Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So far we only have seen Lightning (or iOS devices) do USB 3 speeds if the iOS device is the (USB) host (eg, using a card reader as a USB client), but not if the iOS device is the client (as it would be when synching to a computer). There is no cable with Lightning at one end and a (male) USB 3 A connector at the other, there is however, a USB-C to Lightning cable. Has anybody tried using that cable to sync one of the iOS devices that support USB 3 to some degree (iPhone 7, 10.5 & 12.9" iPad Pro) with USB-C computer (eg, MB or 2016 or later MBP)?

Yes I use the C to lightning cable on MBP, but never measured speed.
 
ASCII only uses 7 bits, though... the last bit is just skipped unless you're using Extended ASCII.
That's true. I can't remember whether the old 8-in-12 on the CDC/Cyber included the extended set. In any case, when the non-power-of-2 machines were engineered a main concern was to maximize the amount of data processed per CPU cycle, so large word sizes were designed into the hardware (like the CDC 6400/6600 and Cyber 70). Seymour Cray was the chief engineer behind the CDC 6000 series, prior to starting up his own Cray Computer Corp. When he designed the 60-bit machine, it was the largest word-size practically achievable for hardware at the time and its main market was in scientific/mathematical applications where large precision built into the hardware was of prime consideration. Most programming back then in academic/research operations was numerically done in languages such as Fortran and/or Assembly, which required no lower case differentiation in coding. Upper and lower case became more important with the advent of the Unix OS and the C programming language, both of which flourished under base-2 byte/word sizes. The original Unix was developed on the 18-bit PDP-7, but was written in assembly (1969). Unix (and C) began to really flourish with the 16-bit PDP-11 and later the 32-bit VAX (and the 64-bit Cray supercomputer machines). By that time, Unix itself could be written in C. I know that this is rather off-topic, but to get back to the "why" of power-of-2 designs, it became more efficient in terms of data transfer, especially character encoded data transfer, to design bytes/words which at most only "wasted" 1 bit per byte per cpu cycle. Hardware implementation by the late 70s, and development of LSI/VLSI IC technology, became less concerned with maximum use of bits/word as an economic issue. It was becoming more economical to somewhat standardize compilers and software across hardware platforms, and 8-bit byte architectures lended to that.

Sorry to divert from the original topic of throughput on USB port technology. Interesting that the next hardware leap seems to be aiming at AI being incorporated into the next generation of processor chips (Google and Microsoft are getting into the R&D on that, possibly Apple as well). My guess is that massively parallel processing for AI in the future will also require a quantum leap in speeds for cables and ports.
 
Last edited:
So, a 2-port PCIe 2.0 card will have to be x8.

I have now an ASRock 2-port USB 3.1 PCIe 2.0 x4 card in a PC, as a 2-port PCIe 3.0 x2 card would be bottlenecked by the 2.0 bus.

I don't think I will be retiring it any time soon, but it will replace a sucky Bay Trail AIO. So I might upgrade it to 3.2 with an x8 card eventually.
 
2018 is said to be a full refresh. Using Non-Retina 13" MacBook Pro from 2012 as well. Looking forward to 2018.
But there's a rumour of OLED screen when in 2019. If the iPhone this fall comes with it than can't deny that holding a likely probability and would rather be the actual awesome upgrade for a MacBook.

After late 2016 2018 just seems too early.
2019 maybe 2020 is more realistic.
 
As many others have said, Lightning can do 3.


Thunderbolt 3 cable is thicker, heavier, and of course much more expensive. I've never tried using mine off monitor but I imagine it could also do everything a $5 cable could except be less portable.

Anyone is free to only buy TB3 cables so there is no bandwidth limitation. I've not tried using my MBP C cable for data transfers, so only know the TB3 one supports higher than 2 speeds for sure, that does seem surprising as its a higher quality feeling gauge cable than the cheapest ones, oh well. But this is only a limitation of economy, not technical.

I couldn't find the matrix I was looking for last night, but it has to do with active vs passive TB3 cables and the alternate mode partner specs. Like I said, no one cable covers every use case.
 
I couldn't find the matrix I was looking for last night, but it has to do with active vs passive TB3 cables and the alternate mode partner specs. Like I said, no one cable covers every use case.

Ok, well looking any it another way. In the past would you have used your power cable for your display cable, or would you have used a data cable for video? I'm not seeing a huge problem in having cheaper cables for power and slower data, and more expensive ones for high bandwidth. Or maybe I'm not getting the problem you're having, can you describe how its causing you issues?

