Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And also timing, which has been a problem for USB for things like video. The Pros stayed with FW, whereas on the consumer level, the general approach being used by USB3 has been the "bigger hammer" bandwidth paradigm where the assumption was that the extra bandwidth will prevent time-sensitive data from arriving too late to screw things up. Works adequately on short clips.
....
Parties who need something better than USB3's limitations ... such as time-sensitive transfers that don't rely on "luck" (bandwidth overkill assumptions

USB 3.0's SuperSpeed is far more than just "faster USB 2.0". It is a different, not backward compatible protocol stack run on a different set of wires. USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 have isochronous mechanism. USB 3.0's aren't bandwidth starve, nor have to deal with bonehead hacks implemented on the 1.1 and 2.0 wires.

The USB 3.0 version of Intensity doesn't work by "luck"....

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

It does the practically the identical workload the PCI-e and TB versions do.



--------


On would think that after the previous battles that facts would be a little easier to come by.

You'd think....


Fact: TB supports channel syncing, and isochronous timing protocols like FW and data channels are inherently low latency (8ns), features that would be desirable for video and audio production; an inherent advantage over USB 3.0.

Given that USB 3.0 also supports isochronous transfers this seems a rather dubious "fact". The latencies don't exactly match, but that is not a issue over a wide range of context where this it is used ( audio , most video, etc. )


Fact: TB is inherently multiprotocol.

Not. TB devices largely only work with other TB devices. (the corner case of putting a Display Port device at the end of a chain is huge stretch to a multiprotocol claim). The data



Fact: Apple's current TB implementation will be compatible with future optical implementations; the transceivers will be imbedded in the cable. Apple's current implementation will be backwards compatible with future TB implementations.

On first yes; at least on the immediately future optical implementations. Long term; somewhat doubtful. On the second, no. future TB implementations will be backwards compatible with Apple's current one. Not the other way around. So when 100Gbps TB comes around the current cable/transciever pairs may or may not work.


The only speculation would be which future Ivy Bridge implementations on the various Mac's and TB displays will support both TB and USB 3.0 connectors?

I would guess all.

There is a not so small chance Apple punt on USB 3.0 for one more cycle. The Ivy Bridge chips are pin compatible with the Sandy Bridge. They could do a lame "processor only" upgrade that would allow them to trot out the same ports as last year with minimal R&D effort ( and higher margins.). That would also allow them to "kick the can down the road" on updated xHCI USB drivers until Mac OS 10.8 also. ( If Apple has been working on the associated software stack it has been a stealthy effort. )

Apple should drop USB 3.0 and TB on next models. Should do USB 3.0 (more so than TB) on the upcoming Mac Pro. However, they probably should have done a couple of things in last year or so that they didn't.


I would also speculate that TB will ultimately be the Mac Pro's assassin, though I hope that is far down the road.

No the Mac Pro's assassin will be the Mac Pro's userbase and their working sets. If user base buys other stuff then it will die off. Folks using 3 (in some cases 2 if x16 and x8 card) PCI-e cards aren't going to find TB creditable. Even less so when the new Mac Pro's drop with PCI-e v3.0 and TB is still stuck on v2.0.
 
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".

I'll grant you that TB can also do docking ... and that it is a lot more elegant than the Powerbook Duo 210 I had years ago ... it is ultimately the marketplace who will decide what it is primarily for. From what I've generally seen/used of docking stations, they're not really part of the lower end products spectrum, and even less common in the home market.

Look at the one TB peripheral roduct Apple has produced... a docking station. Not a "high speed disk box".

Except that Apple farmed out the external peripherals business years ago...hence, we saw the LaCie and Promise boxes at the earliest intros.

Apple holds onto the LCD display - - although they've also reduced their product line now down to only one model - - and they're employing TB as that 'docking station' in part as a means of product differentiation. Do keep in mind that had they wanted to, they could have just as easily employed wireless for driving a USB2 port for a mouse, keyboard...and inkjet home printers are already going wireless.

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.

So just which is USB then: proprietary or open? The answer lies with Sony's USB-based TB being orphaned: USB is controlled by a license.

Note that same wikipedia article outlines that the Linux kernel had USB 3.0 support earlier than your start date:

Except that Linux isn't a hardware peripheral, but an OS.

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; ..."

In other words, there were USB 3.0 product in late 2009. They just didn't have the official sticker.

You're trying to stretch the ruler, but it still isn't going to fit, since the first of these was November 2009 (still 12 months from the announcement) and TB still isn't even 12 months old yet.

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.

True, it probably could have been faster given that TB was adopted first only by Apple, and in looking for why, we find that 3rd party developers were hindered because Intel didn't release the TB designer package on the schedule that Intel had promised for it. FWIW, I'll have to go look to see if the 'between the lines' genesis of this announcement basically is that Intel is only now finally making that promised data package release...

