Does USB-C signify the end of ThunderBolt? If so, where does that leave nMP?

[linuxcooldude]

Since Apple's not endorsing use of TB to its fullest (GPU over TB), it's starting to seem a little redundant. Why have a bus that takes up PCIe lanes when nobody's using them and most of that functionality can carry over USB 3.

Apple does not advertize to the pro/prosumer crowd like they do the consumers. Likely the Pro crowd are already on top of the technology as their business is so dependant on it.

PCIe is still much different then USB3. While USB 3.1 is capable of 10Gbps I bet during real world usage you probably would not get half the bandwith it would start to choke. Where Thunderbolt could go nearly full bandwidth without much problems.

Plus USB-C I believe is limited to 5Gbps on the new MacBook anyway.

Say in 2 years every PC (and every mac) ships with USB-C port running DP 1.3, 2 lanes of PCIe, USB 3.1, etc.... Oh, and the desktops also have PCIe 4.0 16x slots. What need is there really for TB3?

TB will still be useful for things like laptops and All in ones such as the iMac. Along with the New Mac Pro obviously. They won't come with PCIe slots at all or at least easily accessible.

 

[VirtualRain]

I am amazed nobody else brought this up.

Apple had been positioning TB as be-all, end-all connector for all.

Now, they have intro'd a new "be-all, end-all" connector. And this time they mean it.If I had a giant factory getting ready to tool up new TB stuff I wouldn't be happy.

We've seen them do it with ADB, ADC, Firewire 400 & 800. One day it's "gotta have !" then next it's a footnote with an asterisk.

Any thoughts?

Yeah, it's an interesting turn of events.

Apple really pushed the development and adoption of TB for it's simplicity and integration (single cable for Display and Peripherals). Now USB-C comes along with a very similar value proposition but also integrated power.

For casual computers or devices, I can definitely see why this is appealing. If you can only have one port, this is the one to have. The only things you can't connect to wirelessly are power supplies and displays which this handles. Printers, drives, input devices, and many cameras are all available with wireless connectivity.

For pro environments, you need to connect to a power supply, a couple of external displays, and perhaps a USB audio interface, or card reader, all at the same time, so Pro level machines are going to need multiple ports... whether they are USB-C or TB doesn't really matter.

I guess whether TB sticks around or not, will depend on which standard gets DisplayPort 1.3 implemented first... USB or TB. Because once that's part of either standard, that opens up the elegant 5K display option and gives it a healthy life for awhile. So I guess it depends on how quickly USB plans to up the game on throughput for data/display... can it meet or exceed TB in the near future or will TB always have a clear leading-edge advantage? Answer those questions and you probably know whether TB is going to be around very long or not.

I've also noticed a reduction in nMP cheer-leading around here.

Yeah, I've been busy.

 

[AidenShaw]

The pro audio and video markets are embracing Thunderbolt for external device connectivity. Since TB is basically external PCIe, and TB2/TB3 carries enough PCIe bandwidth for these peripherals, it is also a good fit for PCIe-based internal peripherals that serve these markets. Whether anybody actually believes it or not, Apple is still the recommended way to go for computers to serve these industries. Put all of that together, and that means TB isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

<several bus changes pre-PCI-X omitted - and the extreme silliness with different incompatible versions of 1394 ignored>

The pro audio/video crowd embraced PCI-X - and overnight Apple screwed them by going to PCIe.

The pro audio/video crowd embraced PCIe - and then Apple decided that the much slower T-Bolt interface was the future.

The pro audio/video crowd embraced T-Bolt - and then Apple shifts to USB-C.

See the pattern? I don't think that Apple cares at all about the "pro audio/video crowd" - other than that many of them are spending company money, and will replace everything without even asking how much it will cost.

 

[RoastingPig]

i think the report coming out that apple themselves invented usb-c changes the thunderbolt is not buried on apple conversations completely.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I am amazed nobody else brought this up.

Apple had been positioning TB as be-all, end-all connector for all.

Now, they have intro'd a new "be-all, end-all" connector. And this time they mean it.If I had a giant factory getting ready to tool up new TB stuff I wouldn't be happy.

Ummm...no.

