Read the thread.
Personally, I want a 5k display with ProMotion. It is annoying how much worse the Studio Display looks compared to the built in display on the MBP.
Other people want it for external storage.
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.
When will MacBook Pro 16" get Thunderbolt 5?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Read the thread.
Personally, I want a 5k display with ProMotion. It is annoying how much worse the Studio Display looks compared to the built in display on the MBP.
Other people want it for external storage.
That's basically true. See my earlier post:
...and the new 80Gbps version is actually USB4 2.0 - Thunderbolt 5 is an implementation of that - again with stricter minimum requirements and an Intel certification scheme.
Yup - then they could drop all of the USB-C connectors as "legacy- so last year" and force everybody to buy Thunderbolt 5 to USB-C dongles and docks.... yay!Maybe they should invent a new connector type just for TB5, to get rid of that chaos, at least for new stuff?
But seriously - the role of Thunderbolt, since TB4, is really as a branding for "USB-C with well-defined capabilities" to take some of the guesswork out of the USB-C committee-bound dumpster fire (where USB-IF couldn't even ensure that ports and cables used the appropriate icons to show their capability)
Not even theoretical - it is real: https://www.sonnettech.com/product/legacyproducts/echoexpresschassis.html - there's also a list of supported PCIe cards somewhere on that list. However, the Mac Pro offers a lot more bandwidth, including full-width 16 lane PCIe slots and the newer PCIe 4 standard.
TB5/USB4 2.0 supports PCIe 4 - so it should be better for the job. However, eGPU support requires Apple to do a U-turn on supporting non-Apple Silicon GPUs - they dropped/blocked NVIDIA support years ago and support for AMD GPUs ended with Intel machines.
The Thunderbolt/USB4 protocol is a sort of "tunnel" that can carry a mixture PCIe, DisplayPort and USB 3.2 data from the host to the peripheral. The TB/USB4 controller in the peripheral turns it back into physical PCIe/DisplayPort/USB connections.
You need to check the "similar specs" bit carefully - the Apple ones support TB4 data rates, 100W power and the 3m ones are active cables with 'cable driver' chips to enable TB4 speeds over that much cable. They are expensive but last time I looked it was more like 2-3x, and the 10x came from false comparisons with charge-only cables or 15W max USB3-capable ones.
Thunderbolt 5 is an implementation of USB4 2.0 (with some optional bits made compulsory) which was published in 2022 (...and Apple are part of the USB IF, so it wouldn't have come as a surprise...)
So - although I'm not claiming that M4 does have USB4 2.0 - you can't rule it out just from the timeline, and it could still turn out to be a distinguishing feature of the pro/max variants when they appear.
Also remember that we've seen cases where M1/M2/M3 MacBooks only claim to have have TB3 while Mac Minis with the exact same SoC have TB4 - simply because the MacBooks have an internal display and can't support the two TB-connected external displays required by TB4 (...and then the software patch to support clamshell-mode on M3 upgraded the port to TB4 in all but name - I guess it's just Intel certification standing in the way). I don't think the iPad Pro even qualifies as TB4.
😀
I will be very very annoyed (the second very because I wanted to use an expletive) if Apple does not introduce M4 Pros with T-5 ie Studios and MacBook Pros or Max versions. If they don't I will probably buy a low Mac as a tool in order to keep in touch and will then switch to Windows and Linux.
5 is bigger than 4.
That leaves me no choice but to switch to Windows, so I won’t be left behind when Thunderbolt 5 peripherals come out in 2035.
So a theoretical use case for 0.05% of Mac users. I doubt if even the vast majority of professionals are maxing out their TB4 ports.
Is it not a theoretical use case for 100% of Mac users?
I'd wager that most MacBook Pro owners since 2021 would love a large, mini-LED external monitor with Promotion to dock into at their office. The XDR and Studio Display are massively behind on display tech compared to the MBPs and iPads - I'm hoping TB5 finally encourages them to modernise the display lineup.
