Not necessarily. Thunderbolt could be the perfect basis for a universal "docking station" since it grants direct access to PCIe. I agree USB 3.0 will be more prevalent (if for no other reason than its backward compatibility), and we'll likely see USB 3.0 come to Macs in 2012 with the Ivy Bridge updates, but it doesn't need to be either/or. A PC or Mac with USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt should have all the connectivity most average consumers and even many "power users" need. USB will work for most peripherals and flash storage, while TB can power a docking station and external monitor.
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 Coming to PCs in April 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not necessarily. Thunderbolt could be the perfect basis for a universal "docking station" since it grants direct access to PCIe. I agree USB 3.0 will be more prevalent (if for no other reason than its backward compatibility), and we'll likely see USB 3.0 come to Macs in 2012 with the Ivy Bridge updates, but it doesn't need to be either/or. A PC or Mac with USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt should have all the connectivity most average consumers and even many "power users" need. USB will work for most peripherals and flash storage, while TB can power a docking station and external monitor.
If the price is right, and I would expect prices to drop rapidly, TB will be the preferred docking solution over the current mechanical coupling systems.
The current limitation to bandwidth is the number of channels, now constrained to 4. I'm of the impression that Intel found 40 channels to be a practical upper limit for copper, but maybe it's less than that.
There have been PCI implementations in the past that turned out to me impractical for wide adoption, and while there is activity in both the PCI and USB orgs to counter TB, I would argue that Intel has an early advantage that could shut the others out.
How many people have RAIDed SSDs? Very, very few, as I said in my post. 90% of consumers will have zero use for this. And great - so what if you're using this remarkable daisy-chaining and want to both write to your disk array AND see something on the monitor? Suddenly, sending everything down one cable doesn't sound like such a great idea. And yes, I know Intel says it doesn't compete with USB3. That hasn't stopped countless posters here from saying they hope TBolt prevents Apple from including USB3 in the future.
The bottom line is TBolt, at least as anything more than putting some simple ports on a monitor, is going to be a very niche product.
----------
Really? Pro-TBolt fanboys flooded the early TBolt threads crowing about its superiority over USB3 and how it was stupid to want anything else included.
I haven't seen "countless" posters advocating TB eliminating USB 3.0 from Apple's lineup; very few from my reading. Still, if it came down to one or the other, and it might in a few products in the future like the MBA, I would prefer and I'd speculate that Apple will give us TB over USB 3.0.
That's great. FW is a niche product, as TBolt will be. That's the point. The vast majority of users will never touch it.
USB3.0 will be standard format. Apple can just switch to USB 3.0 next year, Intel can ditch Thunderbolt and concentrate on USB 3.0.
The only and biggest losers will be consumers who bought Macs in 2011 because it is Apple's fault that they didn't switch early enough when everyone else are already incorporating them into their computers.
The only and biggest losers will be consumers who bought Macs in 2011 because it is Apple's fault that they didn't switch early enough when everyone else are already incorporating them into their computers.
SSD's that will be too fast for USB3 will be common and reasonably priced in five years? What sort of guarantee are we getting if you're flat out wrong?
Its a simple figure of speech. I could be wrong of course, but the current technological trends suggest that SSDs will indeed be mainstream in 5 years or so, and that they will be faster than the 625 MB/s that USB offers.
Current SSDs saturate 88% of USB 3.0 bandwidth, its hardly a stretch to imagine it growing 13% to the 625MB/s peak in the next 5 years. As far as affordability, if you've been tracking the prices over the last 3 or 4 years, they've dropped astronomically in price. With SSDs becoming standard, starting with the MBA line, in 5 years, I'd be very surprised if SSDs weren't in wide consumer usage.
If you don't believe me, read the thoughts of other, smarter experts like those on anandtech.
Again, you're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying consumer should buy multi SDD RAID configurations today. All I was trying to say is that currently, technology that some enthusiasts and pros use CAN saturate the bandwidth of current implementations of TB, let alone USB.
However, down the road, as SSDs become more and more mainstream, and the speeds on them increase, and as they advance beyond flash technology to some of the newer storage, such devices (which will become mainstream in a matter of time as all technology does) will NEED the bandwidth required by TB.
You were making it sound like USB 3.0 is sufficient for anything any consumer could ever want, so why bother with TB, its no use to anyone.
That is just not true. As technology advances, and as it goes down the pipeline to consumers, they will indeed need greater bandwidth than USB supports.
Bottom line, I think it is very short sighted to claim that TB will be of no use to practically anyone "unless its putting more ports on a monitor". Its foolish to claim that "no one can possibly need the kind of bandwidth TB provides", just because regular consumers don't need it now. Drive technology will advance, and consumer needs will advance with it.