Seems to be quite an exaggeration just in an effort to prove your point. We don't see any Thunderbolt mice, keyboards or webcams.

Intel said more than once that it saw Thunderbolt as "complementary" to USB, not a replacement.. Which brings up another point, it was Intel who developed it with input from Apple.

We've seen them do it with ADB, ADC, Firewire 400 & 800. One day it's "gotta have !" then next it's a footnote with an asterisk.

Yep, its called advancement in technology.

The pro audio/video crowd embraced T-Bolt - and then Apple shifts to USB-C.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Just as intel said Thunderbolt is not meant to replace USB, I don't see USB replacing Thunderbolt.

 

[MacVidCards]

Seems to be quite an exaggeration just in an effort to prove your point. We don't see any Thunderbolt mice, keyboards or webcams.

THANK you !

Just proved my point.

If USB-C can do all of the things that TB does but at a much lower cost, such that lots of piddly things like "mice, keyboards or webcams." can be run by it while also having throughput of TB....who needs TB?

Excellent point. Thanks again.

 

[VirtualRain]

Having read through this thread more thoroughly, I'm fairly convinced that TB is going to die... It's just a matter of time.

Apples next display will not be a Thunderbolt Display. It will most certainly be a USB-C Display (Hopefully with a better name... Which begs the question, why didn't Apple brand this?). As someone else mentioned, it will enable MacBook owners to connect their computers to their display with a single cable for all the things TB currently does (Display, audio, USB, Ethernet, webcam, etc), plus power/charging. Slick.

Apple may keep TB around on the iMac and Mac Pro, especially if it's included in the upcoming Intel chipset platforms for free. But at some point, I see TB disappearing from all Apple products in favor of USB-C ports... And no one will likely miss it. TB peripherals have forever been over-priced rarities even several years after being on every Mac sold.

I own two TB drive enclosures... One for archiving photo libraries that's in a drawer most of the time, and another that's on 24/7 for my Mac Mini and they are fast and reliable, but they are just basic storage peripherals, and if they need to go on Craigslist at some point, so be it.

Unless you've invested in a data enter full of TB peripherals, I'm not sure why anyone would feel strongly about the potential demise of TB. As long as we have some fast interconnect, that's all that matters... and the more mainstream it is, the better.

 

[MacVidCards]

Having read through this thread more thoroughly, I'm fairly convinced that TB is going to die... It's just a matter of time.

Apples next display will not be a Thunderbolt Display. It will most certainly be a USB-C Display (Hopefully with a better name... Which begs the question, why didn't Apple brand this?). As someone else mentioned, it will enable MacBook owners to connect their computers to their display with a single cable for all the things TB currently does (Display, audio, USB, Ethernet, webcam, etc), plus power/charging. Slick.

Apple may keep TB around on the iMac and Mac Pro, especially if it's included in the upcoming Intel chipset platforms for free. But at some point, I see TB disappearing from all Apple products in favor of USB-C ports... And no one will likely miss it. TB peripherals have forever been over-priced rarities even several years after being on every Mac sold.

I own two TB drive enclosures... One for archiving photo libraries that's in a drawer most of the time, and another that's on 24/7 for my Mac Mini and they are fast and reliable, but they are just basic storage peripherals, and if they need to go on Craigslist at some point, so be it.

Unless you've invested in a data enter full of TB peripherals, I'm not sure why anyone would feel strongly about the potential demise of TB. As long as we have some fast interconnect, that's all that matters... and the more mainstream it is, the better.

Yep.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Apple may keep TB around on the iMac and Mac Pro, especially if it's included in the upcoming Intel chipset platforms for free.

If they have TB on iMac & Mac Pro line, I see it being available for at least the MacBook Pro line too.

TB peripherals have forever been over-priced rarities even several years after being on every Mac sold.

Its not the interface that is the cause for the higher price, but the market it serves. Hard drive raid enclosures, video capture devices

As long as there is a need for high end equipment by professionals, they will continue to sell them, regardless of the interface. They will continue to be expensive for what they do.

THANK you !

Just proved my point.

If USB-C can do all of the things that TB does but at a much lower cost, such that lots of piddly things like "mice, keyboards or webcams." can be run by it while also having throughput of TB....who needs TB?