It's not the connector, it's the panel. 6k monitors are such niche products and when you combine that with the HDR/XDR capabiilities you'll find the XDR Display is still the very best of its kind. And cheapest too despite that price tag. We won't see a better monitor until long after TB5 has been established. The XDR display sales wouldn't justify developing a new model anyways.
T-4 gives you 2000 MB/s with an external drive, in the real world. Due to the bottleneck of T-3 thunderbolt. The internal read and write of an M3 Mac is around 7,000 MB/s. T-5 would double the external performance.
Apple's price for going from half a TB (512GB) internal drive to 4 TB internal drive, is an extra $1,200. For another 4 TB, one pays another $1,200. Or $2,400 for 7.5 TB of storage.
The price for an external drive card of 4TB, is currently $320. With T-5, and a box with T-5, one would get at least 4,000 MB/s. And save $2,000.
Using an external drive results in much less wear on the Apple's internal drive. Apple's internal drive is not replaceable unless under warranty. Digital drives also have a finite life, which gets less the more the drive is used. And when memory runs low, the internal drive virtualises, which wears the drive, a phenomenon that is unseen by users. More RAM diminishes virtualising and wearing the drive, but Apple's RAM is also costly.
There is a good argument for protecting ones investment in Apple, and also a good argument for better value, if Apple supplies T-5 ports in their computers. Just as some Windows computers do now. And those typically have easily upgradeable internal drives and many have internal RAM upgrades available too. A Mac with T-5 is a far more competitive proposition.
Apple's price for going from half a TB (512GB) internal drive to 4 TB internal drive, is an extra $1,200. For another 4 TB, one pays another $1,200. Or $2,400 for 7.5 TB of storage.
The price for an external drive card of 4TB, is currently $320. With T-5, and a box with T-5, one would get at least 4,000 MB/s. And save $2,000.
Using an external drive results in much less wear on the Apple's internal drive. Apple's internal drive is not replaceable unless under warranty. Digital drives also have a finite life, which gets less the more the drive is used. And when memory runs low, the internal drive virtualises, which wears the drive, a phenomenon that is unseen by users. More RAM diminishes virtualising and wearing the drive, but Apple's RAM is also costly.
There is a good argument for protecting ones investment in Apple, and also a good argument for better value, if Apple supplies T-5 ports in their computers. Just as some Windows computers do now. And those typically have easily upgradeable internal drives and many have internal RAM upgrades available too. A Mac with T-5 is a far more competitive proposition.
Last edited:
I'd argue they're niche monitors because they're still $5,499! The features that I'd want to see on these monitors (120hz, Mini-LED) are all ubiquitous in Apples notebooks/tablets. A 27-30 inch 6K display with Promotion would be a logical upgrade for the Studio Display. Apple have a history of pushing the display game forwards, especially with the larger desktop displays (even if they're initially pricey).
We need TB5 to enable any further progress in resolution/refresh rate, so I think it's logical that once it arrives, the displays will follow shortly after. Take your point completely that XDR sales are low, but are they lower than Apple expected? I'm not sure...
Where’s your proof that 40 gbps Thunderbolt cannot support more than 16 gbps of storage bandwidth? Anand has tested Thunderbolt SSDs at much higher speeds than that.
I have a Highpoint RAID card and I asked Highpoint about the speed I could achieve using an external T-4/T-3 connection. Highpoint have such cards capable of 24,000 GB/s inside high performance PCI slots. They said the real speed would be 2,000 GB/s, due to the Thunderbolt bottleneck. You can query them too if you like. Peak speeds might be quicker but that is not how they evaluate. We all expect that T-5 will be two times better for data, and potentially more for video. OWC has made announcements about T-5 products coming, as have others, one available now. Its just a matter of time hence I assume Apple will join the rest of the industry. They did lead with fast connections, with Firewire and early introductions of Thunderbolt ports. Incidentally my MacBook Pro 2017 would get the same speed from an external case as a MacBook Pro M3 Max. I owned both, I did data tests as well. Its getting on to 8 years since Apple introduced T-3 (which handles data at the same speed as T-4). Apple's MacBook Pro had T-3 available in October 2016. It's time for an increase.Where’s your proof that 40 gbps Thunderbolt cannot support more than 16 gbps of storage bandwidth? Anand has tested Thunderbolt SSDs at much higher speeds than that.
