This whole saga is USB vs FireWire all over again, and we know how that turned out. Unless Thunderbolt goes full Fiber (like it was originally intended as when it was introduced as LightPeak), USB will win due to simpler costs.
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.
USB Finalizes 10Gbps SuperSpeed+ Standard as USB 3.1
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Firstly, i never get the 100% backwards compatible line. Since my rMBP I've had audio interfaces and hard disks not work on USB 3. I still can't see my Lacie d2 in the startup manager over USB 3, only when using Thunderbolt. (anyone found this?) USB 3 is 'mostly' backwards compatible - at best.
Second, if you don't need/appreciate firewire or thunderbolt then don't worry about it. Firewire 800 is miles better than USB 2 in both sustained speed and the ability to daisy chain, thunderbolt continues this trend.
Apple get a lot of stick for leaving the pros wanting, but thunderbolt is squarely aimed at the (at least semi) professional. I don't agree with everything apple does but thunderbolt is much appreciated
I've never heard or read of anyone having trouble connecting a USB 2 device on a USB 3 port. I'm thinking that perhaps you don't have the proper computer knowledge to trouble shoot whatever problem you might be having. I also partly say that because of your mentality, convinced that your situation is a fact. The, "I never got the 100% backwards compatible line." I can't explain it, it's just doesn't come off great, as if every single other person out there is in your boat. And your bias tone. Why not just enjoy both instead of looking down on one because Apple mainly supports another.
Bias tone? Sorry if it came off like that but i intended to reply to the bias against Thunderbolt and firewire that saturates these threads. Every other answer is is slating Thunderbolt and Firewire. I simply stated, if they are not for you then use the USB that also come with your computer. I was praising apples decision to include both the more pro standard and the more commonplace standard.
As for not having sufficient knowledge? Google around for people having problems with USB2 devices of USB3 ports and come back to me. Loads.
For me and a boat load of audio editors on the Avid forum, plugging in USB2 audio hardware to an rMBP does not work without adding in a USB2 hub in the chain. Very swish.
But if you're greater knowledge could just fix that for us and explain why my new Lacie hard drive actually prevents the boot manager from loading (just a blank grey screen) when connected on USB3, i'd be grateful.
Yup. I doubt that our puny, overstressed cpus will EVER be able to cope with that mahoosive overhead.
Its not about which standard will win. Both can coexist together. Firewire is being replaced by another faster standard. USB for consumer, Thunderbolt for Professionals.
There's a big difference between how USB to HDMI (or VGA or DVI) handles video and Thunderbolt. I don't consider even USB 3.0 to Video adapters competent. Even the USB 3.0 ones are like driving a monitor with old Intel 950GPU's. Sure you can do it, but do anything beyond internet and low end video and you might as well forget about it. To be proper, it needs to be driven by the computers GPU which USB 3.0 (or 3.1 for that matter) is NOT doing. Further, you won't find any that can do above 1920x1200 because the frame buffers just can't handle it.
Again, one cable (thunderbolt) to rule them all. True GPU accelleration. Monitors up to 2560 x 1440 (for now) and 4K monitors with Thunderbolt 2. Easily expandable with PCIE enclosures. Low latency. Etc. etc. Now if you just want to hang a hard drive off your computer, then USB 3.0 is awesome.
Edit: Also do not forget, using a USB to Video cable uses your USB Data bandwidth to drive the monitor. This means you now have less bandwidth for the rest of your USB devices. For Thunderbolt, the Video is independent of the data bus thus not affecting the data bandwidth for all of your other devices.
You are blinded by Apple love if you truly believe that. Firewire was stated at one point to make it to FW 3200 revision, but it never made that cut since USB trumped it all.
This world works on what is cheapest and most efficient. And in the case of Thunderbolt vs USB, USB is winning.
Unless Thunderbolt gives 4x the bandwidth 2.0 does, it will die out eventually.
Maybe you should ask apple why they don't write good drivers?
Not enough profits to do that, eh?
Anyway, if anybody knows what usb3 hub would work best with most of current macs, I'd be happy to know. In pc-land, there's a lot less problems with usb3 interoperatibility.
I'd like to hang my drive inside my mac, but apple doesn't seem to agree with me.
By the way, is there a esata-tb-adapter yeat, that costs less than a drive and fully supports hot swapping and mac sees drives as native sata drives?
Or maybe I should wait for a few years more these to happen?
Never made any comment about variety; however, Apple sells TB displays. They do not sell USB driven ones so you are incorrect about buying them at the same place. My point is there is no where to buy a USB driven display.... thanks for helping make my point.