Excellent point. Thanks again.

At this point in time USB-C can't do everything thunderbolt can do. It can't do 20 Gbps. Thunderbolt 3.0 which is slated for this year will do 40Gbps. I'm not convinced USB-C has enough bandwidth to use the full capacity compared to Thunderbolt.

 

[burnsranch]

The industry is going to have to split video driving from video processing. There is no reason for a work station to have to drive a 30+ inch 8K touch screen.

The consumer marker will be driven by USB technology, but professional market will move on the the TB world.

Thunderbolt raid drives are 3 to 5 times faster than USB raid drives. Display port is a crutch until they can develop PCI driven monitors.

The video processing is going to have to be more hardware driven and that requires relatively fixed cards.

It also looks like the structure in in place in thunderbolt for future QPI connections. I am not sure what the latency and PPS limits are, but you might see a QPI connection on thunderbolt technology.

If I look at my nMP driving four monitors off one card and the other being used for processing (just a guess), there is no reason PCIe driven monitors cannot free up the other card for processing.

If your monitor can run at 60FPS you are done. Video processing in measured BPS, not frames per second They are two different functions and will split at the professional level.

At the consumer level, USB will rule for a long time.

 

[ixxx69]

Any thoughts?

As many others have stated, TB serves a different niche. I think we all look forward to a day when one cable can serve every need (or even better, when cables aren't needed at all), but USB-C isn't it yet. However, I don't think it would be surprising to see TB disappear off the lower-end models.

But you're not really interested in that. Your question is just an excuse to slam the nMP.

I've also noticed a reduction in nMP cheer-leading around here.

There's an extremely vocal clique of cMP enthusiasts (or fanatics might be a more appropriate term) who do nothing but bash the nMP in every thread. You guys talk all day long about your past upgrades, your planned upgrades, your benchmarks, how great and expandable your cMP is and how sucky the nMP is. After a while, that's your entire perspective of the Mac Pro universe. Even your "question" is a back-handed slam of the nMP... that the lack of people "defending" it is some sort of indication that it's a sucky product.

Where are the nMP users? They're busy getting stuff done on their nMP. For the most part, they're not wasting their time with this endless BS. Users generally don't bother to discuss topics or ask questions about the nMP here because they know it's just going to turn into another thread about how great the cMP is and how much the nMP sucks. It's been over a year already... seriously - doesn't at some point it just get boring to endlessly bash the nMP?

 

[VirtualRain]

As many others have stated, TB serves a different niche. I think we all look forward to a day when one cable can serve every need (or even better, when cables aren't needed at all), but USB-C isn't it yet. However, I don't think it would be surprising to see TB disappear off the lower-end models.

But you're not really interested in that. Your question is just an excuse to slam the nMP.


There's an extremely vocal clique of cMP enthusiasts (or fanatics might be a more appropriate term) who do nothing but bash the nMP in every thread. You guys talk all day long about your past upgrades, your planned upgrades, your benchmarks, how great and expandable your cMP is and how sucky the nMP is. After a while, that's your entire perspective of the Mac Pro universe. Even your "question" is a back-handed slam of the nMP... that the lack of people "defending" it is some sort of indication that it's a sucky product.

Where are the nMP users? They're busy getting stuff done on their nMP. For the most part, they're not wasting their time with this endless BS. Users generally don't bother to discuss topics or ask questions about the nMP here because they know it's just going to turn into another thread about how great the cMP is and how much the nMP sucks. It's been over a year already... seriously - doesn't at some point it just get boring to endlessly bash the nMP?

Amen to this. It's gotten comical really. I chuckle a lot more visiting this forum than I use to.

As you suggest, I've personally not been "cheerleading" here as much as usual because I've been totally engrossed in my photography (on my nMP). And there's honestly not much for us nMP owners to discuss in this forum. My Mac Pro is ticking along just fine... It's a beautiful machine. Incredibly powerful, absolutely silent and a beauty to behold next to my equally amazing 4K displays. I have little to contribute anymore to the cMP threads so there's little here for me anymore with the exception of threads about the future of the Mac Pro which I find interesting to discuss.