And it doesn't do to just dismiss the great expansion benefit TB provides to "a few ports on a monitor". I can imagine many consumer uses - only having to carry 1 computer around, a MBA-like ultra book for portability, then plugging it into a more serious box configuration with a dedicated GPU for example at home. This is not out of the range of 99% of consumer at all!
No, with TB, its actually a great idea, because its actually possible! Unlike with USB, you can do this all with 1 cable, that's the point I'm trying to make! Current TB implementation has 4 PCIe lanes, 2 up and 2 down. I believe 2 of those lanes are reserved for display signal, and 2 of them for data.
I haven't heard anyone saying they want TB and NOT USB 3.0! Maybe some are saying how much TB is than USB - but who really cares! I'm sure the vast majority of us will be happy to have both options open to us!
Last edited:
Not A PC
An external RAID array or graphics card in a cage isn't anything like a traditional PC. Again, the model this is closest to is the component stereo system - you buy those bits you want with the abilities you want, and connect them together with Thunderbolt.
Clearly, most users want a laptop or a simple all-in-one solution, so that's all most users will continue to buy. Many if not most of those who might have purchased a desktop PC before - in order to gain access to multiple hard drives or faster graphics - will instead opt for laptop or all-in-one solutions as well, augmenting them with external Thunderbolt hardware as needed.
Between smartphones, tablets and Thunderbolt-enabled laptops and all-in-ones, the desktop PC as we've grown to know it is about to become an endangered species. Not only will they represent only a small fraction of devices sold - likely well under 10% - but absolute unit sales will plummet.
The results are likely to be catastrophic for PC vendors like Dell and HP.
An external RAID array or graphics card in a cage isn't anything like a traditional PC. Again, the model this is closest to is the component stereo system - you buy those bits you want with the abilities you want, and connect them together with Thunderbolt.
Clearly, most users want a laptop or a simple all-in-one solution, so that's all most users will continue to buy. Many if not most of those who might have purchased a desktop PC before - in order to gain access to multiple hard drives or faster graphics - will instead opt for laptop or all-in-one solutions as well, augmenting them with external Thunderbolt hardware as needed.
Between smartphones, tablets and Thunderbolt-enabled laptops and all-in-ones, the desktop PC as we've grown to know it is about to become an endangered species. Not only will they represent only a small fraction of devices sold - likely well under 10% - but absolute unit sales will plummet.
The results are likely to be catastrophic for PC vendors like Dell and HP.
Hopefully this means we will soon see longer thunderbolt cables after all it is meant to go up to 100m. Also Intel need to tell us how they expect Thunderbolt to handle networking and machine clustering. That is where TB biggest potential lies, bring the cost down and improving ease of getting a small office worth of machines effectively sharing resources.
Whenever ANY new technology is unveiled, of course there are 0 adopters. And depending on what the technology is and what is replaces/enhances, the adoption list grows at a certain pace.
TB has been out for a year or so now...has been yapped about for well over a year. Here we are days before 2012 and there are less than 10 devices, most cost around $1000 or more, and even require $50+ cables. And TB is still basically a Mac-only technology. This all adds up to sllllllow adoption.
USB 3.0, on the other hand, dashed out the door with $150-$300 external hard drives that INCLUDED a free cable. Add to the fact that USB 3.0 is backwards compatible and you have a fantastic adoption rate...thus within 12 months of the USB 3.0 unveiling (USB 3.0 was announced Nov 2009 and first units announced/shipped early 2010), USB 3.0 was being adopted like mad...and still is with over 300 products right now (if my memory is correct). So as of my writing, it's been basically 2 full years of USB 3.0 in the market while TB has about 1 year. 300 devices vs. 4. You telling me 2012 there will be 296 TB devices introduced?
There's no doubting that TB is *technically* a great technology...but too many other factors are (and will) hold it back from being adopted by more than 10% of the world...just like Firewire.
Thank you.
I don't understand why so many people are holding so dearly to Thunderbolt. Doesnt matter how great TB is if nobody or a *very* small percentage of people use it. I'd rather have all my devices USB 3.0 and know that it will work on any other computer as well.
TB has not been out a year. The very FIRST computer to adopt it was 9 months ago, and that wasn't even the entire mac platform, let alone all other computers. And USB 3.0 wasn't as spectacular out the door as you say it is.
I'm all for USB 3.0. I just don't understand why you are push so hard against Thunderbolt.
Its NOT in the same position as FW was.
And as I keep saying time and time again, it's foolish to keep saying "oh no one will ever need that kind of bandwidth."
TB on PC's
I knew it.
WHile its true very little people use it. of course, but your only comparing Macs.