That ain't how
rolls, bub. Even back in the bad old days, had go against popular standards: SCSI vs Parallel (they got this right, IMO. SCSI was vastly superior), NuBus vs PCI, ADB vs Serial, DA-15 connector vs VGA connector, Apple Display Connector. The hit list goes on and on; and that's all before OS X.Apple embracing standards if they can avoid it? I wouldn't hold my breath.
People shouldn't compare unreleased usb3.1 to available thunderbolt, you should compare it to unreleased thunderbolt, which operates at 100Gbps over fibre.
TB1 is bi-directional at 10 Gbps, USB is not. TB2 is 20, bi-directional. USB has proven to be burst speeds, not sustained. much like with firewire vs usb -- usb got a fast burst then slowed down, failing to sustain it's theoretical thru puts.
----------
dies? how do you figure...we have been tech options today than ever before.
----------
hahahah....good one. lets check in after a decade.
----------
then your need is not great. if you need fast (really fast), then paying for it is fine. just like most things in life...high-end isnt for everyone, and thats ok.
----------
yes, that is your problem.
----------
...because by the time they were done w/ FW800 they knew they were working on TB as a replacement.
----------
That ain't how
Apple embracing standards if they can avoid it? I wouldn't hold my breath.
...and their solutions were often better tech, thats why they built them into their proprietary machines. PC clones dont have that luxury -- they have to use off-the-shelf tech.
USB is a port to daisy chain consumer devices, Thunderbolt extends your computer BUS so you can plug almost any kind of HBA as if the device was built-in or sitting in a slot inside you machine. Both technologies are not even on the same block. For most uses 10G is a waste of bandwidth, but even with SSD 10G is more than you need. Unless you have a RAID of SSD... but if you spend that much for IO you would want the best interconnect: TB!
Motocycles will soon replace cars because they can go just about as fast and are less expensive.
paulrbeers said:
It doesn't deliver enough power or ethernet. Not a one cable to rule them all. Yes better than USB for external GPUs, but TB doesn't give enough bandwidth for that. It doesn't even match AGP 8X so you can forget about watching 4K and using a GPU at the same time.
mdelvecchio said:
Absolutely wrong. USB is bidirectional.
USB is fast enough for 99.99% of the population. The 0.01% who do need it are using their laptops with high-speed storage, a very unusual niche. Typically they were served with workstations.
Thunderbolt is inferior now that USB can deliver up to 100 W of power.
I bet 90%+ of the Thunderbolt ports are sitting unused. It's sad you have to justify your purchase like this. I've heard Thunderbolt described as port for pros (as if people who don't use it are not pros), but a luxury?
USB 3.1 ≠ Thunderbolt 1.0 or 2.0
USB 3.1 is geared towards primarily consumers/prosumers. Professionals do have needs that USB 3.1 does NOT fill. It will be awesome for some aspects of the professional world, but overall it doesn't fit every need that Thunderbolt fills. I don't expect people who aren't in an industry that needs Thunderbolt to understand the arguments.... as is well illustrated well in this thread.
----------
Not sure where you're getting that statistic. But if you're saying that USB 3.1 is more than fast enough for the average Joe on their machine, I concur. However, let's not toss the professionals in with the consumers and assume that they need what everyone else needs, because it simply isn't true.
USB 3.1 is geared towards primarily consumers/prosumers. Professionals do have needs that USB 3.1 does NOT fill. It will be awesome for some aspects of the professional world, but overall it doesn't fit every need that Thunderbolt fills. I don't expect people who aren't in an industry that needs Thunderbolt to understand the arguments.... as is well illustrated well in this thread.
----------
Not sure where you're getting that statistic. But if you're saying that USB 3.1 is more than fast enough for the average Joe on their machine, I concur. However, let's not toss the professionals in with the consumers and assume that they need what everyone else needs, because it simply isn't true.
Other than with SCSI (which high end PCs had as well) and FW (again, which high end PCs also had), going the proprietary route was of little benefit to the end user. PCI was vastly superior to NuBus. DA-15 and VGA was a push. Both instances
finally joined the industry standard. ADB and serial, same same and both killed off by USB 1.ADC was an idea to radical for it's time and poorly executed.
IMO, Apple owed a lot of its success because its embraced of the industry standards. A lot of folks wanted to use Macs and PCs but didn't like the idea of having to buy two of everything. One for Macs, one for PCs. With
leading the USB charge, they would have to buy only USB connected device to use with both. As my buddy, Benthar Dunthat, likes to point out: more often than not, in the Me (Mac) or the Dog (PC) situation, the dog won.
Other than with SCSI (which high end PCs had as well) and FW (again, which high end PCs also had), going the proprietary route was of little benefit to the end user. PCI was vastly superior to NuBus. DA-15 and VGA was a push. Both instances
ADC was an idea to radical for it's time and poorly executed.