Last edited:
Caveat: I will oversimplify to focus as much as possible on end use… wish me luck!
Thunderbolt (originally LightPeak) was a joint Intel/Apple developed technology that replaced a hodgepodge of lesser standards (FireWire, eSATA, various display techs etc). The difference in 99% of cases between Thunderbolt 3 and 4 (and USB4 but as usual the USB-IF are a bunch of halfwits) is nothing. Thunderbolt 5 (TB5), while a long time coming, is a big deal for many professionals and for most prosumers as well. This is due to the chicken and egg nature of technology: build something that isn’t supported and who buys it? Support something that doesn’t exist and…
Thunderbolt 5 will allow for massively improved display types that are only theoretically available now. DisplayPort, which falls within the capabilities of Thunderbolt, offers some of those benefits, however at 77Gbps (DP2.0) it exceeds the 40 Gbps cap of Thunderbolt 3/4 quite handily. Yet the 120 Gbps capability of TB5 gives a dose of additional future proofing. Not least of all because the only way to gain access to DisplayPort on a modern Mac is through the USB-C port of TB3+. My Windows PC has DisplayPort on it, although it has the usual WinPC fragmentation (thanks nVidia…)
Personally, I look forward to a 40” 8K high refresh rate monitor or even higher refresh rate 6K monitors. On a Mac, that requires TB5. For those who would mention HDMI 2.1 (48 Gbps and run by a group vying with USB-IF for incompetence in “standards”), it’s a consumer spec, not a pro spec. Every single issue I’ve ever had with connecting a computer to a screen can be directly linked to HDMI.
And I’ve completely ignored the external storage market! Pros will often saturate any bandwidth they are offered…
edit: TB5 is absolutely a “pro” end user technology. As such, there is no need to support it in base M chips. The fact that the iPad doesn’t support TB5 is no indicator whatsoever of whether any further M4 generation silicon (and Macs) will support TB5…
Thunderbolt (originally LightPeak) was a joint Intel/Apple developed technology that replaced a hodgepodge of lesser standards (FireWire, eSATA, various display techs etc). The difference in 99% of cases between Thunderbolt 3 and 4 (and USB4 but as usual the USB-IF are a bunch of halfwits) is nothing. Thunderbolt 5 (TB5), while a long time coming, is a big deal for many professionals and for most prosumers as well. This is due to the chicken and egg nature of technology: build something that isn’t supported and who buys it? Support something that doesn’t exist and…
Thunderbolt 5 will allow for massively improved display types that are only theoretically available now. DisplayPort, which falls within the capabilities of Thunderbolt, offers some of those benefits, however at 77Gbps (DP2.0) it exceeds the 40 Gbps cap of Thunderbolt 3/4 quite handily. Yet the 120 Gbps capability of TB5 gives a dose of additional future proofing. Not least of all because the only way to gain access to DisplayPort on a modern Mac is through the USB-C port of TB3+. My Windows PC has DisplayPort on it, although it has the usual WinPC fragmentation (thanks nVidia…)
Personally, I look forward to a 40” 8K high refresh rate monitor or even higher refresh rate 6K monitors. On a Mac, that requires TB5. For those who would mention HDMI 2.1 (48 Gbps and run by a group vying with USB-IF for incompetence in “standards”), it’s a consumer spec, not a pro spec. Every single issue I’ve ever had with connecting a computer to a screen can be directly linked to HDMI.
And I’ve completely ignored the external storage market! Pros will often saturate any bandwidth they are offered…
edit: TB5 is absolutely a “pro” end user technology. As such, there is no need to support it in base M chips. The fact that the iPad doesn’t support TB5 is no indicator whatsoever of whether any further M4 generation silicon (and Macs) will support TB5…
You have no basis to say that DisplayPort is “pro” and HDMI is “consumer.” That’s ridiculous.