You don't need the full spec TB3 100w/40gb for a MBP unless you need it, and if you need it well... you need to buy it or it comes with the device you need it for. Where is the confusion?
 
By all means, email Tim and tell him to switch to Lightning to USB-C (or just USB-C) for the iPhone 8. That way the majority with older Macs and other PCs can start complaining that they have to buy USB-A dongles.
/s

If you can’t afford a $10 cable, you have bigger problems than this.
Given that I'm spending $3000 on a Laptop and $700 on a. phone, I think a $10 cable should be thrown in, call me crazy.
 
Given that I'm spending $3000 on a Laptop and $700 on a. phone, I think a $10 cable should be thrown in, call me crazy.

Why would they assume you own an iPhone or the other way round? If you've paid that much then it isn't worth your time stressing over the minor point IMO.

You can even get adapters for a few bucks, don't need the cable.
 
So, a 2-port PCIe 2.0 card will have to be x8.

I have now an ASRock 2-port USB 3.1 PCIe 2.0 x4 card in a PC, as a 2-port PCIe 3.0 x2 card would be bottlenecked by the 2.0 bus.

I don't think I will be retiring it any time soon, but it will replace a sucky Bay Trail AIO. So I might upgrade it to 3.2 with an x8 card eventually.
This might be a sneaky product. It is not clear if it operates at x4 with 1.0 and 2.0, or always at x2.
 
Ok, well looking any it another way. In the past would you have used your power cable for your display cable, or would you have used a data cable for video? I'm not seeing a huge problem in having cheaper cables for power and slower data, and more expensive ones for high bandwidth. Or maybe I'm not getting the problem you're having, can you describe how its causing you issues?

You don't need the full spec TB3 100w/40gb for a MBP unless you need it, and if you need it well... you need to buy it or it comes with the device you need it for. Where is the confusion?
It isn't an issue for me right this second. The issue in general is that 4 different cables exist that all look identical from the outside, all have the same connector en either end, that may or may not work depending on what you're using it for.

It was bad enough having mini-DisplayPort cables that look like TB2 cables, but at least there you could buy a TB2 cable that would always work as a Mini-DP cable too. With USB-C cables it isn't like that. You can't buy one TB3 cable that will function in every use case.
 
It isn't an issue for me right this second. The issue in general is that 4 different cables exist that all look identical from the outside, all have the same connector en either end, that may or may not work depending on what you're using it for.

It was bad enough having mini-DisplayPort cables that look like TB2 cables, but at least there you could buy a TB2 cable that would always work as a Mini-DP cable too. With USB-C cables it isn't like that. You can't buy one TB3 cable that will function in every use case.

Well actually you can. I think you might be referring to what happens to USB bandwidth when a cable length exceeds 2m and you need an active cable. But why does this universal cable also have to be above 2m? And why can't you have a long cable for the special use case, and then have a shorter cable which can do *absolutely everything*? I really think we're looking for a problem here, a consumer can look up the specs of the cable before they buy it and if they're borrowing a thin cable off someone then its very likely to not be a fully capable cable.

It's sort of funny that in offering all this flexibility the type C port is gathering criticism precisely because it can be used for everything!

My monitor comes with a 1.8m cable that gives up to 85w power, 5k or dual 4k and USB 3.1 speeds as well. But it never leaves the monitor as its the monitor cable, IRL people don't want to use 1 cable for literally everything do they? It'd wear out fast I imagine.
Just because Type C can use one cable doesn't mean we need to reduce it to being *only* able to use one cable. But if you wanted to, you can.
 
Last edited:
Money.
Intel invested LOTS of money to develop TB. Now they need to get that money back because they are a for-profit company not a tech charity.
Let's say there are two options:
1. Give away TB for free so everyone can have a better life. But at the same time. Intel loses millions, and has to compete with all other hardware vendors in selling their in-house invented hardware.
2. Collect royalties for every piece of TB hardware sold. People who really need TB can still have it, for a price. Intel is confident that TB is the most advanced technology and people will demand it. The more popular it gets, the more Intel profits. and they are not wrong, there are plenty of people who will pay the high fees to get TB.

I know but there is a price/demand graph. If you license at $1000 , maybe only 10 will buy it making the profit $10k. If you license at $10 , maybe 10 million people will buy it equaling $100m profit.

There numbers are made up but you get the idea.
 