EVeryone users USB on PC's and when TB hits on new PC based motherboards who wouldn't want faster thoughput ? EVen if that may mean upgrading devices. Of course, there bound to be adapters/dongles. etc ... like when we went from IDE to SATA, there were all sorts of cable conversions.. OK, not a great sight to look at, but it worked nevertheless.
We could also say the same about USB 3.0 devices specifically... There is more of these than Thunderbolt devices for sure, but how people actually use USB 3.0 ? I would think only a handful do...
Givin time. this will change..... It will if Intel gratually removes USB from motherboards Its probably another intrim. :
I knew it.
WHile its true very little people use it. of course, but your only comparing Macs.
EVeryone users USB on PC's and when TB hits on new PC based motherboards who wouldn't want faster thoughput ? EVen if that may mean upgrading devices. Of course, there bound to be adapters/dongles. etc ... like when we went from IDE to SATA, there were all sorts of cable conversions.. OK, not a great sight to look at, but it worked nevertheless.
We could also say the same about USB 3.0 devices specifically... There is more of these than Thunderbolt devices for sure, but how people actually use USB 3.0 ? I would think only a handful do...
Givin time. this will change..... It will if Intel gratually removes USB from motherboards
Its probably another intrim. :Maybe because we are in the 10% that will find it useful over USB and a replacement to firewire. We have the workflow demand and cash-flow to justify it.
Oddly enough I've yet to see a use of value that justifies USB 3 over USB 2. Which is why I really don't understand why so many people hold it so dearly.
T-BOLT SMOKES and usb3 is pretty fast. If you own an iMac either one would end the trapped hdd issue that iMacs have.
I have tested lacie little big disk t-bolt with samsung ssd's you can add a 512gb ssd to your
iMac
mac mini
or macbook pro in about 2 minutes.
Cost to build is about 1k! but you have a 512gb ssd and a pair of 500gb hdds as spares.
It runs at 470MB/s read and 370 MB/s write random numbers are also good over 25 MB/s .
A huge productivity boost for your business. Of course you can build a smaller system for 700. A pair of 128gb samsung ssds will give you a 256gb system with same speeds. Boots which is big.
Separation anxiety; afraid Apple will again leave out native USB 3.0 for a single/dual port of TB on upcoming models.
Well said.
TB is aimed at the high performance, high end market. By its nature, it isn't aiming at broad mainstream adoption.
Yes, yes, yes, um, sorry No. As per Wiki, USB3 was announced in November 2008 (oh-eight, not oh-nine).
The first certified products did ship in January 2010, which means that USB3's gestation period was just over a year.
Pedantically, that means that the current handful of peripherals that are already shipping for TB at age 9 months means that TB is "ahead of" the adoption schedule demonstrated by USB3.
Corrected chronology count:
USB3: 36 months since release, 24 months since first peripherals shipped
TB: ~9 months since release (and Apple products); ~6 months? since first peripherals
Nope.
Nor will there likely be 296 TB devices by June 2014 (the corrected date for "36 months out" from first release), because TB and USB serve different customer applications.
Pragmatically, the comparison is moot since USB3 is aimed at mainstream as a means to functionally supersede USB2, just as USB2 superseded USB1.1 (and 1) before it.
True, but the comparison is moot since unlike USB, TB is not aimed at mainstream. USB3's strength, appeal and business strategy is for it to functionally supersede USB2, just as USB2 superseded USB1.1 (and 1) before it...suffice to say that that's an evolutionary (not revolutionary) design approach, which has certain inherent advantages and disadvantages.
-hh
Current chipset DOES NOT SUPPORT USB3!
More likely that they'll drop the Firewire port (and/or the ExpressCard port on the 17" MBP) to make room for a second TB. A laptop without USB would be pretty thoroughly crippled, and as a million and one people have already posted TB is not a replacement for USB.
The main reason that current Macs don't support USB 3 is because the current Intel chipsets don't support USB 3. Apple would have to find space for another controller chip on their tiny mainboard.
The next generation of Intel chipsets have USB 3 ports as standard and it would be completely perverse of Apple not to use them unless there is some jolly good reason.
The only good reason I could think of is if there is some "snag" with USB 3 backwards-compatibility - which would explain why some Windows laptops (e.g. the Asus Zenbook) still offer a mixture of USB2 and USB 3 ports. I could understand this on a tower system with space to wire up every last available port, but on an ultrabook with only 2 external ports? Are there peripherals around which don't work on USB3?
If there's some reason why people still need USB 2-only ports then I could see Apple deciding that it was too confusing to have 2 "identical but different" sorts of ports.
More likely that they'll drop the Firewire port (and/or the ExpressCard port on the 17" MBP) to make room for a second TB. A laptop without USB would be pretty thoroughly crippled, and as a million and one people have already posted TB is not a replacement for USB.
