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
Thunderbolt has always been "Firewire part 2", and that's NOT a bad thing. Both are intended for niche markets that need the most possible speed with the least latency and processor overhead. It's just like Photoshop or, arguably, Macs... technically there are much cheaper options that offer like 70-80% the same features/performance/whatever, but you pay a premium for the absolute best.
Last edited:
@paulrbeers
If it can't deliver enough power, it's not going to replace magsafe. Not that USB is great in that role since it's connector is pretty bad, but at least it can give enough juice.
Yes, I made a mistake in calculating the bandwidth of AGP, but it shows how lacking TB is. Remember PCI-E 1.0 x16 is twice AGP x8. I don't think you can use a 4K display with anything else without using more TB controllers.
TB isn't a one cable to rule them all. That's my point. Deliver sufficient power, ethernet, video, and everything else and then you have your true one cable and one port to rule them all.
That's pedantic.
Apple's not going to sell that. You really have no clue how Thunderbolt fits in the marketplace vs. USB.
If it can't deliver enough power, it's not going to replace magsafe. Not that USB is great in that role since it's connector is pretty bad, but at least it can give enough juice.
Yes, I made a mistake in calculating the bandwidth of AGP, but it shows how lacking TB is. Remember PCI-E 1.0 x16 is twice AGP x8. I don't think you can use a 4K display with anything else without using more TB controllers.
TB isn't a one cable to rule them all. That's my point. Deliver sufficient power, ethernet, video, and everything else and then you have your true one cable and one port to rule them all.
That's pedantic.
Apple's not going to sell that. You really have no clue how Thunderbolt fits in the marketplace vs. USB.
Why yes, I know that was always the case. However, in the end, USB won due to costs. FireWire always tended to be much more expensive in comparison to USB. Not to mention, backward compatibility was always missing (new port each time).
You don't get it! I don't care if its one lane or two lanes. At this point in time, if Thunderbolt can't offer 4x the bandwidth it will fail. That is why it must move to Fiber as it was originally intended.
USB achieves high speeds on a single lane, so in other words, it is much more efficient and works well with previous generations.
Thunderbolt needs 4 lanes for 20Gb/s?! Talk about inefficiency or poor planing if they are using them all.
Professionals don't care about cost if the profession far exceeds the initial investment. Apple kept using firewire until a viable replacement (Thunderbolt) became available.
Again you're talking about CONSUMER market. USB is not geared toward the Pro market & Thunderbolt is not geared towards the consumer market.
Um...Firewire 400 devices are backward compatible with Firewire 800, just different connectors which can be solved with inexpensive adapters.
Too late, it already adds at least 4 time the bandwidth, if not more. You missed that boat a long time ago.
Not quite that efficient if it still depends on 10%-20% of the CPU to do the work. Funny as previously you were claiming USB was more efficient.
It has high speeds but not nearly as fast as Thunderbolt. Backward compatibility can also be one of its greatest downfalls, meaning it might not be compatible with future technology as Thunderbolt will.
Um...now you're talking about Thunderbolt 2.0 which uses two lanes at 20Gb/s a piece.
Last edited:
Seriously, you don't know what DisplayLink is?
Since most mac users are used to dongles, it shouldn't make a difference if there's dongle or not.
And there are many display models that are straight usb driven.
Go google it, if you are so ignorant.
(Check out eg. Lenovo ThinkVision LT1421.)
Edit: here you are:
http://www.displaylink.com/shop/monitors
Btw, DisplayLink has done something that even Apple couldn't do: connect laptop with only one cable; power (for laptop) & display data goes through one usb cable.
On the other hand there's only one model of display on the market witch uses TB...
It is pretty evident that Apple uses TB mainly to differentiate from others and others don't see enough value in TB. Like it was said, if it's double the price, it needs to have quadruple the speed. And it doesn't. And it costs more than double. Other computer makers don't first do some crazy guideline (desktop computers need to be thin & small) and then try to overcome barriers they made up by themselves. If you need bandwidth, you got pci slots. If you need external bandwidth, you get external pci. No need to mix display signals with other data, inconvenient daisy chaining etc. Not to mention several different boxes all with separate power supply...
If TB would have gotten more success, it would done some good for macs, since so few peripherals has had mac support. Too few pci or ec cards for macs are sold. With TB all mac users could have started to use external pci cards as needed. But the price drove them away. And maybe some dummy exclusiveness. And mixing dp to TB. Sony had everything right combining usb port with light port. Usb consortium messed this up. Sony should have proposed this for them before going solo. When do these people learn?
This is one of the most painful threads I've read on Macrumors in a long time. And that's saying something.
The confusion about what Thunderbolt, and USB actually are, and their differences is amazing.
The confusion about what Thunderbolt, and USB actually are, and their differences is amazing.
No, each lane is capable of 10Gbit/s. With Thunderbolt 1.0 those lanes are configured into two duplex, or pairs of dedicated input and output, lanes. Thunderbolt 2.0 adds the ability to aggregate lanes, effectively resulting in two 20Gbit/s lanes. Either way the total bandwidth is 40Gbit/s.