It still does transfer at USB 2.0 speeds. Doesn't matter, doesn't change the fact.

2018 is said to be a full refresh. Using Non-Retina 13" MacBook Pro from 2012 as well. Looking forward to 2018.
But there's a rumour of OLED screen when in 2019. If the iPhone this fall comes with it than can't deny that holding a likely probability and would rather be the actual awesome upgrade for a MacBook.

As much as I'd love OLED, I don't see it happening by 2019. OLED TV's are still in the $3000 range today, and 2019 is only 1.5 years out. It's one of those technologies that was introduced like a decade ago and is still crazy expensive today.
 
Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s and uses USB-C cables. What is the purpose of making an inferior standard with the same equipment?

Physical wires are seldom a limiting factor at all - copper can easily handle 25 gigabits/sec/lane, and optical can handle over 100. It's the protocol that changes. For example, USB 2.0 cables could physically run as fast as USB 3.0, but USB 3.0 uses a different protocol - a USB 3.0 cable has 5 wires for USB 3 signaling and 4 legacy wires for the old USB 2.0 signaling. But in theory, you could make a superspeed USB 2.0 controller as well.

In general, these speed bumps have to be reflected in *all* the components and ICs across the system. Apple gets 40 gigabits/sec across USB 3.1 cables because they have TB3 controllers and other companies don't.

It's really the controllers that define the speed (and protocol). And it takes time for manufacturers to up the performance of all their components. I *do* wish they kept the protocols the same and just boosted the clock rate - I think the closest in this respect is the Thunderbolt protocol. TB1 and TB2 used the same wires, TB3 could have but used the USB-C form factor.
 
Well actually you can. I think you might be referring to what happens to USB bandwidth when a cable length exceeds 2m and you need an active cable. But why does this universal cable also have to be above 2m? And why can't you have a long cable for the special use case, and then have a shorter cable which can do *absolutely everything*? I really think we're looking for a problem here, a consumer can look up the specs of the cable before they buy it and if they're borrowing a thin cable off someone then its very likely to not be a fully capable cable.

It's sort of funny that in offering all this flexibility the type C port is gathering criticism precisely because it can be used for everything!

My monitor comes with a 1.8m cable that gives up to 85w power, 5k or dual 4k and USB 3.1 speeds as well. But it never leaves the monitor as its the monitor cable, IRL people don't want to use 1 cable for literally everything do they? It'd wear out fast I imagine.
Just because Type C can use one cable doesn't mean we need to reduce it to being *only* able to use one cable. But if you wanted to, you can.

I never said I only want to buy 1 cable and try to use that 1 single cable everywhere. That's a strawman argument. The point is that people can have one cable or a 10 pack of cables that fit but doesn't work depending on what they're trying to do.

They killed the adage of "if it fits it works" by allowing a combination of different standards and protocols all to use the same connector along with a myriad of different cables all with the same connector. You're trying to apologize for it by acting like it's a "feature" of USB-C that there isn't just one cable to cover all of it. Yay, instead of carrying around 5 cables with different ends, now with USB-C I get to carry 5 different cables that all look the same but don't cover identical use cases!!!! Woohoo this is what we all dreamed of, having to label our cables to keep track of what they do!!!!!

I don't understand why you keep trying to insist that one cable can do absolutely everything. It simply isn't true. If you have a laptop with a DisplayPort output and a monitor that uses DisplayPort you cannot use an active TB3 cable. An active TB3 cable will only work with DisplayPort over Thunderbolt 3. Good luck getting consumers to figure that out. Whatever they just bought is getting returned because it appears to be broken.

Then there is the ****-show of compatibility with various alternate modes:

USB-C Alternate Mode video compatibility vs Thunderbolt 3:
Thunderbolt 3 supports HDMI 2.0
USB 3.1 only supports HDMI 1.4b

DisplayPort:
USB 3.1 supports DP 1.3
Thunderbolt 3 only supports DP version 1.2

I didn't even touch on power delivery either. Does it carry 60W or 100W, or in the case of optical TB3 cables, no power at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilianRail
People will still call Apple stupid for making the change to USB-C...

Yeah, like those new iPhones with USB-C.... :rolleyes:
[doublepost=1501132569][/doublepost]
Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s and uses USB-C cables. What is the purpose of making an inferior standard with the same equipment?