IMO, Apple owed a lot of its success because its embraced of the industry standards. A lot of folks wanted to use Macs and PCs but didn't like the idea of having to buy two of everything. One for Macs, one for PCs. With
Let's not forget that the original iMac saved USB 1.0 from dying. It was on the verge of choking to death.
One cable to your docking station that carries data and video. That's one cable to rule them all. With USB, you would need at least two: Video from the GPU and Data from the USB. That's the whole point of TB. It is a data and video cable, so you can plug everything in to one external box and then hook one cable to it from your computer....
Oh and 20gbps of Thunderbolt 2 is faster than AGP 8x. 2560MBps (TB2) vs 2133MBps (AGP 3.5 8X)
No... Thunderbolt 2.0 is not faster than AGP 3.5 8X
Thunderbolt 2.0 is 20 megaBITS per second... that's 480 megaBYTES per second
AGP 3.5 8X is 2133 megaBYTES per second.... more than 4x the speed of Thunderbolt 2.0
EDIT:
Whoops!... I was calculating Megabits not Gigabits....
I was thinking of PCIe which is closer to 8000MBps... which Thunderbolt 2.0 is only 25% the speed.
Last edited:
Pfft...even during the initial start of USB 2.0 and Firewire...Firewire was a better standard for things like video production. The raw speed of Firewire was beating out USB 2.0. Since USB is still dependant on the CPU.
http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/firewire-vs-usb-which-is-faster/
Duh, it already does.
Thunderbolt is 4 lane with higher bandwidth. USB is still single lane which is good for the average user.
Sorry but USB can't be all things for every application. Thunderbolt is the future for the professional world.
Last edited:
where did you come up with that, esp the ethernet comment? of course thunderbolt delivers ethernet...and firewire, and usb, and shall i go on?
where you got the agp comparison is beyond me as well. thunderbolt is an extension of pcie which is far greater than agp.
i know this is asking a lot, but before casting disparaging remarks one should probably get their info straight. for starters "bandwidth" & "throughput" are two different things.
i guess i can kinda see peoples points on the matter. i mean i would be upset too if there was some technology i relied on and apple took that away too. owww wait a minute, that's right, apple didn't take away usb at all! they even actually added 3.0 support like some people asked for. ok, so i guess i don't get what the big deal is? no one is losing their usb ports so why all the bitching? my main question though is, when will i be able to get my thunderbolt 2.0 magic mouse?!?
Lightpeak/Thunderbolt would be a far better position it is now if Intel would work at getting into more windows PC.
Last I checked they make just 1 motherboard with Thunderbolt and it on the extreme line one. I'd expect the guys behind the thing to put it in more than just 1 product, even if motherboards are not likely a huge money maker for them. Outside of Intel there are only a handful of motherboards with thunderbolt to choose from.
The biggest hurdle would to get OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo to adopt them in consumer level machines.
Finally figure out how to get back to your original vision. They demoed it using a PCI express add on card on desktop PCs. Something happened along the way that they abandoned it. It can't just be the USB group telling them no to wanting to go outside of spec. I'd love to have access to the higher speeds, but I'm not going to go out a buy a whole new computer. Neither will those who just bought one recently. They are not going to be able to win the backwards compatibility angle that USB3 and 3.1 can play. But you got to start somewhere.
More people with access to thunderbolt, there will likely be more accessories that get made, that further drives down prices, and better chance of being adopted by the masses.
Honestly if it wasn't for not wanting a lose a usb port for ethernet, I'd have zero use for the thunderbolt port on my air.
Last I checked they make just 1 motherboard with Thunderbolt and it on the extreme line one. I'd expect the guys behind the thing to put it in more than just 1 product, even if motherboards are not likely a huge money maker for them. Outside of Intel there are only a handful of motherboards with thunderbolt to choose from.
The biggest hurdle would to get OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo to adopt them in consumer level machines.
Finally figure out how to get back to your original vision. They demoed it using a PCI express add on card on desktop PCs. Something happened along the way that they abandoned it. It can't just be the USB group telling them no to wanting to go outside of spec. I'd love to have access to the higher speeds, but I'm not going to go out a buy a whole new computer. Neither will those who just bought one recently. They are not going to be able to win the backwards compatibility angle that USB3 and 3.1 can play. But you got to start somewhere.
More people with access to thunderbolt, there will likely be more accessories that get made, that further drives down prices, and better chance of being adopted by the masses.
Honestly if it wasn't for not wanting a lose a usb port for ethernet, I'd have zero use for the thunderbolt port on my air.