Last edited:
You only read some articles on here and not others don't you! Also, a simple websearch for Thunderbolt PCIe expansion systems will show a system from Sonnet that's not only Thunderbolt 2 ready, but has additional features for use with Redrocket cards (high end video).
I guess unless it's a RAID drive or something gaming related, it doesn't get your attention.
USB still has a CPU overhead that Firewire/Thunderbolt don't have, doesn't offer any features without a chipset converting to SATA/RAID etc... at the other end, effecting bandwidth, while Thunderbolt is effectively external PCIe. It may not offer PCIe x16 speeds for GPUs but then again, being more informed would let you know the performance hit is in the 20% range for running a GPU over Thunderbolt anyway.
Last edited:
There is so much wrong with this comment I just don't know where to begin...
I would recommend at LEAST hitting wikipedia before posting and at least understand the BASICS of what you are about to comment on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
----------
I agree. There's just not setting the ignorant straight.... Unfortunately it is threads like this that cause all the confusion. Joe Schmoe reads the wrong posts in this thread and then spews it into another thread which then John Doe picks up and spews into another thread....
I wish people would do at least a LITTLE research before posting...
Through that connector ???
With USB3 (4.5W) we would talk about 900mA (the are still useing 5V ?).
Since sending 20A through there is no option this would require seriously upping the voltage. Still doubt you'll find a sweet spot were it's neither a fire-hazzard (by high current) or could give out a serious electric shock (those contacts aren't really safe).
Unless you go for a completly different plug at which point the whole standard turns DOA...
Ass an addition it would also mean that every PSU has to have a reserve >100W just incase some user insist on charging 2 laptops by daisychaining them.....
read : braindead idea -> instant success
Only if you use the 6th? (USB A, USB B, USB Mini, USB Micro, USB Micro-B, now USB Charging) different USB plug that specifically can handle 100w AND the voltage supplied is 20v at 5A so it can ONLY be used to supply voltage to laptops and NOT to other peripherals (in fact it is specifically a different shape so that it doesn't fry 5V devices).....
So now we have a USB 3.1 Charging cable that isn't backwards compatible to with other USB devices. What is the difference between this 6th cable type and a normal charging cable?!?!
You answered it yourself. If the cable doesn't fit the lower power devices, there's no possibility of inadvertently frying a low power device.
It's called engineering ;-)
It's a pro level technology. Thunderbolt was never, and will never be a mainstream port. FireWire died because USB FINALLY surpassed it in ability. But FireWire was far from insignificant. It was the de-facto standard for video and audio for a number of years. It just wasn't the de-facto standard for printers and keyboards and consumer-level digital cameras!
Just because something is meant for pro users doesn't mean it's useless. Canon and Nikon are doing quite well in their pro market and nobody is calling their flagship DSLR's insignificant, even if they do sell more of their point-and-shoot cameras to a broader audience.
As others have mentioned thunderbolt also has advantages that USB won't have. Like DisplayPort. Although it's very slowly being adopted, the idea of a versatile docking station is appealing given the better and better performance of laptops on the market. More and more Pro users are using MacBook Pro's instead of Mac Pro's. No, they aren't nearly as powerful, but the gap is much closer than it was at one time, especially for milder work. In theory, Thunderbolt gives the ability for a Pro user to attach multiple displays, a daisy chain of high capacity and high speed RAID arrays, AND their 'always connected' USB devices like Wacom tablets, scanners, et al. All with one cable. USB just lacks that capability.
Thunderbolt ALSO possesses an inherit ability to allow an external GPU but Intel has been resisting that as it wasn't the original intention. I suppose they don't like the idea of expandable notebooks since that really increases their service life and thus would drive down sales. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist and there really is a good reason for Intel to be actively resisting external GPU solutions via Thunderbolt.
I, for one, love thunderbolt for it's docking ability. I have an 'extension that runs up onto my desk that allows me to plug in my windows desktop, or my MacBook Pro to my Cinema Display. Thunderbolt would reduce the cables needed to do that AND drastically improve performance. As now, all it does is allows me to use the same USB keyboard, mouse and Wacom tablet on both machines with just one USB cable. Although any hub can do that. If I had a thunderbolt display, and my PC supported thunderbolt, I could streamline that AND improve performance. For example my second monitor (which I don't use at all when connected to the MBP) could EASILY be connected to a thunderbolt display, and then I have two displays, multiple USB devices, other potential thunderbolt devices, ethernet (YES, that's still very useful when moving large amounts of data around!), and even older FireWire devices all connected via ONE cable! That's a great solution!
So folks, just like when USB 2.0 passed up FireWire 400, this doesn't spell the end of anything. Theoretical and actual speeds are totally different. USB 2.0 is supposed to be much faster than FireWire 400 but in sustained data transfer FireWire 400 (not to mention 800) is actually faster! No, not everyone needs it, but some do, and it's silly to say a standard is 'dead' because it's relegated to a niche market!
Just because something is meant for pro users doesn't mean it's useless. Canon and Nikon are doing quite well in their pro market and nobody is calling their flagship DSLR's insignificant, even if they do sell more of their point-and-shoot cameras to a broader audience.