HDMI is used in several billion devices, in far more configurations than DisplayPort.
Are you even serious? With DisplayPort, I can attach a PC to a monitor, and that’s about it. And long cables are almost impossible to find.
HDMI runs encrypted content from all sorts of consumer devices, through audio devices, repeater devices, it can separate out high bitrate audio and play that through another device with lip sync. I can attach an HDMI device to a television set; DisplayPort is not available in any televisions.
Besides all that, HDMI 2.1 was engineered by the same people who engineered DisplayPort.
Today, DisplayPort definitely has an edge in the market for ultra high performance PC and Mac displays. No question about that, but HDMI has basically blown DisplayPort out of the water in the television market. You would be hard-pressed to find a TV or a projector anywhere with DisplayPort. For that matter, you won’t find DisplayPort in a camera…. Not in a $500 DSLR nor in a $5,000 camera. It’s HDMI.
In essence, DP is great for Mac-to-Monitor… but nothing else. I do use it for my monitor, and it’s great for that, but that doesn’t mean it’s “professional.”
Last edited:
The only time Macs have had HDMI is when they used 3rd party manufactured GPUs. Apple has chosen to use thunderbolt ports to achieve both high speed data and graphics. The higher end the more T ports one gets. HDMI is irrelevant for macs because if one wants to use HDMI from a Mac, one needs an T adapter ....
The MacBook Pro’s have HDMI without a 3rd party GPU. Apple is perfectly capable of designing HDMI into their chips.
The current SoC Mac mini and Mac Studios have HDMI ports and they do not have 3rd party GPU
You're right ... but next week, maybe the new mini may drop the HDMI port. I think it will keep it, but drop USB-A. I doubt they'll keep both, because cost accountants are cost accountants.
You noted that I put quotes around “pro” and yet after that you went off the rails. I stated that I was going to oversimplify. This is the end of my rationale. Don’t forget to breathe.
If a critical mass of consumers with TB 5 systems arises.
How much interest is there in monitors over 32" in the mainstream? I know those very widescreen monitors exist for gamers and some professionals, but if we take that fraction of the demand and multiple it by the fraction who'll use TB 5...
This is my main interest, and it could work against us. Right now, Apple denies us internal SSD expansion slots in their somewhat affordable computers (I ignore the Mac Pro due to extreme cost), and charge very high prices for SSD capacity upgrades. One might be looking at $1,200 (likely + sales tax) to go to 4-terabytes, a nice size given how long some people keep Macs. So some users opt for external SSD setups instead, saving several hundred at the cost of halving SSD speeds.
TB 5 could help cut the performance gap. On the other hand, if Apple regards it was a 'pro end user' technology, they could only roll it out in the Max and Ultra series chips going forward. That self-serving argument would keep adoption lower.
My hope is that TB 5 will supplant TB 3 & 4 pervasively, but will that happen?
After all, you can still buy new computing-related equipment with older versions of USB-C, HDMI, etc..., at least on the Windows end, from what I understand.
Interestingly I can order from Amazon in Australia this:
Facts are that devices are not out yet, although some have been announced. However that was the case with Thunderbolt 3. Such devices will come though, although I suspect they will be driven by PC gamers who want to plug a 4070 or something like onto their notebooks. They re a no brainer for Apple drives though.
Cable Matters [Intel Certified] 80Gbps Thunderbolt 5 Cable with up to 120Gbps Bandwidth Boost and 240W Charging in Black - 1m / 3.3ft, Compatible with Thunderbolt 4, USB 4 and USB-C
Cost including delivery tomorrow for me is $Au41.99. The US price would be I guess around $US27.Facts are that devices are not out yet, although some have been announced. However that was the case with Thunderbolt 3. Such devices will come though, although I suspect they will be driven by PC gamers who want to plug a 4070 or something like onto their notebooks. They re a no brainer for Apple drives though.