The fact you think it's the same equipment says all I need to know about your knowledge on the subject (or the lack thereof).... :rolleyes:

Just because Intel offers a combined controller in no way makes USB the "same" as Thunderbolt. Most computers will not offer Thunderbolt PERIOD (and thus the reason for speeding up USB). Thunderbolt devices have thus far cost 2-3x as much as their USB counterparts (even when they don't need the extra speed) and thus it's stupid to buy a Thunderbolt device in situations where USB offers the same performance (unless you enjoy just tossing money in the toilet). Thunderbolt is daisy-chain driven (leads to a dead end if a device doesn't offer pass-through) while USB operation can make use of cheap hubs offering loads of extra ports (you know because a computer mouse doesn't actually need 40Gb/sec).

Do you see what the point is of the "inferior" standard yet or should I continue?
[doublepost=1501132951][/doublepost]
Meanwhile iPad Pro transfers at USB 2 speed to/from computers

It goes well with their iPhones using the "awesome" Lightning standard instead of the world standard of USB-C at USB 3.1 (and soon now 3.2) speeds...all just to force you to buy Apple brand cables instead of cheap 3rd party equipment Apple has no control over....
 
Last edited:
I never said I only want to buy 1 cable and try to use that 1 single cable everywhere. That's a strawman argument. The point is that people can have one cable or a 10 pack of cables that fit but doesn't work depending on what they're trying to do.

They killed the adage of "if it fits it works" by allowing a combination of different standards and protocols all to use the same connector along with a myriad of different cables all with the same connector. You're trying to apologize for it by acting like it's a "feature" of USB-C that there isn't just one cable to cover all of it. Yay, instead of carrying around 5 cables with different ends, now with USB-C I get to carry 5 different cables that all look the same but don't cover identical use cases!!!! Woohoo this is what we all dreamed of, having to label our cables to keep track of what they do!!!!!

I don't understand why you keep trying to insist that one cable can do absolutely everything. It simply isn't true. If you have a laptop with a DisplayPort output and a monitor that uses DisplayPort you cannot use an active TB3 cable. An active TB3 cable will only work with DisplayPort over Thunderbolt 3. Good luck getting consumers to figure that out. Whatever they just bought is getting returned because it appears to be broken.

Then there is the ****-show of compatibility with various alternate modes:

USB-C Alternate Mode video compatibility vs Thunderbolt 3:
Thunderbolt 3 supports HDMI 2.0
USB 3.1 only supports HDMI 1.4b

DisplayPort:
USB 3.1 supports DP 1.3
Thunderbolt 3 only supports DP version 1.2

I didn't even touch on power delivery either. Does it carry 60W or 100W, or in the case of optical TB3 cables, no power at all?

So don’t use an active cable? There’s no reason to get one unless you need a longer run. That seems to be the main problem you’re describing, which is all theoretical right now unless someone here has an example of how this trips people up. If you need an active cable you then you’ll have to accept a drop on protocol bandwidth. Do you have an active cable?

What is your proposed solution, all cables do the exact same thing and start at 50+? Not all hdmi/ethernet etc cables are the same bandwidth either, so the buyer has to have some knowledge of the right cable for the right application.

And I don’t insist one cable can do everything theoretically, it can do just about everything for a person in real life, like how 99% of people including myself actually use devices. If you need to have a 3m active cable that is also your charging cable, then yeah you now need two cables. The only issue I take with your argument is that this is a problem, I fully accept that long runs introduce limitations and now the buyer has to choose their application more carefully.
 
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.

Why do you need to? I haven’t needed to connect an iPhone to a Mac through a wire in years. iCloud + Apple Music and there’s literally no need. If you have to transfer non-Apple content, AirDrop it or put it in iCloud drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macintoshmac
Why do you need to? I haven’t needed to connect an iPhone to a Mac through a wire in years. iCloud + Apple Music and there’s literally no need. If you have to transfer non-Apple content, AirDrop it or put it in iCloud drive.

It seems then that you obviously haven't accumulated 16-years-worth of family photos, videos, music, and documents.

The current Apple ecosystem is tailored towards either the young, the single-user, or a combo of both.

Hence the small storage space built into recent Apple devices and the Cloud, and the nice upcharge for the bump-up (at point-of-sale, since you cannot increase the storage anymore either).

This explains why my Apple purchases stopped 5 years ago (although I just bought a 10.5 iPad Pro and Pencil for my daughter, but she's a creative and BEGGED for it after getting proficient on both paper and Wacom devices).
 
  • Like
Reactions: macintoshmac
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.