When will MacBook Pro 16" get Thunderbolt 5?

[Rkuda]

Yes. This thread is filled with a lot of nonsense. TB5 is going to open up a lot of options for storage for a lot of uses. Also it might even finally see a market for external eGPU the future. Besides obviously being able to run future monitors on high enough bandwidth for 8k and 240hz etc etc. Basically it’s future proofing and will make your expensive purchase much more worthwhile in the long run. I’m not interested in upgrading until they release it and it would be a bummer if the Mac Studio that will probably see the light first next year wouldn’t have it after hitting the market almost 2 years after tb5 was first announced.

I'm sure some amazing stuff will come with TB5, probably around 5 years from now. I just don't think 99.9% of people even get close to being limited by TB3.

I also don't think eGPU will happen it's just too much ******** to deal with. I know because I spent too much money on an eGPU setup and the enclosure is sitting in the corner collecting dust. I built a PC and put the GPU in that. Bought a bunch of VR ****, Valve Index controllers, lighthouses etc.

Now VR has been played out, nothing since Half-Life Alyx has been worth the time and the VR jank never went away. Now I just want to get rid of it all it's just useless clutter now.

I can say the same about mythical monitors. Nobody will want to pay the price an 8k 240hz screen and the extra pixels and frame rate will just waste your GPU resources.

It's all just tech FOMO. Save your money, house space and head space for more important stuff until any of this **** is out and really makes a difference.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I'm sure some amazing stuff will come with TB5, probably around 5 years from now. I just don't think 99.9% of people even get close to being limited by TB3.
...

The amazing stuff will not suit Apple users, except for the fast external storage. They're almost here already. A small percentage of monitor benefits too. Even some prices have been announced. Apple wants us to use the cloud though, because they earn rental for it. So too with Google. Our own drives is a good idea, and fast affordable ones will extend the life of a Mac. That doesn't suit Apple, but it's what society should focus on. Building products that are designed to fail in a few years is not what we should be doing. The old model was pass your good stuff on to the family or friends. I doubt that will happen with the way product life cycles are becoming shorter and shorter.

 

[theluggage]

I'm sure some amazing stuff will come with TB5, probably around 5 years from now. I just don't think 99.9% of people even get close to being limited by TB3.

I suspect it's more like 90% of people don't get close to being limited by USB 3, the other 10% of people are already pushing at the boundaries of TB3 and need more.

Also, while I doubt many mere mortals will need individual TB5 peripherals that actually use 80Gbps of bandwidth, but another major use of TB is as a "docking" connector for laptops and mobile devices, in which case all of your external peripherals are bottlenecked through a single port. It doesn't take many 4k@60Hz displays (15 Gbps each) and USB3.2g2 SSDs (5-10 Gbps each) to saturate a single 40Gbps TB4 port. A 6k display is currently relying on "nearly lossless" (so, not lossless then!) display stream compression to offer dual displays on a TB4 hub (and I certainly wouldn't want to hang anything else speed critical off that hub).

Then there are the people currently dependent on (non-GPU) PCIe cards for specialist I/O and A/V applications, or as a way of adding huge NVMe SSDs. Currently, they are reliant on the hugely expensive Mac Pro, or external TB3-to-PCIe enclosures: the latter are seriously limited by the 40Gbps/4 PCIe v3 lanes of TB3 and could benefit from the 80Gbps/PCIe v4 or v5 of TB5/USB3v2USB4v2 (edit)

(Edit: clarification: TB4/USB4 supports PCIe Gen 3, TB5/USB4v2 supports PCIe Gen 4 and maybe 5)

So, yes, that's still a minority of Mac users in general, maybe not such a minority if you look at MBP Max, Studio and Mac Pro users - the question then becoming whether it is economic for Apple to have different USB4 controllers in different M4-range chips, or if it's easier to implement USB4v2 across the line (and maybe only certify Pro/Max machines as TB5).

I can say the same about mythical monitors. Nobody will want to pay the price an 8k 240hz screen and the extra pixels and frame rate will just waste your GPU resources.

