This will be huge if true. That being said the USB spec has become increasingly confusing since the original USB 3.0 and seems to be getting worse with the addition of Thunderbolt and everything going to USB-C since not every port or cord are equal.
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 5 Could Double Bandwidth to 80 Gbps, Intel Leak Suggests
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So companies (not just apple) are forcing the retirement of perfectly working old device and push customers to buy new one because “oh this USB4 thing is not backwards compatible”. A few years down the line, there will be laptops and desktops that is completely incompatible to any peripherals that are more than 1 year old. It’s a disaster.
Is this available on any Mac? Would like to see it on Mac Mini + Native HDMI 2.1 port (no displaycon).
Surprised to see they are using PAM-3 rather than PAM-4 given PAM-4 is being used in PCI-e now and I was always under the impression Thunderbolt (which this is) is built using PCI-e.
PAM-3 is probably a lot easier to implement, the signaling requirements for PAM-4 are pretty stringent.
PAM-3 is probably a lot easier to implement, the signaling requirements for PAM-4 are pretty stringent.
You are thinking of the DisplayPort 2.0 alt-mode which predates both USB4 and TB4. Both USB4 and TB4 optionally support DP2.0 alt-mode by re-using the TB3 spec for alt-mode from 2014. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15752/displayport-alt-mode-20-spec-released
TB3 alt-mode supports 80gbit/s.
TB4 doesn’t mandate any support for DP2.0 on devices(you have to see what the computer actually supports).
USB4, TB3, and TB4 use DisplayPort for video connections… it’s yet another thing you need to check compatibility on per USB-C port. TB4 mandates DP1.4 and TB3 mandates support for DP1.2. USB4 doesn’t mandate any video support. Any of them can use newer DisplayPort standards.
Great point! I guess I'm not advocating against advancements in raw speed on IO, per se, it's just that I wish these companies would instead focus on ways to give me more of the bandwidth we already have in real life scenarios. But you're right -- in an ideal world I'd love to have bothJust remember that a Patent Office Commissioner once stated that “Everything has already been invented”.
THundebolt is not PCI-e. It encodes and transports PCI-e data, but it isn't technically PCI-e transmission protocol.
Pragmatically, PAM-4 has substantive problems delivering over a distance. Even this PAM-3 may see a reduction in max copper cable length. PCI-e v4 over substantive internal distances on a logicboard requires redrivers It is more sensitive to noise , so effectively have to put in signal boosters. Thunderbolt already typically has signal conditioners for the max length cables without PAM-3 or PAM-4. The non active transceiver length is less than 3 ft.
The other issues is that most customers want more affordable cables. If Thunderbolt 1, 2, or 3 cables cost 'x.xx' then don't want to pay more ( and would perfer to pay less).
PAM-3, -4 .... if used optical wouldn't have this problems over distances, but few want to pay for it.
Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4, USB4 are 20 Gbps per lane. two lanes in each direction. I suppose if all 4 lanes were going in the same direction then 80 Gbps can work - at least with the cables.
But none of the existing controllers support DisplayPort 2.0. The USB4 spec makes no mention of any DisplayPort link rate greater than HBR3.
The article from AnandTech is discussing DisplayPort 2.0 Alt Mode. I suppose any Thunderbolt/USB 3/4 port could support DisplayPort 2.0 Alt Mode with the addition of an extra internal USB-C switch but they won't support DisplayPort 2.0 tunnelling.
PCIe-4 is gaining wide industry support from both AMD and Intel platforms. Apple uses PCIe-4 already in their first generation M1. Supporting PCIe-4x4 speeds for external SSDs seems like a reasonable and "about time" upgrade to Thunderbolt, and it also helps with high resolution monitor support.
Having robust and inexpensive external connectivity is the issue, so it's gratifying to see Intel obviously having put in work there, rather than just trying to increase clocks.
A timetable for its introduction would be nice.
And of course, theluggage has a good point in that while having a single port that does "everything" is a very attractive idea, it may not be quite that awesome in the real world where demands, needs and desirable price points have an extremely wide span.
Having robust and inexpensive external connectivity is the issue, so it's gratifying to see Intel obviously having put in work there, rather than just trying to increase clocks.