Putting the OPs clear motivations in starting this thread aside, I think it's a good discussion and I've learned a lot about USB-C. I don't think any Mac Pro owner should be emotionally attached to any given interconnect. I mean if Apple abandons Thunderbolt with every Mac refresh here after... Who cares? As long as what you have is working for you, great. Thunderbolt is nice, but not without its issues (cost, adoption). If USB-C can offer the same or better value prop at a lower cost, let's switch sooner than later.

 

[Derived]

Dear god, not this crap again.

Read this, and then close the topic.

2 different ports. 2 different purposes. They coexist happily. They are for two different purposes. And USB 3.1 doesn't hold a candle to Thunderbolt, especially once TB 3 drops.

They are two entirely different ports and both those who are freaking out thinking that "TB IS DEAD!!" and those who for some reason seem eager for TB to go away are both 1000% dead wrong.

Please, can we not bring this up for the millionth, billionth time. USB =/= Thunderbolt. Not even slightly.

 

[VirtualRain]

Dear god, not this crap again.

Read this, and then close the topic.

2 different ports. 2 different purposes. They coexist happily. They are for two different purposes. And USB 3.1 doesn't hold a candle to Thunderbolt, especially once TB 3 drops.

They are two entirely different ports and both those who are freaking out thinking that "TB IS DEAD!!" and those who for some reason seem eager for TB to go away are both 1000% dead wrong.

Please, can we not bring this up for the millionth, billionth time. USB =/= Thunderbolt. Not even slightly.

They are more similar than different. I'd like to understand how you think they are so different? On a use case basis?

 

[Derived]

They are more similar than different. I'd like to understand how you think they are so different? On a use case basis?

One is an external, independently controlled bus for PCI-E, one is USB. Very, very different. Thunderbolt is more robust, much faster, doesn't tax the CPU. The are all very important for pro work. Of course, they also have some crossover, that's going to be the case. But one is a lightweight do-it-all for consumers, one is a heavy-duty do-it-all for pros. I'm not sure why they would ever get rid of Thunderbolt. There's no need to in any way. And I'm not honestly sure why so many people are so eager to ditch TB for inferior USB...the Mac Pro will have lots of both, going forward. Which is a good thing.

 

[VirtualRain]

Does USB-C signify the end of ThunderBolt? If so, where does that leave nMP?

One is an external, independently controlled bus for PCI-E, one is USB. Very, very different. Thunderbolt is more robust, much faster, doesn't tax the CPU. The are all very important for pro work. Of course, they also have some crossover, that's going to be the case. But one is a lightweight do-it-all for consumers, one is a heavy-duty do-it-all for pros. I'm not sure why they would ever get rid of Thunderbolt. There's no need to in any way. And I'm not honestly sure why so many people are so eager to ditch TB for inferior USB...the Mac Pro will have lots of both, going forward. Which is a good thing.

The underlying technologies are different, but the use cases are the same... Connecting drives, card readers, audio interfaces, etc.

And I think it's worth remembering why Apple pushed TB in the first place... Was it to offer a heavy-duty-do-it-all-for-pros? No. It was to simplify cable management for laptop docking to a display. The integration of DisplayPort into TB was exactly for this reason, not because that's what Pros wanted. In fact, the integration of DisplayPort into TB really prevented its adoption by Pros as there was no elegant way to implement it on workstations or computers with discrete GPUs. It was and is still, designed for mobile systems to connect to docking displays.

EDIT:

Before TB, I connected my laptop to my ACD with three cables... Power, USB, and MDP. After TB, I used 2 cables... Power and TB. Soon I'll be using one.

 

[linuxcooldude]

The underlying technologies are different, but the use cases are the same... Connecting drives, card readers, audio interfaces, etc.

And I think it's worth remembering why Apple pushed TB in the first place... Was it to offer a heavy-duty-do-it-all-for-pros? No. It was to simplify cable management for laptop docking to a display. The integration of DisplayPort into TB was exactly for this reason, not because that's what Pros wanted. In fact, the integration of DisplayPort into TB really prevented its adoption by Pros as there was no elegant way to implement it on workstations or computers with discrete GPUs. It was and is still, designed for mobile systems to connect to docking displays.

