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

[Anonymous Freak]

One of the big differences is that Thunderbolt provides PCI-e lanes, USB 3.0, *AND* DisplayPort, all at the same time.

USB Type-C connectors use a set of wires for "USB 3.0 Data" - with another set available for "Additional data" - which could be the new higher-speed USB 3.1 modes, it could be display, it could be PCI-e lanes. But it notably does *NOT* provide for all of them at the same time.

So, yes, USB Type-C can connect an ultra-fast PCI-e SSD. OR it can connect a display. But a single port can't do both at the same time the way Thunderbolt can.

And Thunderbolt 3 adds power delivery and higher bandwidth as well.

Thunderbolt will never become 'mainstream'. Likely not even as much as Firewire was at its peak. I can almost guarantee that Thunderbolt will disappear from the next generation Mac Mini and MacBook Air. Possibly even the iMac (although my opinion is that it will stay for at least another year on the iMac.)

But it won't disappear from any device with "Pro" in the name any time soon. MacBook Pro and Mac Pro will both retain it for at least a few more years.

And I have no problem with that. USB Type-C is basically the "consumer" version of Thunderbolt. It is the "does everything" connector to end all connectors. No, it's not perfect for the highest-end uses, but it's perfectly for just about everything else. (My *ONLY* complaint about the new MacBook is that it only has one Type-C port on one side - I would rather have a second Type-C port on the right side instead of the headphone port, if for no other reason than to have ambidextrous charging ports.)

 

[AidenShaw]

And Thunderbolt 3 adds power delivery and higher bandwidth as well.

Like the oft-cited but never seen FireWire 1600 and 3200 ?

(Joke)

The point though, is that technology X that delivers performance Y today usually wins over the technology Z that will deliver performance "2Y" at some time in the future.

The issue often boils down to marketshare. If enough options embrace X, then Z may never be released. (Which was certainly the case for FireWire 1600 and 3200 - products shipping with USB 3.0 killed them. (Actually, USB 2.0 probably killed them. The "fast enough" factor.).)

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Like the oft-cited but never seen FireWire 1600 and 3200 ?

(Joke)

The point though, is that technology X that delivers performance Y today usually wins over the technology Z that will deliver performance "2Y" at some time in the future.

The issue often boils down to marketshare. If enough options embrace X, then Z may never be released. (Which was certainly the case for FireWire 1600 and 3200 - products shipping with USB 3.0 killed them. (Actually, USB 2.0 probably killed them. The "fast enough" factor.).)

Yeah, TB3 is coming this year - I expect it on the next update to the Mac Pro and even the 15" MacBook Pro.

FireWire 1600 and 3200 were part of the same spec as FireWire 800 - nobody implemented them, though. It wasn't that something else "beat it to the punch," it was, as you said "fast enough".

 

[g4cube]

From Microsoft's WinHEC conference held in Shenzen last week:

http://channel9.msdn.com/events/WinHEC/2015/WHT200

Reference to Type-C and alternate modes to handle "...Using Alternate Modes (e.g. DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, or MHL) over Type-C, Support for Power Delivery..."

Interesting session.

 

[actuallyinaus]

Crystal Lake brings Thunderbolt 3. The next 15" rMBP will have USB-C and TB 3 ports.

• --2X jump in speed. Bandwidth increase to 40 gigabits per second from 20Gbps.
• --Displays. Can drive two 4K displays over a single cable, as The Tech Report points out.
• --Support. PCIe Gen3, USB 3.0, DisplayPort 1.2, and HDMI 2.0
• --Charging. Support for devices up to 100 watts.

These two technologies will happily live alongside each other. USB-C does not provide all of the functionality that's needed in the MBP, iMac and Mac Pro. Thunderbolt was never meant to replace USB and I believe that USB-C is not meant to replace TB.

If you look at the side of the 15" rMBP you will see the problem with current TB. It's just too big for Apple and Jony. The Macbook is aimed at a different market/audience and hence there is no need for a TB port, but I would not be surprised to see a TB 3 port on other side in the future.

You do know that USB Type-C for USB 3.0 is 20 Gb/s, and with USB 3.1 is 40 Gb/s.

So Type-C is:

• 40 Gb/S
• supports dual 4K (simultaneously with USB 2.0 and power delivery)
• supports displayport 1.2a - and supports displayport 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 on compatible systems
• supports PCIe
• 100 W power delivery

See more: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20844215#post20844215

Getting back to the plug: the height will apparently be slimmed down to just 3mm from the current 4.5mm. That makes it a much better fit for ultraslim devices, which could conceivably include tablets.