A timetable for its introduction would be nice.
And of course, theluggage has a good point in that while having a single port that does "everything" is a very attractive idea, it may not be quite that awesome in the real world where demands, needs and desirable price points have an extremely wide span.
...I wasn't talking about DisplayPort 2.0 at all... All I said was that TB4 mandates support for two displays which is one possible reason why the M1 machines can't be badged as TB4 (in response to incorrect post about M1 macs having all TB4 features). DisplayPort 2.0 is a whole different thread...
Yes.
Actually, M1 Macs have Thunderbolt ports that support two DisplayPort outputs but the second output can only be used with dual tile displays like the LG UltraFine 5K or Dell UP2715K. The two DisplayPort outputs cannot be used by separate single tile displays.
How many people really need more than 2 monitors out of a laptop?
I edit video - my fairly normal brain is not wired up(!) to efficiently make use of 3 monitors - maybe 1 wide 1 and a normal 1...
I edit video with a high speed external SSD as the primary cache & proxy store, so I need to be able to write 2Gb/s or more - with a bit of discipline and a wait while I sip on a coffee, my edit setup can render out 100Gb of optimized & proxy video before I get in to serious editing and then read & write is in bursts...
All of this works totally fine on my M1 silicon devices and TB3 speeds. I'd like MORE ports on my Mac mini M1 and my MacBook Air M1, and good PD, and ideally ports on BOTH sides of my MacBook Air.
10Gbps ethernet for my home network and high speed links to my NAS would be welcome too, but that's a different topic.
But 80Gbps? I just don't see the need!
I edit video - my fairly normal brain is not wired up(!) to efficiently make use of 3 monitors - maybe 1 wide 1 and a normal 1...
I edit video with a high speed external SSD as the primary cache & proxy store, so I need to be able to write 2Gb/s or more - with a bit of discipline and a wait while I sip on a coffee, my edit setup can render out 100Gb of optimized & proxy video before I get in to serious editing and then read & write is in bursts...
All of this works totally fine on my M1 silicon devices and TB3 speeds. I'd like MORE ports on my Mac mini M1 and my MacBook Air M1, and good PD, and ideally ports on BOTH sides of my MacBook Air.
10Gbps ethernet for my home network and high speed links to my NAS would be welcome too, but that's a different topic.
But 80Gbps? I just don't see the need!
A couple of points.
It's not as if TB5 exists as a product today. We are looking at some unknown future date.
At that future date, it's not as if you need to fully exploit the new port day one. It might prove useful a few years down the line from that purchase. Moral - when evaluating usefulness of an upgraded port, we need to project many years into the future.
That said, if I buy a Mac this autumn, I would really have preferred to be able to take full advantage of the PCIe-4 drives that are already out and sold at prices far lower than Apple charges for their slower SSDs. I'll duct tape a TB enclosure to the Mac immediately with a replaceable M.2 SSD in it, permanently blocking one port unfortunately.
As for "need", well that hasn't generally been the driving force for computer upgrades for a loooong time now, if looking at pure performance metrics. It's a bit of a red herring to throw out there. "Nice" is probably more valid. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Apple cutting OS support for my 2009 27" iMac, the slow ports on it (not even USB-3) is probably its biggest weakness.
High speed, standardised I/O is a longevity feature, if nothing else.
40 Gbps limits display output to 6K 60Hz 10bpc HBR (if you add DSC then it takes less than 20 Gbps to do).
40 Gbps is enough for two DisplayPort 1.2 connections (two 4K 60Hz 10bpc displays) but not two DisplayPort 1.4 connections (two 4K 120Hz 10bpc displays for example).
Proof that this limitation is software only?
Regardless, Apple is behind in I/O after the switch to its M-architecture. Despite promises of a two-year transition, Apple doesn't appear able to transition the Mac Pro. Hmmm.... wonder why?
I'll worry about TB5 after I see Apple successfully implement TB4.
Just because you don't need more than 2 monitors does not mean many of us do not. I work in enterprise networking and we all use 3 external monitors. We would use 4 or 6 if it were possible and they would be 4K too, if we were asked.