EDIT:

Before TB, I connected my laptop to my ACD with three cables... Power, USB, and MDP. After TB, I used 2 cables... Power and TB. Soon I'll be using one.

I don't think that displays were the main or only reason for thunderbolt. Obviously one of the first uses. It was quite expensive to develop just for use in monitor, but had potential for a wide range of applications.

 

[VirtualRain]

I don't think that displays were the main or only reason for thunderbolt. Obviously one of the first uses. It was quite expensive to develop just for use in monitor, but had potential for a wide range of applications.

It has had wide-ranging applications, but so will USB-C.

The ironic thing is that at least one of the reasons we have custom non-upgradable GPUs in the nMP is to support Thunderbolt. I don't think anyone would argue that was a great move for Pros. If USB-C with optional DP integration had come along 5 years ago, the Mac Pro evolution might have been very different.

 

[Derived]

The underlying technologies are different, but the use cases are the same... Connecting drives, card readers, audio interfaces, etc.

And I think it's worth remembering why Apple pushed TB in the first place... Was it to offer a heavy-duty-do-it-all-for-pros? No. It was to simplify cable management for laptop docking to a display. The integration of DisplayPort into TB was exactly for this reason, not because that's what Pros wanted. In fact, the integration of DisplayPort into TB really prevented its adoption by Pros as there was no elegant way to implement it on workstations or computers with discrete GPUs. It was and is still, designed for mobile systems to connect to docking displays.

EDIT:

Before TB, I connected my laptop to my ACD with three cables... Power, USB, and MDP. After TB, I used 2 cables... Power and TB. Soon I'll be using one.

This is all true, but again, Thunderbolt isn't about displays...it's about everything. Anything that would be connected via PCI-E can now be connected via Thunderbolt and without putting extra load on the CPU. It's simply a vastly superior connection to USB, that's really just a fact. It's also more expensive and lots of its features are useless to 95% of computer users. Hence why it's not appearing on purely consumer machines. It was never going to. It was always going to be a pro-level feature.

 

[VirtualRain]

This is all true, but again, Thunderbolt isn't about displays...it's about everything. Anything that would be connected via PCI-E can now be connected via Thunderbolt and without putting extra load on the CPU. It's simply a vastly superior connection to USB, that's really just a fact. It's also more expensive and lots of its features are useless to 95% of computer users. Hence why it's not appearing on purely consumer machines. It was never going to. It was always going to be a pro-level feature.

I think you're right, that TB is a superior interconnect technology. But to say it's not about displays is absolutely incorrect. If you look at the history on Wikipedia, it was all about driving displays and integrating data. It was actually based on the mini-DisplayPort connector. And again, at least one of the reasons we have custom GPUs integrated into the nMP is to support TB.

Now if you want to analyze its future objectively, you have to look at Apples motivations for bringing it to market in the first place. The first TB product was a MacBook, closely followed by a TB display. The last product to get TB in Apples line up was the Mac Pro. That says a lot.

And now we're seeing a new interconnect emerge that fits Apples requirements even better (integrated power). You may not like it, and it may be technically inferior, but the future seems fairly apparent.

I would suggest that more and more Mac Products will get USB-C in favor of TB over time, and a new USB-C 5K display is probably not too far away either.

 

[deconstruct60]

The underlying technologies are different, but the use cases are the same... Connecting drives, card readers, audio interfaces, etc.

Thunderbolt card readers? SSD that are defacto "media cartridges". ? yes... SD/CF card readers? Not really. They are the same as much as the Mac Pro is the same as the bottom 10 computers on the TOP 500 Supercomputer list.

In fact, the integration of DisplayPort into TB really prevented its adoption by Pros as there was no elegant way to implement it on workstations or computers with discrete GPUs.

Chuckle, not particularly a fact. There was a discrete GPU + Thunderbolt system introduced in the first set of systems released ( MBP 15" ). There was a solution from day one. [ The Sony dock was never officially Thunderbolt. Nor particularly indicative of what the primary design spec was geared toward ]

Plug in PCIe cards and discrete GPUs are not the same set.

It was and is still, designed for mobile systems to connect to docking displays.