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 )

Time will tell. Afterall, in 2007, we were told that USB3 would include fiber. Given how the USB Board did choose to implement, we're going to be in for yet another round of "see, it is almost perfectly backwards compatible" sequences of claims. For bonus points, go locate today's USB3's mini plug not-backwards-compatible design nightmare of discontinuity.


As an industry standard docking port format, TB would be mainstream.

Sure...if docking stations themselves weren't a niche :D

USB 3.0's SuperSpeed is far more than just "faster USB 2.0". It is a different, not backward compatible protocol stack run on a different set of wires.

Sure, but it still has some core issues. Have they resolved their piggy overhead burden issues yet? Keep in mind that Firewire was something like 97% efficient, whereas USB2 struggled to get to IIRC 50%.

USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 have isochronous mechanism.

To some degree; doesn't mean that they're as good as what FW had a decade ago.

USB 3.0's aren't bandwidth starve...

Which is pretty much what I was saying with their "bigger hammer" approach. Of course, the problem won't become evident until USB3 hubs become more mainstream.


The USB 3.0 version of Intensity doesn't work by "luck"....

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

Read the printcopy on page 4: it appears that only their USB3 version fails to say that it supports both compressed & uncompressed video feeds.


-hh
 
I think you overestimate T-Bolt by a factor of two

Folks using 3 (in some cases 2 if x16 and x8 card) PCI-e cards aren't going to find TB creditable. Even less so when the new Mac Pro's drop with PCI-e v3.0 and TB is still stuck on v2.0.

Isn't T-Bolt (TB means 10^12 bytes) really PCIe 1.0 at 2.5 Gbps/lane?

The two-port controller sits on four PCIe 2.0 5 Gbps lanes (20 Gbps), but splits them into 8 2.5 Gbps lanes across two cables.
 
I am by no means an apple fanboy. But I think you're wrong here if you're saying we won't saturate USB 3.0 speeds by 2018. Just look at current SSD trends. Current sequential speeds peak at 550 MB/s for the fastest SSDs. So by 2018, when SSDs are much more affordable and widespread in consumer use, I would bet that they surpass the USB 3.0 peak of 625 MB/s.
And that's not even considering any RAID configurations.

Sarcasm.
 
From what I've generally seen/used of docking stations, they're not really part of the lower end products spectrum, and even less common in the home market.

That's rather myopic. One of the primary products Apple sells that benefits from a nice docking station is Apple's entry laptop offering (MBA 11").

Apple doesn't even participate in the lower end of the PC market spectrum.

Except that Apple farmed out the external peripherals business years ago...hence, we saw the LaCie and Promise boxes at the earliest intros.

A dubious point that is mostly misdirection. If peripheral storage vendors were the primary drivers behind TB which is it tightly couple to Display Proot. TB has the features it does



Do keep in mind that had they wanted to, they could have just as easily employed wireless for driving a USB2 port for a mouse, keyboard...and inkjet home printers are already going wireless.

Wireless GB Ethernet (present on display) and Firewire 800. Not.




So just which is USB then: proprietary or open? The answer lies with Sony's USB-based TB being orphaned: USB is controlled by a license.

Open has to do with standards by agreement and multiple implementers. Not whether there is a license or not. The licensing only has to do with using the official logos and trademarks. It also funds the infrastructure for moving the standards forward and testing.



Except that Linux isn't a hardware peripheral, but an OS.

If there was not peripherals to connect to ... why was it put in the OS? Or even more telling how do they finish if there is no hardware?



You're trying to stretch the ruler, but it still isn't going to fit,

No. I'm merely pointing out truth stretching. There were folks using USB 3.0 products months before where your ruler marking was.

The reaility is that the USB 3.0 roll-out is much different than TB is. Not the least is that USB 3.0 has several billion deployed products to deal with and TB is working off a blank slate.



Time will tell. Afterall, in 2007, we were told that USB3 would include fiber.

Rejected primarily on peripheral vendors stating it would drive the cable costs too high and slow adoption. $50 TB cable from a single vendor anyone? Lightpeak mutating after the hype into copper with transceivers TB (after having to remove the light from the system. ).



Given how the USB Board did choose to implement, we're going to be in for yet another round of "see, it is almost perfectly backwards compatible" sequences of claims. For bonus points, go locate today's USB3's mini plug not-backwards-compatible design nightmare of discontinuity.

The USB 3.0 cable is not suppose to fit in 2.0 only systems. Indeed we'll see what happens when TB does a large step in evolution. This whole notion that one physical socket implementation forever is loopy if going to upgrade the data stream over time.



Sure...if docking stations themselves weren't a niche :D

Laptops past desktops a while back. Slim, "socket dumping" laptops have been the hottest growth category over last 1-2 years. Ultrabooks just continues that trend into the sub $1000 category. You can waving niche around all you want. That's where the market is going. Far, far more than $800-1000 DAS boxes with TB connectors.






Sure, but it still has some core issues. Have they resolved their piggy overhead burden issues yet? Keep in mind that Firewire was something like 97% efficient, whereas USB2 struggled to get to IIRC 50%.