To be fair, someone has already pointed out that the "single" TB display output supports dual-pane 5k displays, so it's clearly not quite as simple as I'd originally suggested. Still, even if the limitation is partly software that doesn't mean it's not there for a good reason (like, even if you could physically connect 3 displays, could the GPU drive them smoothly, without overheating, even in 4k with non-integer scaling?) There's more to "supports" than "sort-of would work".
I don't think anybody should be surprised if the Mac Pro is the last to transition (if at all) especially the 2019 "if you're not going to add $20k worth of GPUs and RAM don't bother calling" Pro. The MacBook Air end of the market - where power consumption is far more important than raw performance - was always the low-hanging fruit for Apple Silicon. The Mac Pro isn't really limited by power usage, is very much about adding hulking great GPU cards, and is used by people with very complicated - and expensive-to-change - workflows with large ecosystems of third-party drivers and plug-ins needing to be made compatible. Plus, the current MP only really started shipping in 2020, so Apple are obliged to actively support it for a few years yet - I wouldn't interpret (e.g.) releasing new GPUs as a sign that the Apple Silicon Mac Pros are in trouble. My suspicion is that any AS Mac Pro could - and should - be a bit more radical than a drop-in replacement for the Intel one: e.g. some sort of multiple CPU/GPU/RAM module set-up. Now-ish, while the latest Intel MP is still current and can run in parallel for a while, might be a good time to try that, rather than the past practice of waiting until the former MP is years out of date before trying to foist a shiny new paradigm on users.
Anyhow, we're in - what - month 14 of an "about two years" transition - and what with unavoidable problems like pandemics and global component shortages I think it's a bit early to start calling Apple out for being behind schedule.
Any particular reason to believe that "full" TB4 won't come with the M1X/M2/whatever? Unless you mean "100% glitch and bug free TB4" - which ain't gonna happen on any platform with such a complex and sprawling protocol stack.
Sure, and if the forthcoming higher-end M1X/M2/Whatever MBPs don't support 3 external displays, it would be a bad show. The question is do you need that facility built in to something like a MacBook Air or iPad Pro, or should it be something that warrants buying a higher-end model? It's not just a matter of having the physical ports - you need the CPU and GPU grunt to support it (and that's quite a lot of grunt on a GPU-heavy UI like MacOS that relies on super-high-res screen buffers and scaling to get usable real-estate on 4k displays).
(Or, if you just need lots of text-heavy windows open, and aren't going to be running games, videos or 3D across multi-screens, maybe it's a job for something not bound by physical DisplayPort streams, like Luna Display or DisplayLink...?)
A single external display is going to be perfectly adequate for the traditional MacBook Air (or low-end MBP, which probably only got the "Pro" title because plain "MacBook" was taken) user who got the Air because they value portability over power, and it would be pretty pointless to sacrifice weight and/or battery life to support more (esp. just to earn the TB4 label). Yes, it's a slight downgrade from the Intel versions, but weigh that against all the M1 advantages which partly come from ruthlessly chucking extraneous circuitry off the SoC...
We're in a slightly odd, transitional, place at the moment where the entry-level M1 Macs challenge the higher-end Intel Macs on some aspects of performance, which is extending their appeal beyond the "traditional MacBook Air user" to people who would normally be going for higher-end machines. I think that's a temporary glitch.
It's the same with the whole "who needs an 80Gbps TB5 link" thing - of course some people can make good use of that - the question is, does it need to be integrated into a "mainstream" standard like USB at the expense of 101 exciting new permutations of port capability and cable types, or should it be a new "external PCIe4" port that is a premium feature on high-end PCs? The existence of an 80Gbps interface doesn't magically make CPUs sprout twice the I/O bandwidth - you're going to be looking at Xeon/Epyc-class CPUs (or their future Apple Silicon/ARM/RISC-V equivalents) to do it justice.
Luna Display uses a physical DisplayPort stream. It's their distinguishing feature that sets it apart from DisplayLink. The feature makes Luna Display more compatible but it's limited by the number of display outputs you can use.
I haven't seen any USB4 devices yet. Just the M1 Thunderbolt 3/USB4 host controller, and Intel Thunderbolt 4/USB4 host controllers and Thunderbolt 4 peripheral hubs/docks (which support USB4).