Unless fixing that is part of USB 4.
AFAIK the 100W option is already part of the USB Power Delivery spec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#PD so I doubt that they'll remove it. On the other hand, I equally doubt that they'll mandate it since not every device can deliver - or needs - 100W power and it makes cables thicker and heavier (maybe they could put, oh, I dunno, something like a MagSafe port on full-size laptops that need 100W so they didn't need to cram power and data into the same cable?)
One would hope that USB4 'hosts' will be compatible with TB3 peripherals, and vice-versa, but in reality we'll only find out when USB4 devices actually start appearing...
.
I don't think Thunderbolt 3 dumped optical as much as optical implementors didn't feel all that keen to follow shifting sockets. Thunderbolt 1 and 2 had power capabilities also (just about an order of magnitude less; 10W ).
Some optical+power USB cables.
That isn't exactly the solution needed for Thunderbolt, but probably indicative that direction that Thunderbolt v3 went in towards being a "docking port" and need to power laptops really didn't peak the demand for optical Type-C TBv3.
The fundamental problem though is they are all going to have RF issues of trying to drive higher speeds over copper. If the thunderbolt portion of USB4+ is going to try to double in again in speed optical starts to be a more practical path if can get the volume lined up to help drive the prices down.
I don't think Thunderbolt 3 dumped optical as much as optical implementors didn't feel all that keen to follow shifting sockets. Thunderbolt 1 and 2 had power capabilities also (just about an order of magnitude less; 10W ).
Some optical+power USB cables.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13949/cosemi-launches-usb-31-gen-2-hybrid-active-optical-cable
That isn't exactly the solution needed for Thunderbolt, but probably indicative that direction that Thunderbolt v3 went in towards being a "docking port" and need to power laptops really didn't peak the demand for optical Type-C TBv3.
The fundamental problem though is they are all going to have RF issues of trying to drive higher speeds over copper. If the thunderbolt portion of USB4+ is going to try to double in again in speed optical starts to be a more practical path if can get the volume lined up to help drive the prices down.
Somebody must be buying these:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/StarTech-com-USB-Serial-Adapter-Compatible/dp/B074VN9ZG4
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Belkin-F2CU037btBLK-Adapter-Certified-Compatible/dp/B014FBQ00I
Still plenty of VGA data projectors out there, not to mention industrial equipment that interfaces via RS232.
OK, I think we're past the point where these are a must-have on every mass market laptop, especially given the size of the connectors, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who need them.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Hopefully they can push USB4 full bandwidth passive copper cable lengths to 1-1.5M lengths and active in the 2-6M range.
Everything here actually points to Thunderbolt 4 not coming any time soon at all.
First they have to merge Thunderbolt 3 into USB. Then the whole USB-IF committee ruminates on what the future changes are. That is going to be a slower upgrade process, not a faster one. You now have 50 chefs in the kitchen who all have to agree. ( Versus Thunderbolt earlier years where had 2-3 in the kitchen Intel , Apple , and a combination of smallest contributions from folks not as deeply vested that sort of add up to another one. )
Given that it is USB complaint that means it should work with USB Type-C alternative mode. So future perhiperals should be able to switch to Thunderbolt alternative mode.
No. Your current ports can not do USB 3.2 (just 3.1 gen 2 or 3.2 gen 2 if want to follow the dancing labels. ). No USB 3.2 capability, then no chance at being classified as USB 4. USB 4 doesn't merge USB 3.1 with TBv3, it merges USB 3.2 with TBv3.
The USB major version number changes with major changes in the port. USB 4 is the first one to leave Type A ports behind. USB 3 actually modified Type A ports (and additional set of pins/lanes that are out of reach of USB 2.0 Type A connectors.). 3.1 gen1 , gen2 , 3.2 added Type-C but didn't leave Type-A behind.