The overhead is decoupled from bandwidth. Still have the USB 2.0 background in place. However, as a percentage it is much lower. As low as FW? No. Low enough to be useful in a large number of contexts yes.



To some degree; doesn't mean that they're as good as what FW had a decade ago.

A current PC with USB 3.0 versus a decade old PC with FW 400 doing the same encoding? You think that is going to be competitive? I don't think so.

Which is pretty much what I was saying with their "bigger hammer" approach. Of course, the problem won't become evident until USB3 hubs become more mainstream.

No it isn't what you were saying. A FW200 or FW100 would have some isochronous problems in most contexts if strapped with limited bandwidth. It isn't magic. If you suck enough bandwidth no isochronous protocol no matter how efficient is going to work well if the arrival rate of the data capture is faster that the time windows the protocol can carve out.

80% of 5,000 Mbps ==> 3,750Mbps
97% of 800Mbps ==> 770Mbps

97% of 100Mbps ==> 97Mbps

That is not just bandwidth, it is in a whole difference class. There is an order of magnitude difference between both the 1st and 2nd as there is between the 2nd and the 3rd. Bickering about the 17% differences in efficiencies misses the pragmatic usefulness issues.


As for mainstream, what new model PC in the price ranges covered by Apple doesn't have USB 3.0 these days? Why would these "problems" not have manifested yet? There are hundreds of devices and dozens of PC computer models.



Read the printcopy on page 4: it appears that only their USB3 version fails to say that it supports both compressed & uncompressed video feeds.

If making a argument about specifications why on earth would I read page 4 when page 6 has the technical specifications.

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/techspecs/

Intenstity Shuttle does do uncompressed. It doesn't do uncompressed ProRes but that is likely much more coupled to the fact that Apple doesn't have a xHCI driver stack, USB 3.0 on their models , or support for either in FinalCutPro. It would be relatively shocking if it did given those missing pieces.

The only gap feature between the two is SPDIF Audio Output. The "Extreme" is just the PCI-e card wrapped in a box. So it is the same as the PCI-e card and breakout cables ... so not surprising they match up.
 
There is not a single USB 2.0 port on the back I/O of this Z77 board.

It can do that because its got a discrete USB 3 controller on the board in addition to the ports on the intel chipset: The Z77 chipset itself only supports 4 x USB 3 (
http://www.behardware.com/news/11497/chipsets-intel-z77-z75-h77-express.html).

...the third photo from bottom shows at least two USB 2.0 headers - in a desktop system its no big deal to hook these up to front/rear connectors. Looks like there's also one or two more USB3 headers next to it (another 4 ports?)

...but you're talking about a desktop motherboard here.
 
You can build a thunderbolt docking station for you MBA with vidock for external graphics and the thunderbolt display.

Thing is you can also just buy a desktop for half the price with a ton more power.

Face it, for most of us, TB is largely useless atm.
 
yes..you will with Vidock
actually there's a new quasi-poll
in order to figure out how many users
would love to have a Gtx580 ( or alike)
powered beside our macs...
here's the link
https://www.facebook.com/VillageViDock/posts/10150457010424135

just 7 missing to let them make us a more concrete proposal...so goo^^:D

Then i'm really curious to see what will be ( Thunderbolt related ) at the upcoming Ces.

Do you?
 
Last edited:
So with fire wire seemingly on the way out completely, what will happen to all the legacy devices? Will it be adapatable in some way? I know there's a lot of analog to digital audio interfaces that use fire wire.
 
So, IMHO, TB has two main applications:

1) Things you simply CAN'T do over USB 3. Much like Firewire was in previous days, the places it got implemented was where other protocols just wouldn't do the job. TB will be the tool of choice for external PCI boards, giant video streams to multi-screens, super-fast SSD arrays, etc. Unfortunately, USB 3 will do a fine job for something like 98% of all applications, relegating TB to a dark corner of the world.

2) An absolutely brilliant aspect of TB is the ability to carry other protocols. It's kind of the ultimate expression of Apple's longstanding notion that they'll put the best port available on their computer, and if you want to use some lesser thing, you'll need to use a dongle.

This has been their approach at least since they got rid of serial ports, and has carried through to DVI, MiniDisplayPort, and now TB. The LaCie eSATA hub is exactly the idea here.

Whatever you want to run, TB will run, if you care enough to buy the right dongle. It's so ludicrously fast that it'll handle whatever you throw at it. Multiple PCI video cards? No problem. TB is faster than the internal bus on either end of the cable. USB 3? No problem - would you like a half-dozen independent USB 3 busses running simultaneously, sir? Just buy the dongle.

Same story for ethernet, USB 2, Firewire, and whatever else you want. As long as someone's willing to produce a dongle and drivers, you're in business over Thunderbolt. Appletalk over Cat 3 phone cable? No problem! Just buy the dongle to plug your old LocalTalk dongle into.

TB really is, in the end, 'one port to rule them all'... as long as you're willing to buy the dongle. Oh, and some of the dongles are going to be expensive! and need external power.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.