The main reason that current Macs don't support USB 3 is because the current Intel chipsets don't support USB 3. Apple would have to find space for another controller chip on their tiny mainboard.
The next generation of Intel chipsets have USB 3 ports as standard and it would be completely perverse of Apple not to use them unless there is some jolly good reason.
The only good reason I could think of is if there is some "snag" with USB 3 backwards-compatibility - which would explain why some Windows laptops (e.g. the Asus Zenbook) still offer a mixture of USB2 and USB 3 ports. I could understand this on a tower system with space to wire up every last available port, but on an ultrabook with only 2 external ports? Are there peripherals around which don't work on USB3?
If there's some reason why people still need USB 2-only ports then I could see Apple deciding that it was too confusing to have 2 "identical but different" sorts of ports.
True, but the T-Bolt controller chip is enormous compared to the NEC USB 3.0 chip.
In other words, I don't believe that board real estate issues are the real reason....
We might be seeing Thunderbolt on high end motherboards bundled along with Lucidlogix Virtu. Then again you have the space to play around with that on a desktop computer.
Not really. [ It is Renwsas that currently owns the chip line, not NEC ]
USB 3.0
µPD720200 : 10x10mm ( http://www2.renesas.com/usb/en/product/upd720200.html)
µPD720201 : 8x8mm ( http://www2.renesas.com/usb/en/product/upd720201.html )
µPD720202 : 7x7mm ( http://www2.renesas.com/usb/en/product/upd720202.html )
TB.
A chart at the bottom of article. (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...lt-controller-could-broaden-reach-of-spec.ars ). The original is larger ( 15mm x 15mm) but the Eagle Ridge in the MBA is 8x9mm .
The Port Ridge will be even smaller (although that is probably part of Intel's "full launch" later this Spring and likely won't do the DisplayPort channel ): 5 x 6mm . However, I suspect Port Ridge will be banned from computer systems because it can't do video and data. IMHO it could be coupled to a different, smaller physical port ( since 3 channels are effectively dead and therefore bloat. ). That would also help shift people's expectations that video might come out.
In a sense correct. USB 3.0 doesn't have to port capped to the same extent to get to the smaller size.
They can be the same size for it to be a board space issue. If have to add both then need twice as much room. That doubling is the problem.
Nuking FW can claw back some fraction of the space (since it too is occuping board space). Likewise waiting till the bulk of the USB 3.0 implementation is inside the CPU's I/O hub support chip also claws back some space.
It is not the only blocker but it is present. [ Apple is also giving TB a viable market to serve as an initial base. Otherwise, the pressure to crush it would impede development even slower. One of the handful of TB products is the Blackmagic Intensity.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/
If Macs had a pervasive USB 3.0 deployment would they have been as pressed to get a TB model to market? Probably not. The Port Ridge controller is a better match to what the design requires ( one data only port out and fits on end of TB daisy chain.) ]
Last edited:
Actually not. It is aimed at the docking station market. That is not necessarily high end. One of the primary aims is to aggregate multiple older, slower, protocols onto a single cable. You can get a high performance solution out of it by aiming at aggregating SAS/SATA traffic but that isn't the "wheelhouse".
Look at the one TB peripheral roduct Apple has produced... a docking station. Not a "high speed disk box".
Pedantically, it is a Apple's to Oranges comparison. USB 3.0 is a open standard. TB isn't ( as the orphaned Sony implementation clearly illustrates). Part of the delay was NEC and others wrestling with Intel over Intel steamrolling them with a defacto proprietary USB implementation.
Note that same wikipedia article outlines that the Linux kernel had USB 3.0 support earlier than your start date:
" The Linux kernel has supported USB 3.0 since version 2.6.31, which was released in September 2009 "
Likewise:
"Given that the certification labs are jammed up, though, you can expect companies to release USB 3.0 products without official certification. (Buffalo Technologies' drive, released late 2009, is not certified; LaCie's drives are in the process of certification, but will initially carry LaCie's own logo for USB 3.0, and will gain a sticker on the box once certification is completed.) And in those cases, it will be hard to know whether the device truly lives up to its performance potential."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/186566/usb_30_finally_arrives.html
In other words, there were USB 3.0 product in late 2009. They just didn't have the official sticker.
Given there is one and only one implementer here for TB, the supposed zero software required (as opposed to the xHCI stack for USB 3.0), and a lower testing hurdle, the TB launch has been somewhat slow.
But discounted here also is that there won't be a USB 4.0 by 2014-6. The USB standard folks were smart in not blocking a possible augmentation with fiber cable ( SuperDuper Speed USB ) that could be deployed over time. (instead of the almost decade gap between USB 2.0 and 3.0 )
As an industry standard docking port format, TB would be mainstream.