As long as there are just variances with Type-C from the start of 4 I'd the "gen" stuff gets left behind if they don't start added even more alternative modes. I think they probably have a broad enough set of alternative modes at this point to just close it off to any more.
Part of the reason had gen1 , gen2 is that needed to loop in the alternative modes control as they increased also in addition to the changes on the USB mode data pins/lanes speeds.
On one hand... I really want to see royalty-free Thunderbolt 3.
On the other hand, they (and by "they" I mean so many people involved) have really botched this. I figured having an active, 100W TB3 cable would "just work" for every device. Nope. I have to carry both the TB3 and a 20Gbps USB-C cable with me.
I love the idea of "one connector to rule them all" and as someone using an eGPU and other TB3 accessories, I love it. But as a whole it's really confusing. I'm of the belief that "if it fits, it should work." I can understand alt modes and expectations (I don't expect my USB HD to handle DisplayPort) but the cables... the bloody cables. Unless I am mistaken, there is no ONE cable that would work in all situations and that's extremely annoying.
I also feel like all of this will mostly be resolved in the near future.
On the other hand, they (and by "they" I mean so many people involved) have really botched this. I figured having an active, 100W TB3 cable would "just work" for every device. Nope. I have to carry both the TB3 and a 20Gbps USB-C cable with me.
I love the idea of "one connector to rule them all" and as someone using an eGPU and other TB3 accessories, I love it. But as a whole it's really confusing. I'm of the belief that "if it fits, it should work." I can understand alt modes and expectations (I don't expect my USB HD to handle DisplayPort) but the cables... the bloody cables. Unless I am mistaken, there is no ONE cable that would work in all situations and that's extremely annoying.
I also feel like all of this will mostly be resolved in the near future.
What amazes me is how resilient VGA and RS232 have been.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
USB4 is so much faster than USB 3.2 that there was not enough time to put a space between the B and the 4
Lame.
[doublepost=1551727320][/doublepost]
The underlying freedom of non-Intel semiconductor manufacturers to support thunderbolt is promising.
They get the job done - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They're still around because they were the prevalent technologies when a lot of stuff got "computerized" for the first time. If you've spent $1000s on a heavy-duty data projector for a conference room, VGA will keep it fed with Powerpoints. If your industrial controller needs a simple text-based interface and, occasionally, a 16KB firmware update, RS232 is simple to implement using a couple of spare I/O lines - there'd be no advantage to having 5Gbps transfer.
So...what, if any, is the difference between USB4 and TB3? The have the same bandwidth and the same connector.
Why will it take until 2020 to start see hardware with USB4? We already have TB3?
Severely confused...
Why will it take until 2020 to start see hardware with USB4? We already have TB3?
Severely confused...
Disappointing to hear it’s using the same connector as USB-C. I was really hoping for another totally new and incompatible connector so I can carry around even more
cables and dongles.
cables and dongles.
Pragmatically there has been a tie in. The Alternative mode control sequencing has had some USB 2.0 aspects to it. Had to juggle enough USB 2.0 to decide which mode the port is in. The Type-C enabled several alternative modes but the cables and attached devices need to figure out which one of those are in to get onto the "same page" as to what to do. Post mode initialization it is more "open" ( although for a while USB-IF tried to make the USB 2 a common lowest common denominator; dragging folks into the USB sphere of influence with just a subset of just two "wires" that would be common. )
There is not real increase in speed here. This is more about leaving the Type-A port behind as much as anything about data bandwidth performance.
Extra VRAM in a external GPU would be RAM but trying to separate main CPU from RAM neither Thunderbolt or USB have been or are trying to solve that issue in the future. There are some looney rumors to the effect, but they are just looney, that isn't what the USB-IF is doing or even wants to do.