There is no way intel would do a plug size change for TB.

I'm pretty confident that TB won't go onto any tablets, it will (and should only be) USB Type-C.

----------

One of the big differences is that Thunderbolt provides PCI-e lanes, USB 3.0, *AND* DisplayPort, all at the same time.

USB Type-C connectors use a set of wires for "USB 3.0 Data" - with another set available for "Additional data" - which could be the new higher-speed USB 3.1 modes, it could be display, it could be PCI-e lanes. But it notably does *NOT* provide for all of them at the same time.

You are wrong, please read the USB specification before you make these comments.

All four data lanes (of either USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gb/s) or USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10Gb/s)) can be used simultaneously, as well as the USB 2.0 pins and power delivery all at the same time.

With the 40Gb/s it can do two displayport 1.3 (using two data lanes each) + power delivery + USB 2.0, all at the same time.

See my thread https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20844215

And Thunderbolt 3 adds power delivery and higher bandwidth as well.

USB Type-C provides 40Gb/s (on a USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10Gb/s) system), so technically the total bandwidth is equatable.

The difference is that USB Type-C has four 10Gb/s lanes, where as TB has two 20Gb/s lanes (that can be combined) so, yes TB can provide a larger bandwidth to a single device, however TB does not have more total bandwidth than a USB Type-C port.

Thunderbolt will never become 'mainstream'. Likely not even as much as Firewire was at its peak. I can almost guarantee that Thunderbolt will disappear from the next generation Mac Mini and MacBook Air. Possibly even the iMac (although my opinion is that it will stay for at least another year on the iMac.)

But it won't disappear from any device with "Pro" in the name any time soon. MacBook Pro and Mac Pro will both retain it for at least a few more years.

I agree.

(My *ONLY* complaint about the new MacBook is that it only has one Type-C port on one side - I would rather have a second Type-C port on the right side instead of the headphone port, if for no other reason than to have ambidextrous charging ports.)

I agree, I expect gen 2, to have one one each side..

USB-C doesn't support PCI-e.

It does, read the spec or look at the diagram i screenshot-ed form the spec in my post https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20844215

wait, so with a cable that's displayport on one end and usbc on the other you can just plug into a monitor? can you do that while also plugged into power - strange they wouldn't have a displayport and power adapter.

Yes you could have a cable "USB Type-C -> DisplayPort", but it would be must more likely to have a USB Type-C connection on the monitor, so the monitor could act as a hub and pass power through and USB 2.0 data through.

I might also add that Apples USB-C only goes up to 5 Gbps.

TB does 10 Gbps.

USB Type-C has FOUR lanes so that is:

• 4 x 5Gb/S = 20Gb/S (on USB 3.1 Gen 1 systems)
• 4 * 10Gb/S = 40Gb/S (on USB 3.1 Gen 2 systems)

Technically, it can't carry a 5k signal as far as I can tell, which is where the goal post is right now. If Apple wants to get a 5k display out, Thunderbolt 3 will still be useful.

Considering you can do 40Gb/s over a single USB Type-C port, which is enough for DisplayPort 1.3 (32Gb/s), this is even talked about on VESA's website (the people who make DisplayPort), it's an understatement that USB Type-C could do 5k, it can do so much more like 8K + 100W + USB 2.0.

 

[Derived]

Sure, eventually 3.1 will get to where TB is now, once it's fully implemented. TB3 will be better, and like has been stated before, can provide more bandwidth to a specific device, which is absolutely required for pro applications.

Also, this is just TB3. Hardly the last iteration. It's scalable as high up as you can go for PCIE speeds, and there's no reason it won't continue to get faster and faster and faster. I still don't see why so many here have such a fetish for TB going away.

 

[g4cube]

re: actuallyinaus...

You wrote quite a bit, but there are a few typos and errors in your follow-up you will want to look over, and perhaps correct.

USB 3.1 permits 5Gbps and 10Gbps USB modes; not 20 or 40 Gbps. Other speeds will be different protocols and uses, like DP for example.

Yes, "B" implies "Bytes", and "b" implies "bits"; a common typo. However, the 5, 10, 20, and 40 are the more important numbers to pay attention to.

The actual Type-C connector is supposed to support up to 40 Gbps, but that has nothing to do with USB protocols.

 

[actuallyinaus]

re: actuallyinaus...Yes, "B" implies "Bytes", and "b" implies "bits"; a common typo. However, the 5, 10, 20, and 40 are the more important numbers to pay attention to.