As others have mentioned thunderbolt also has advantages that USB won't have. Like DisplayPort. Although it's very slowly being adopted, the idea of a versatile docking station is appealing given the better and better performance of laptops on the market. More and more Pro users are using MacBook Pro's instead of Mac Pro's. No, they aren't nearly as powerful, but the gap is much closer than it was at one time, especially for milder work. In theory, Thunderbolt gives the ability for a Pro user to attach multiple displays, a daisy chain of high capacity and high speed RAID arrays, AND their 'always connected' USB devices like Wacom tablets, scanners, et al. All with one cable. USB just lacks that capability.
Thunderbolt ALSO possesses an inherit ability to allow an external GPU but Intel has been resisting that as it wasn't the original intention. I suppose they don't like the idea of expandable notebooks since that really increases their service life and thus would drive down sales. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist and there really is a good reason for Intel to be actively resisting external GPU solutions via Thunderbolt.
I, for one, love thunderbolt for it's docking ability. I have an 'extension that runs up onto my desk that allows me to plug in my windows desktop, or my MacBook Pro to my Cinema Display. Thunderbolt would reduce the cables needed to do that AND drastically improve performance. As now, all it does is allows me to use the same USB keyboard, mouse and Wacom tablet on both machines with just one USB cable. Although any hub can do that. If I had a thunderbolt display, and my PC supported thunderbolt, I could streamline that AND improve performance. For example my second monitor (which I don't use at all when connected to the MBP) could EASILY be connected to a thunderbolt display, and then I have two displays, multiple USB devices, other potential thunderbolt devices, ethernet (YES, that's still very useful when moving large amounts of data around!), and even older FireWire devices all connected via ONE cable! That's a great solution!
So folks, just like when USB 2.0 passed up FireWire 400, this doesn't spell the end of anything. Theoretical and actual speeds are totally different. USB 2.0 is supposed to be much faster than FireWire 400 but in sustained data transfer FireWire 400 (not to mention 800) is actually faster! No, not everyone needs it, but some do, and it's silly to say a standard is 'dead' because it's relegated to a niche market!
It may not kill it in the strictest sense, but it does place Thunderbolt as the latest in a very unenviable pattern, namely port obsolescence. All of the many obscenely-overpriced devices bought by pros will work fine until Apple abandons the standard as it did with FireWire. Not to worry, though! When they arbitrarily choose another intentionally-hobbled version of yet another proprietary standard, you'll still be able to use your JBODs, RAIDs and sundry enclosures cluttering your desk, because they'll offer a conversion dongle for the bargain price of $50 a pop.
God, I seriously hope Dock Port goes open standard and gains traction, if only to hit Intel where it hurts.
I can imagine that the Thunderbolt interface can last for quite a while if they stick to the final goal of 100 Gbps. Bumping the speed up 10 Gbps with each revision, they could go all the way up to Thunderbolt 10. (On another note, I would really like Thunderbolt 10 to be called "Light Peak" )
)
Lol, this is like the first time in history that devices have been anywhere near the mediums to which they connect (think SCSI, ATA, SATA, FW400 and beyond).
So USB 3.1 speeds will be undoable without SATA Express, except on Mac Pro, Air etc, but I assume you can raid together SSDs in the meantime to get 1 GBps. SATA Express should arrive on Macs in 2-3 years and USB 3.1 would probably take at least that time too.
Last edited:
You missed my point though. So we have this 6th connector that is only usable for charging... Why? We already have charging only cables! Since the first laptops they have had a charging only cable right?!? So basically they added a 6th "USB" cable that simply fills a niche that already existed. If they had utilized existing cables and used singaling or something then that would be a feat, but this is a product that simply does what was already invented! I can't figure out what the advantage is?!?
Paul:
So you haven't figured out that with USB 3.1 you only need the laptop charger brick for actual traveling yet?
At home and at work you'd use a powered USB 3.1 hub with a much cheaper USB cable. Plus, this crap with finding the right charging brick for your laptop goes away.
Talk to me again about this bad idea.
So you haven't figured out that with USB 3.1 you only need the laptop charger brick for actual traveling yet?
At home and at work you'd use a powered USB 3.1 hub with a much cheaper USB cable. Plus, this crap with finding the right charging brick for your laptop goes away.
Talk to me again about this bad idea.
Obsolescence is the very nature of technology itself. It should be a no brainer that older tech will be replaced with newer, faster tech.
So I still need my laptop charging brick? So explain why that's any better? And a hub that supplies 100 watts of power will be expensive and it won't be a "cheap" USB cable to supply 100 watts of power. It will have to be a fairly thick cable special cable. Again hardly any better. I'm still not seeing an advantage
Some Sr. VP at Apple needs to be fired at how they have deployed ThunderBlunder. RIP. Great tech, lame support.
Let's try this one more time.
You need charging at 3 locations, yes? Office, Home and Traveling. Office and Home use USB hub with USB charging cable. Traveling, use brick with USB charging cable.
Costs of everything goes down with the numbers of cables being produced, so it will be fairly inexpensive.
100w is not that much power and the output of 20v means 5a (again not much current) is all that's needed.