There are usb driven displays. I wouldn't assume you will need a video cable in the latter case
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.
Does USB 3.0 mean Thunderbolt is dead?
- Thread starter Alameda
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are usb driven displays. I wouldn't assume you will need a video cable in the latter case
No, not really. USB isn't a video interface. There's a solution that compresses and de-compresses the video to end video over USB, but you have compromised performance and compatibility with an approach like that.
This all reminds me of USB vs Firewire all over again.
USB 1/2 inferior to Firewire 400
USB 2 takes off and establishes itself as the norm while Firewire 800 comes out and though FW800 has advantages, it falls to a distant second.
We know the results of all this.
USB 3 and now 3.1 will in all likelihood be the most prevalent on desktops.
2013 is proving to be an interesting year with the new TB2 coming to the public via the Mac (Mini) Pro and possibly soon to be the USB 3.1. Meanwhile, very few people have been able to really afford to take advantage of TB as it is today due to costs. It seems that USB 3 is 'sufficient' for most users.
USB 1/2 inferior to Firewire 400
USB 2 takes off and establishes itself as the norm while Firewire 800 comes out and though FW800 has advantages, it falls to a distant second.
We know the results of all this.
USB 3 and now 3.1 will in all likelihood be the most prevalent on desktops.
2013 is proving to be an interesting year with the new TB2 coming to the public via the Mac (Mini) Pro and possibly soon to be the USB 3.1. Meanwhile, very few people have been able to really afford to take advantage of TB as it is today due to costs. It seems that USB 3 is 'sufficient' for most users.
So... Looks like Thunderbolt has still gone nowhere, but I scored a Belkin Thunderbolt dock from Amazon for under $150, and I love it! USB 3 runs at 2.5 Gbs, which is WAY faster than the USB 2 ports of my MacBook Air. I really like it.
I wasn't a fan of Thunderbolt until I got the monitor. I am now. I love it. Super fast, only two connections to make when I plug in at office or home.
Until other computer makers embrace this, its going to continue to stagnate. The data throughput is great, I use it for an external drive and the performance is awesome but right now its basically an apple only technology.
Other than at work with the decision that someone made before I arrived to use Firewire for external HDDs, The only time I used firewire was for my MOTU 828MKII for recording music.
High cost is stagnating thunderbolts road to ubiquity. It's not ridiculously expensive, but we live in a world where OEMs are barely making a profit selling $300 computers. Saving pennies is a big deal for them. USB might be inferior, but it's cheaper, so it looks like it's here to stay. Intels' Brad Saunders sits on the Board of Directors for the USB Implementers Forum so we can only assume they are hedging their bets.
More Thunderbolt devices
http://www.computer-answers.ca/2014...state-of-thunderbolt-drives-feb-2014-edition/
We are seeing Thunderbolt being taken up by the video production segment in a big way, and in lesser numbers, by audio production.
It is a seriously fast interface, and it is bidirectional. In real terms, when you have a RAID subsystem to take advantage of the bandwidth, Thunderbolt 1 (10 Gbps) is two to four times faster than USB 3.0. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/thunderbolt_vs_usb_300
Thunderbolt 2 is potentially about twice as fast again by combining lanes http://www.macworld.com/article/2083257/what-you-need-to-know-about-thunderbolt-2.html
If you benchmark with a single hard drive, you will measure (surprise, surprise) the performance limitation of the single drive, not the interface.
http://www.computer-answers.ca/2014...state-of-thunderbolt-drives-feb-2014-edition/
We are seeing Thunderbolt being taken up by the video production segment in a big way, and in lesser numbers, by audio production.
It is a seriously fast interface, and it is bidirectional. In real terms, when you have a RAID subsystem to take advantage of the bandwidth, Thunderbolt 1 (10 Gbps) is two to four times faster than USB 3.0. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/thunderbolt_vs_usb_300
Thunderbolt 2 is potentially about twice as fast again by combining lanes http://www.macworld.com/article/2083257/what-you-need-to-know-about-thunderbolt-2.html
If you benchmark with a single hard drive, you will measure (surprise, surprise) the performance limitation of the single drive, not the interface.
I'd need a computer capable of Thunderbolt first. And even then, what would be the point? USB is cheaper and more universal. Thunderbolt is just plain pointless in my opinion, just like FireWire was.
Unfortunately, I just don't need it.
Last edited:
Economies of scale, if more computer makers use it, then more peripheral makers would embrace it, thus lowering the cost for the consumer.
And more computers would have it if there was a reason for more computers to have it. Kind of a chicken and egg scenario, really.
Nonsense. It's obviously useful. With today's ultra-thin laptops, a single versatile high speed docking connector makes plenty of sense. Intel has released a new USB spec that includes higher speed and video capability. So USB 3.0 won't kill Thunderbolt, but the next USB most likely will.
I use Thunderbolt almost every day here at work to transfer client's information to new deployments. I place the old computer in target disk mode, then connect to the hard drive on the new one and transfer the User's folder.
It's amazing quick, great feature that is enabled by the fact that TB supports the FireWire protocol amongst many others.
It's amazing quick, great feature that is enabled by the fact that TB supports the FireWire protocol amongst many others.
I disagree, performance wise, its a superior interface then USB, the simple fact is that its an apple only technology at the moment and so drive makers are hesitant to scale up production given the small percentage of market share that Macs occupy.
It is better in performance.
Also, I doubt it is just the low percentage. Thunderbolt is a superior technology that has few good things to do with it. At least with USB 3, you can use almost all of the things you already have.
I don't disagree, but...
I would say that Apple should have taken steps to make it successful. For example, they could have developed IC's for docking and sold something like the Belkin box for $99 or $149, and that would have made a ton of money and the interface would have been adopted in droves. And they could have developed a Thunderbolt to SATA chip so that Thunderbolt hard disks are as cheap as USB 3.0 hard disks. And they should have developed or funded the IC's needed for cheap Thunderbolt cables.
Those moves would make Thunderbolt a success and would have made Apple products much better. The problem with Thunderbolt has been cost, and cost is a problem because inexpensive Thunderbolt IC's were never developed.