Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables

[manu chao]

Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s and uses USB-C cables. What is the purpose of making an inferior standard with the same equipment?

Isn't TB3 40 Gbit/s only with active cables and only 20 Gbit/s with passible, USB-C cables?

 

[chucker23n1]

Thought it was 8x?

Yes, the factor between bit and byte is typically eight. But since, as I stated in my post, the bit rate is stated as gross, but the byte rate as net, you end up with roughly ten.

Computers are binary and 10 doesn't divide by 2.

That's irrelevant.
[doublepost=1501008090][/doublepost]

I find it stupid that a brand new 2017 MacBook Pro and iPhone 7 can't even be connected out of the box...

On the one hand, it's a strange accident of history. On the other hand, who other than developers (who can surely afford a $10 cable) needs to regularly do this?

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Who cares? MacRumors members would much rather have their slow old cables than have to upgrade to new faster cables that use the same cable for all peripheral.

 

[coolfactor]

I think there's a typo in here, because as written 3.2 is only 20% as fast as 3.1. Either 3.2 should be 20 Gb/sec or 3.1 should be 1 Gb/s.

Edit: Okay, someone else pointed out that I misread and the article is correct - they gave the 3.2 speed in GB vs the 3.1 speed if Gb. Capitalization of the B matters - changes whether you're talking about bits or Bytes (8 bits).

This highlights the importance of typing and reading accurately.... "Gb" vs "GB" - two different units.

 

[redheeler]

Please feel free to correct me, albeit politely, if I am wrong to understand that while the cables per se support the new 3.2 standard on their own, we would possibly not have this 3.2 standard on 2016 and 2017 MBPs and only the new MBPs might come with 3.2 support? The cables support the standard, but does the chipset in the current MBPs support it?

Like I said, please correct me/ enlighten me if I am wrong.

Correct. The USB controller would have to support it.

The iPhone 8 will be able to. This is a very small problem. Lightning was developed before USB-C and was a good standard at the time in terms of abilities. It's just unfortunate the timing of the introduction of the USB-C standard.

No one is calling Apple stupid for adopting USB-C. Rather, they are calling Apple stupid for dropping USB-A on the new MacBook Pro. I get why that is the case as USB-A is at least three years away from leaving widespread use; in fact I still don't own a single device with USB-C ports yet, so everything I buy will be USB-A.

Even Apple knows this, which is why they include a USB-A to Lightning cable with the iPhone 7 instead of USB-C to Lightning which the majority of iPhone customers won't be able to use with anything other than the included charger. I'm sure the situation on the iPhone 8 will be similar.

 

[imran5720]

Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s and uses USB-C cables. What is the purpose of making an inferior standard with the same equipment?

Because not all devices will be able to support thunderbolt

 

[NT1440]

thunderbolt has hefty license fees, and it requires its own chip to work.
meanwhile, the U in the USB stands for UNIVERSAL.

While you're right about the controller, Intel is going thunderbolt across the board in it's chips AND removing all royalties in 2018.....

 

[macintoshmac]

I find it stupid that a brand new 2017 MacBook Pro and iPhone 7 can't even be connected out of the box...

Usually it's only when they'd be in the box that we couldn't connect them, but Apple under Cook has ensured we can't connect them out of the box as well without buying another cable.

 

[Avieshek]

While you're right about the controller, Intel is going thunderbolt across the board in it's chips AND removing all royalties in 2018.....

This is good news. Wonder the iDevices would support it.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Thought it was 8x? Computers are binary and 10 doesn't divide by 2.

8 bits in a byte actually has nothing to do with binary. It could have been any number. But a number was chosen and it's 8.

 

[chucker23n1]

This is good news. Wonder the iDevices would support it.

They already have Lightning.

 

[Avieshek]

They already have Lightning.

They have, but the iPads run on USB 2.0 speeds and so does the iPhone.

 

[chucker23n1]

They have, but the iPads run on USB 2.0 speeds and so thus the iPhone.