To be fair, I’m not certain that TB5 is required for the mainstream at this point in time. However, I really do expect TB5 to be a widespread standard on Apple devices. Not sure when it would arrive in the base M chip but I do remain hopeful that it will be showing up in all their other M chips (Pro, Max, Ultra… Extreme?) as soon as this M4 cycle gets going.
As to storage, doesn’t TB3/4 already fulfill all of your needs wrt speed? Or are you not in the mainstream either?
As to 4TB being the sweet spot… that’s what my MBPro has. My wallet would definitely appreciate that coming down in price! Of course, then I’d start dreaming of 8TB…
My Mac Pro 5,1 is 14 years old. My main internal drive runs at 5,500, so T-4/4 would more than halve that speed.
There is not only a speed issue. Because the life of an SSD is finite, and related to the read /writes, using the internal drive threatens the existence of the computer. If for instance a 4TB drive fails out of warranty, the cost for the replacement drive alone would be $1,200. Plus labour. If Apple would be prepared to fix the computer. They won't even change my wife's iPad battery - and the cause of that, is replacing a battery means replacing the iPad. It will be the same with Mac computers - Apple will have to replace the whole computer if a drive fails.
Out of warranty, Apple becomes reticent about such repairs. Also Apple's business model plans on redundancy. As an example, Apple doesn't even supply GPU cards for the 7,1 Mac Pro, a computer only recently superseded, and it was an expensive computer.
If Apple's business model did not plan of the need for upgrading resulting in the computer becoming redundant, Apple would allow users to put in their own secondary internal drive. Most computer companies already do that. But not Apple. T-5 will allow a user to extend the life of their Mac.
The RAM issue is another factor too - running out of RAM works the internal drive much more. If one looks at the used prices of old macs - the ones with replaceable RAM and drives are worth more than newer machines that were faster, but have soldered RAM and soldered internal drives.
Another factor is that an internal drive one buys now that seems fine, is likely to be inadequate in 4 years time. Maybe less than that too. It's even possible a user will find their drive is lacking 2 years after buying. With T-5, when external T-5 drives are cheap, users will be able to buy one and extend the life of their Mac. With T-3/4, doing so would mean a significant loss in performance. With T-5, it will be slower, but maybe not a crippling difference.
Apple could offer upgrades in their stores for RAM and drives - they should offer to upgrade RAM and drives for the cost increase of their new products, plus a service charge. And if under AppleCare, the upgrade should just be for the cost of the drive and or RAM. But Apple do not do that. It's not in their business model.
Last edited:
I don't know. I'm a mainstream home user, not a graphics or video professional. I imagine it'd fit my 'needs' just fine, but without having used it personally, it's hard to know how it'd do with my 'wants.'
In other words, while a TB3 external SSD might perform at a level where I wouldn't know the difference, I know the Apple internal drives (512 gig+, not 256 gig) are very roughly double the data transfer speed. I'm writing this on a 2017 iMac; I once had an early 2008 Mac Pro in use for probably 9 years as my primary system, and maybe a couple more? If you set up 2 systems in front of me, one with internal and one with TB3 external SSD start up disks, right now, could my casual user eye detect the difference? Probably not now. But over time?
And sometimes I'm surprised. The 3-terabyte Fusion Drive in this iMac was starting to fail late last year. I thought I'd have to upgrade, but another Mac Rumors member suggested the Samsung T7 Shield external SSD, then on sale. USB-C, not even Thunderbolt. So I bought one, installed Ventura on it, migrated data off a Carbon Copy Cloner backup, and set it as startup disk, figuring I could hobble along till maybe an M3 Studio or Mini came out. But here's the thing...it seems to work a tad snappier. When loading apps that historically take a little longer (e.g.: Blurb Book Wright with a large file), things appear to load faster.
And this is what I was talking about. That 'significant' is hard to judge without extended practical real world use. I know fast drives affect the user experience as over time application loading times have a big impact on user perception (and I'm talking Microsoft Word). It may sound (and be) petty, but a 2 second difference in waiting for a favored app. to load impacts user satisfaction.