I work in a school district that just built a new school. They put in brand new, current (as of writing this comment) Epson projectors in most room. Still have VGA & RS-232 ports. We actually use the RS-232 as part of a wall mounted control system (instead of a remote control) as the wall control panel controls not just the projector, but the audio system & which input to use (AppleTV, Chromecast, HDMI device or VGA device) as well. Pretty cool. For any curious about the system we use: https://www.extron.com/product/prodtype78.aspx
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I know that's kinda of a running joke but I can still connect over Thunderbolt to Firewire 400. For all the griping about "legacy ports" my 2016 MBP can connect to everything from a TB5K monitor, to an eGPU, to 10G Ethernet, to FireWire, serial, parallel, and VGA. I can also receive power on all said ports.
I haven't needed anything like PS/2 or 5-pin keyboard connectors but as long as you have an adapter over USB, it can be done. (Even if it requires some kind of PCIe enclosure.)
People might complain about "dongles" but as someone running a laptop since like... '98, I've had to deal with them in one form or another for both forward and backward compatibility. PCMCIA anyone? ExpressCard? MiniDVI? FireWire 400/800? USB to floppy? USB to optical? USB WiFi?
At the end of the day, I can still connect to everything I've always connected to.
The port itself is USB C--already compatible. But no, TB 3 will not be compatible with USB 4. Different chipsets.
And perhaps macOS on ARM will be compatible with USB 4, as it won't run TB (no intel chipset in the A series processors).
[doublepost=1551735208][/doublepost]
For all the bitching about dongles, the MBP port situation is the most versatile.
Not quite. Intel and Apple contributed two of the largest engineering resources teams that went into developing Type-C for USB.
"...
there is a seemingly complete list of engineers from a number of companies (below) that contributed and Apple isn’t even in the top Chair or Editor roles, though it does have more listed contributors than all but a few companies, including Intel, Tyco and JAE.
All told, Apple contributed 18 of 79 named engineers listed on the connector certification project or under 23%.
...."
https://9to5mac.com/2015/03/14/apple-invent-usb-type-c/
There is actually more than 79 names on the PDF file from USB-IF. Some of those folks probably aren't front line engineers though (and/or putting tons of effort into ... as to just reviewing and adding commentary).
If toss FoxConn in with Apple (as they are often a proxy to stuff that Apple wants to roll out at scale) that would tilt the scales even more.
Apple threw substantive resources at Type C so it had what they needed it to have.
This merging into USB4 probably isn't tangential to Apple's internal roadmap either.
The notion that Intel (and Apple) charged a huge premium is somewhat grossly over stated. That is far more relative to the "race to the bottom" on quality and testing that USB often seems to fall into.
Thunderbolt controllers are $6-10 range.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/79641/thunderbolt-products.html
Yes that isn't $0.50-1.00 range but not huge problem for products that have decent margins on them. ( as opposed as cheap a possible from chop shop 52 with slave labor. ).
if some company wanted to go rogue and ship a half baked Thunderbolt product then Intel could just cut off the supply of TB controller and they'd be dead in the water.
There aren't grossly huge licensing fees. Competition was kept down ( there were not 50 different makers of any one specific Thunderbolt product). Certification was non trivial. Implementation of the "fall back" display and passthru modes was not trivial.
Intel was probably not loosing money developing Thunderbolt, but the notion that this was some giant money printer for Intel (or Apple) is a bit overblown.
Apple has something to do with that. I think they have been one of the primary drivers of the "one port to rule them all" direction. By cranking the power from 10W up to 100W that really isn't catering to optical. Jump from mini-DisplayPort to USB 'owned' Type-C didn't really help either ( as factions in USB-IF have been highly resistant to optical ... afraid of costs and complexity).
It is a bit of a chicken and egg issue. The demand needs to be higher to get the costs down. And folks have been willing to go to shorter cables ( Thunderbolt 3 passive + USB 3.1 "universal cables" cap out at under 2m. ). Laptops using TBv3 as a standards based docking port ( again length not a driver).