(Sorry, I fixed the bytes vs bits.)

re: actuallyinaus...

USB 3.1 permits 5Gbps and 10Gbps USB modes; not 20 or 40 Gbps. Other speeds will be different protocols and uses, like DP for example.

The actual Type-C connector is supposed to support up to 40 Gbps, but that has nothing to do with USB protocols.

The Type-C connector posseses four USB data lanes (+ power delivery lanes, + USB 2.0 lanes), they can be used in parallel for many uses such as DisplayPort 1.3.

The speed of the Type-C connector IS related to the USB protocol the system supports, for example:
* USB 3.1 Gen 1 System = 5Gb/s = 20Gb/s total throughput on a Type-C connector
* USB 3.1 Gen 2 System = 10Gb/s = 40Gb/s total throughput on a Type-C connector

 

[g4cube]

(Sorry, I fixed the bytes vs bits.)



The Type-C connector posseses four USB data lanes (+ power delivery lanes, + USB 2.0 lanes), they can be used in parallel for many uses such as DisplayPort 1.3.

The speed of the Type-C connector IS related to the USB protocol the system supports, for example:
* USB 3.1 Gen 1 System = 5Gb/s = 20Gb/s total throughput on a Type-C connector
* USB 3.1 Gen 2 System = 10Gb/s = 40Gb/s total throughput on a Type-C connector

I agree on the data rates, except the 4 channels cannot be combined for exclusive USB traffic. My comment was directed to the fact that USB 3.1 only defines the new 10 Gbps data rate for USB traffic, and grandfathers the previous USB versions.

The other fast channels on the Type-C connector are for other protocols like DP. Perhaps Thunderbolt at some point?

Perhaps just a semantic point.

 

[crjackson2134]

I agree on the data rates, except the 4 channels cannot be combined for exclusive USB traffic.

It can't be aggregated as a single stream of 20 Gb/s (Gen1) or 40Gb/s (Gen2), but it should be able to move 20/40 total if all 4 lanes are pumping data at the same time (minus overhead of course).

I have a USB 3.0 Raid Controller that can move 20 Gb/s by using all 4 lanes simultaneously. I'd be really disappointed to find out that the new spec. can't at least do that.

 

[g4cube]

You can review the spec at usb.org, or read any of the articles at anandtech.com and arstechnica.com

I understand what you are saying about the aggregation; it's just that the USB 3.1 spec doesn't permit that with Type-C.

There are other protocols possible, though.

Perhaps USB 3.2 in the future?

 

[crjackson2134]

I understand what you are saying about the aggregation; it's just that the USB 3.1 spec doesn't permit that with Type-C.

Perhaps USB 3.2 in the future?

That's disappointing for sure then.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Like the oft-cited but never seen FireWire 1600 and 3200

Firewire 1600 & 3200 might make sense if Thunderbolt didn't come along.

The point though, is that technology X that delivers performance Y today usually wins over the technology Z that will deliver performance "2Y" at some time in the future.

The issue often boils down to marketshare. If enough options embrace X, then Z may never be released. (Which was certainly the case for FireWire 1600 and 3200 - products shipping with USB 3.0 killed them. (Actually, USB 2.0 probably killed them. The "fast enough" factor.).)

I don't see why both cannot exist together just like Firewire & USB did. It depends if such is profitable in the long run. Professionals tend to spend more at a higher cost than the average consumer. With Thunderbolt and thunderbolt devices ( With over 190 peripherals ) they will spend the money to run these devices that use Thunderbolt: Mac Pro's, MacBook Pros, MacBookAirs, Mac Minis, iMacs.

 

[barkmonster]

I think it means the end of Magsafe on future laptops with the handy bonus of additional uses. If they do add it to systems that currently have Thunderbolt, it will no more replace it than existing USB 3.0 does for anything but external storage. Thunderbolt still carries PCIe while USB-C doesn't. Not to mention the next Thunderbolt closes the speedgap with onboard PCIe even further while USB-C simply matches Thunderbolt, let alone Thunderbolt 2 for bandwidth.

 

[kolax]

I don't think TB has a particularly great future. The cost of adoption is the main problem, and with USB 3.1 catching up, the future is one connector to rule them all. I imagine Mac Pro's will have TB ports for legacy support in the distant future and the focus will be USB-C with whatever generation of super fast USB we're at then.

HDMI will be replaced by USB-C eventually.

 

[fuchsdh]

People who say no one uses Thunderbolt haven't been in a production studio recently. If you're using AJA or Blackmagic tech made recently, you're probably using Thunderbolt.