For years there was only one docking display ( Apple's ). Nobody did another Thunderbolt system with an integrated display for years ( LG recently did some ultrawide monitors ). Part of the disconnect is that lots of vendors spent lots of effort trying to beat it into something that it was not.

The display capability is primarily there as a dual usage. There was DP v1.2 pass through controller before there was TB v2. Again though folks beat their heads against the wall doing other stuff.

In contrast before TB iMacs , OWC had a service to drill a hole into an iMac for a eSATA connector. There is about zero need for that now.

 

[VirtualRain]

Chuckle, not particularly a fact.

It's funny, back in the day when people were asking about why there was no PCIe TB cards, you were among the first to point out that the standard required DP and how it was a kludge with discrete GPUs.

There's no doubt that the inclusion of DP (and the requirement for an integrated GPU or a cable kludge) really limited TB adoption on conventional desktops/workstations.

From what I understand, USB-C doesn't require display data like TB (it's completely optional), liberating it from this constraint.

Part of the disconnect is that lots of vendors spent lots of effort trying to beat it into something that it was not.

Agree.

 

[VirtualRain]

BTW, here's a good article on USB Type-C and DisplayPort Alternate Mode.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8558/displayport-alternate-mode-for-usb-typec-announced

One thing worth noting is that USB-C alternate mode can use the 4 differential pairs dedicated for USB Superspeed for other protocols besides DisplayPort... Wikipedia even mentions PCIe as a potential option. The function of the connection will be negotiated by the device when connected. So if this comes to fruition, TB will be redundant.

As of December 2014, Alt Mode implementations include DisplayPort 1.3 [35] and MHL 3.0;[34][36] other serial protocols like PCI Express and Base-T Ethernet are possible.

 

[MacVidCards]

BTW, here's a good article on USB Type-C and DisplayPort Alternate Mode.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8558/displayport-alternate-mode-for-usb-typec-announced

One thing worth noting is that USB-C alternate mode can use the 4 differential pairs dedicated for USB Superspeed for other protocols besides DisplayPort... Wikipedia even mentions PCIe as a potential option. The function of the connection will be negotiated by the device when connected. So if this comes to fruition, TB will be redundant.

Wow, totally agree.

Again.

Got to be a record.

If USB-C can do the things TB does, for less money AND is flexible, ie you can implement which parts you want for different devices, who would ever want TB?

And for whoever thinks TB is PCIE without overhead...try putting one of those new SM951 blades in a TB2 enclosure. It runs out of bandwidth well south of the claimed 20. So TB3 can be counted on for falling short of the promised 40.

Even if USB-C is never quite as "good" as TB at some things, the ability to power devices will drown out other concerns at Apple.

They are happy to chuck the baby with the bathwater to gain thinness in their machines, been proven many times. That combined with the love of "fewer cables" led to the amusing combo of the G4 Cube....running a 17" ADC CRT through it's own power supply so the display would have just 1 cable. Anyone with some knowledge of electronics and the delicate Cube's brick & VRM would cringe at the combo.

Apple was trying to give TB an artificial boost by placing it on EVERY machine they sold. They have now served notice that it WON'T be on every new machine. And there goes the one piece of continuing momentum. When TB3 comes out with new connectors and everyone needs a fleet of adapters to connect old and new things is when the real fun will begin.

 

[linuxcooldude]

And for whoever thinks TB is PCIE without overhead...try putting one of those new SM951 blades in a TB2 enclosure. It runs out of bandwidth well south of the claimed 20. So TB3 can be counted on for falling short of the promised 40.

But far more north than USB overhead.

Even if USB-C is never quite as "good" as TB at some things, the ability to power devices will drown out other concerns at Apple.

Ah, your learning.

When TB3 comes out with new connectors and everyone needs a fleet of adapters to connect old and new things is when the real fun will begin.

USB has no less than 12 different adapters. When Thunderbolt has half of that, then let us talk.

If USB-C can do the things TB does, for less money AND is flexible, ie you can implement which parts you want for different devices, who would ever want TB?

Even if Manufactures could/would port over their existing products from Thunderbolt to USB-C, do you think it will be cheaper?.....No.