The iPad Pros do USB 3.0 speeds. What Thunderbolt functionality in particular would you realistically see on an iPad? It's not like there will be an iPad with an eGPU.

 

[CWallace]

Please feel free to correct me, albeit politely, if I am wrong to understand that while the cables per se support the new 3.2 standard on their own, we would possibly not have this 3.2 standard on 2016 and 2017 MBPs and only the new MBPs might come with 3.2 support? The cables support the standard, but does the chipset in the current MBPs support it?

That is what it sounds like - the cables are forward-compatible with multi-lane transfers, but we'll need new USB controller chips (either standalone or integrated into future Intel chipsets) that support it, as well.

 

[X--X]

I want FireWire back! ;-)

 

[twinlight]

Yes, the factor between bit and byte is typically eight. But since, as I stated in my post, the bit rate is stated as gross, but the byte rate as net, you end up with roughly ten.

Don't know what this net/gross talk is about but USB uses 8b/10b encoding so there is some overhead on the data packets.

 

[PaulRustad007]

Oh, that's weird. But isn't 10Gb doubled and converted to GB closer to 2.4GB, not just 2GB?

according to google 10Gb (gigabits) = 1.25 GB (gigabytes)

 

[zapm]

Will this cable make Jay-Z appear in my Apple music Library quicker?

They're actually doing you a favor.

 

[solipsism]

Implementing Thunderbolt on a device is costlier, more complex, and unnecessary in many cases.

And requires the host device to have a certain type of Intel chip, whereas USB can be licensed by any vendor. Why the OP would just assume that an Android phone running on a Qualcomm ARM chip would instead use Thunderbolt 3 is just ridiculous.

 

[chucker23n1]

Don't know what this net/gross talk is about but USB uses 8b/10b encoding so there is some overhead on the data packets.

My point exactly. The gigabit rates quoted are including overhead (i.e., gross), and the gigabyte rates are without it (net).

 

[d5aqoëp]

Forget all this fancy talk and number mumbo jumbo. Just tell me when transferring 10GB of pics/songs/etc from my iMac to my iPhone won't take 4 hours to sync.

Sorry dude. All the Apple apologists on Macrumors will tell you to either wifi sync or sync using your mind control. For them syncing through cable is redundant even if it can sync 100 times faster that way.

In fact you should feel ashamed of yourself for bringing up the topic of USB 2 transfer speeds. It’s forbidden and Apple is 100% right to use USB 2. Tim Cook wanted to use USB 0 but someone quietly reminded him that USB 0 standard does not exist.
/s

 

[Marx55]

Bring back USB power-on feature from USB keyboard or USB device. As possible with former Apple ADB and USB keyboards, as well as USB dongles with USB 1.0 specifications, like the i-Cue.

That is extremely useful and convenient to turn on the computer when it is below or behind the table/desk or far away from reach in the floor, etc. It is even a health issue (backbone health!).

 

[SilianRail]

And requires the host device to have a certain type of Intel chip, whereas USB can be licensed by any vendor. Why the OP would just assume that an Android phone running on a Qualcomm ARM chip would instead use Thunderbolt 3 is just ridiculous.

Thunderbolt recently became an open standard.

 

[DeftwillP]

Isn't the read/write on current iphone NAND memory the chokehold already anyways? (for those talking about transfer speed of ios devices)

 

[chucker23n1]

Sorry dude. All the Apple apologists on Macrumors will tell you to either wifi sync or sync using your mind control. For them syncing through cable is redundant even if it can sync 100 times faster that way.

In fact you should feel ashamed of yourself for bringing up the topic of USB-2 transfer speeds. It’s forbidden and Apple is 100% right to use USB-2.
/s

No need for excessive sarcasm. Given that recent iPhones have had dramatically faster flash speeds (the 6s moved to NVMe), we'll probably eventually see USB 3.0 speeds over Lightning. It apparently not being a high priority for Apple doesn't mean it will never happen. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see it this fall.