This whole "It's Firewire all over again!" narrative seems to be the result of regular consumers and press who don't understand what it's used for, and decide that since they don't use it, no one is. (It also ignores the long life FW400 and 800 actually had.)

I don't think TB has a particularly great future. The cost of adoption is the main problem, and with USB 3.1 catching up, the future is one connector to rule them all. I imagine Mac Pro's will have TB ports for legacy support in the distant future and the focus will be USB-C with whatever generation of super fast USB we're at then.

HDMI will be replaced by USB-C eventually.

I don't see HDMI going anywhere soon due to the matter of how it's the standard for every HD and Ultra HDTV out there. And as for computer monitors, most are still holding onto legacy VGA ports, let alone DVI. They're going to switch to Type-C at a glacial pace.

Like most things, as soon as Type-C hits another Mac line it'll probably the Mac-oriented hardware makers that push adoption. It's certainly not going to be Google's Chromebook.

 

[Derived]

People who say no one uses Thunderbolt haven't been in a production studio recently. If you're using AJA or Blackmagic tech made recently, you're probably using Thunderbolt.

This whole "It's Firewire all over again!" narrative seems to be the result of regular consumers and press who don't understand what it's used for, and decide that since they don't use it, no one is. (It also ignores the long life FW400 and 800 actually had.)



I don't see HDMI going anywhere soon due to the matter of how it's the standard for every HD and Ultra HDTV out there. And as for computer monitors, most are still holding onto legacy VGA ports, let alone DVI. They're going to switch to Type-C at a glacial pace.

Like most things, as soon as Type-C hits another Mac line it'll probably the Mac-oriented hardware makers that push adoption. It's certainly not going to be Google's Chromebook.

Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. I'm getting sick and tired of reading this every other post. "ZOMG TB IS DEAD!!!"....except for almost every pro user who actually uses the machine for work. Sure, as the guy who bought his nMP to store a ton of photos and music, TB isn't necessary for you, although it sure is faster than USB. However, for real pro work, TB is a godsend.

 

[actuallyinaus]

I agree on the data rates, except the 4 channels cannot be combined for exclusive USB traffic. My comment was directed to the fact that USB 3.1 only defines the new 10 Gbps data rate for USB traffic, and grandfathers the previous USB versions.

The other fast channels on the Type-C connector are for other protocols like DP. Perhaps Thunderbolt at some point?

Perhaps just a semantic point.

You are able to use a single usb type-c cable and connect it to a four port USB 3.1 hub and thus have four channels of USB 3.1 10GB/s over a single type-c cable to a single type-c port.

It's true you can not aggregate them together into a single 40GB/s channel (or 20/20 channel), thus the throughput to a single device is lower than TB. However the total throughput is still 40GB/s which you can achieve using four devices connected to a usb 3.1 hub that then connects to the computer via a usb type-c cable.

I don't see HDMI going anywhere soon due to the matter of how it's the standard for every HD and Ultra HDTV out there. And as for computer monitors, most are still holding onto legacy VGA ports, let alone DVI. They're going to switch to Type-C at a glacial pace.

True, very few monitors have TB and that's been out for years. I do sure hope that usb type-c adoption is faster, it truly can the the single cable to replace all others.

Like most things, as soon as Type-C hits another Mac line it'll probably the Mac-oriented hardware makers that push adoption. It's certainly not going to be Google's Chromebook.

Google is adamant about putting usb type-c on android devices, so that will help a lot in pushing the adoption rate.

 

[g4cube]

Keep us all informed when you find that USB hub.

Recall that it took awhile to get a proper USB 3.0 hub.

From my research, hubs are a long way off for now, so while I agree that what you describe might be welcome, it's a ways off in the future.

First priority is for vendors to get a single channel hub that supports Power Delivery. Multiple ports and Power Delivery.

Check roadmaps from VIA and ASMedia to see what might make an appearance in the next 12 months. Heck, Apple couldn't even provide 2 usable USB ports on their very simple AV dongle. Note well from the pictures released by Apple that the Type-C on the dongle has the DC power icon, not the USB trident. This indicates its only to connect the charger.

 

[netkas]

Just another point of view on this laptop and no TB on it.

Dont froget this laptop has no fans, its not suitable for any heavy work, it cant even run games properly.

So imagine new macbook have TB2 port, you connect titanX to it, then what?

Cant play anything anyway, cpu will overheat, throthle and everything else.


This type-c port could be an lightweight alternative to TB port for ultra mobile fanless macs.