I think if dramatic bandwidth increase gets back onto the table then optical will have a better growth driver. The gap between USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 lasted about eight years though. USB 3.2 is in the "fast enough" zone for a very large set of users. It wouldn't be surprising to see USB-IF to go back to sleep on bandwidth increases. 60-100Gb over copper has issues I don't think USB-IF is probably want to engage on for a while ( that will only drive costs substantive up.) and they also have a Type-C adoption rate issue to deal with ( perceived higher costs for Type-C is only going to inhibit that adoption. )
A lot of LCD monitors around my office still have VGA ports, though our new PCs no longer have them (since Intel doesn’t natively support them). The USB-C to VGA adapters are readily available.
I haven’t seen an RS-232 device in almost 20 years.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Why are you so sure of that? The USB-A connector was used unchanged for USB 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0, and slightly changed while maintaining backwards compatibility for USB 3.0; the original Mini DisplayPort connector was used physically unchanged for that standard, as well as Thunderbolt 1 and 2; and finally, the new USB-C standard was used for USB 3.1 Gens. 1 and 2 (look, I may be getting it wrong and I’m using the old naming scheme), as well as Thunderbolt 3.
Seeing how USB 4 will be a close sibling to Thunderbolt 3, why wouldn’t Intel/Apple/USB-IF be able to eke out a few more years and standards, like USB 5 and even 6, out of that connector and cable? It’s an extraordinarily well designed connector, second only in physical robustness to Lightning, and the only reason the whole cable situation has been a mess was a lack of regulation and el cheapo manufacturers (including Apple, which packs a power-only cable with their own chargers; USB-A to mini and micro USB-B cables, AFAIK, were never power-only, so why would a standard designed to be physically simpler introduce further complexity? The only argument in favour of that which I can accept is maybe making it less wasteful and more environmentally friendly, because other than that it just reeks of nickel-and-diming).
USB 4 doesn't formally exist yet ( it isn't a passed, completed standard), so there are not chipsets that implement it. So of course it is different from TBv3 chipsets because that exists and is deployed in the many 10's of millions. Zero/none vs. 10's of millions. Yes going to be a difference.
in the USB-IF statement there is nothing that indicates that currrent TBv3 systems will not be able to "talk" to USB 4 peripherals. If anything those USB 4 peripherals will be able to "fall back" to USB 3.1/3.0/2.0. If they have an inherent need for a Thunderbolt multiple protocol transport core functionality they should be able to "ball back" to TBv3 since TBv3 is part of the standard.
The current TBv3 controllers implement both Thunderbot and USB 3.1 gen 2. All a USB 4 controller need do is implement TBv3 and USB 3.2 (all 3 "gen" variations) and it would work too.
For future systems that implement USB 4 and would be tasked with dealing with TBv3 peripherals.... basically the same thing in 'reverse'. The system itself should be capable of "falling back" to TBv3 , USB 3.1 gen 2 , gen 1 , etc. to match the implementation in the relatively older peripheral.
The current iPad Pro has a USB 3.1 gen 1 (gen 2) implementation. It does Alternative DisplayPort mode to drive external display. If Apple threw lots of engineering at the A series ( so to add PCI-e v3 worth of bandwidth) , implement some TBv3 controller then they could do USB 4 in some 2021-23 version of the iPad Pro SoC.
The whole point of adding TB to the USB standard is that there will be multiple implementors of TB controllers. There will probably be "off the shelf" circuit design implementation that Apple could just buy and weave into their SoC. (although I suspect that would a discrete chip for a few iterations due to chip placement and other issues. )
I don't think MacOS on ARM is going to get USB4, but that is more so because macOS on ARM is probably going to be on solutions aimed more so at the iPad Pro than on some kind of specific "laptop/desktop" replacement implementation
One and two port USB Type-C wonder systems is likely what going to get (e.g. something like MacBook and new MacBook Air minus Thunderbolt ) macOS on ARM is really primarily to deliver ever thinner laptops with even less key travel keyboards.