I'd agree in terms of regular desktop displays not really needing anything beyond 6k - the whole point of current "retina" displays is that the resolution is at the edge of what the typical eyeball can see, and in terms of GUIs 60Hz is just about adequate so anything over 120Hz is going to bring rapidly diminishing returns. 8k and above should be strictly for people who must have Imax in their man-cave.

However

1. Macs have a traditional market among content creators so some users are going to need to work on 8k content,
2. 5k and 6k are a "sweet spot" for Mac OS about which the PC world doesn't really care - it's possible/likely that the PC world will skip from 4k UHD to 8k, and the far larger PC market could easily see 8k gear becoming cheaper than niche 5k/6k displays.
3. Note the comment above about docking stations

 

[drrich2]

I'd agree in terms of regular desktop displays not really needing anything beyond 6k - the whole point of current "retina" displays is that the resolution is at the edge of what the typical eyeball can see, and in terms of GUIs 60Hz is just about adequate so anything over 120Hz is going to bring rapidly diminishing returns.

5k and 6k are a "sweet spot" for Mac OS about which the PC world doesn't really care - it's possible/likely that the PC world will skip from 4k UHD to 8k, and the far larger PC market could easily see 8k gear becoming cheaper than niche 5k/6k displays.

I wonder if the small but existent push toward 8K t.v.s will carry over to monitors? Many t.v.s are large enough to benefit from higher resolution (and with it could serve as monitors).

A key question is when will the expansion of personal computer monitors stop. I had a Commodore 128 with moniter as a high school graduation present, then a Viewsonic 15" VGA monitor (not the more common 14"), and it was big! Then a 17" display (don't recall brand)! What a whopper. Than a Dell 24" dual DVI monitor! Had we finally arrived? No, now I use an old 27" iMac.

And people ask about 32" 4K monitors, whether the text will be sharp, etc... On the other hand, I recall someone trying a 42" (IIRC) t.v. as a monitor, and you can end up giving your neck a workout looking around the thing, plus I imagine mousing around it's work, never mind the space it takes up.

So, do you think 6K 32" computer displays are apt to be the end stage?

 

[theluggage]

I wonder if the small but existent push toward 8K t.v.s will carry over to monitors?

Well, if 8k TVs take off, people are going to use them for gaming, at least... but as a living room TV viewed from 10' away or so I don't see the point of 8k unless you're going to go for something like a 100" screen/projector in a full blown home cinema - just as 4k TV isn't worth it for less than about 50" at 10'.

And people ask about 32" 4K monitors, whether the text will be sharp, etc...

Well, it all depends how far away you sit. If I went beyond 32" I'd probably hang it on the wall behind my desk rather than stand it on the desk, for which 4k would be perfectly fine. 32" @ 4k on a desk would probably also be large enough to turn off scaling and run as "looks like 3840x2160"

Personally, I'd prefer a pair of smaller 4k displays as it's easier to manage (by putting one or both of them in full screen) and have your main work on one and secondary info on the other.

So, do you think 6K 32" computer displays are apt to be the end stage?

Wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I think it's getting close - for a traditional desktop layout at least. Especially with all them darned gen-zedders growing up doing everything on phones. However, if someone "thinks different" - like a desk-sized screen in "easel" mode using touch and stylus - maybe not. Then again. maybe Apple Vision Pro will work out and turn your whole world into a virtual screen...

As per previous post - if the wider PC industry skips over 5k/6k to 8k then 8k might become the "new 4k" for computers. It's going to have the same sort of "issues" as 4k due to not being a multiple of the Mac's 220ppi sweet spot and needing extra GPU horsepower for scaling - although the artefacts will be even less noticable.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I suspect it's more like 90% of people don't get close to being limited by USB 3, the other 10% of people are already pushing at the boundaries of TB3 and need more.

...

Then there are the people currently dependent on (non-GPU) PCIe cards for specialist I/O and A/V applications, or as a way of adding huge NVMe SSDs. Currently, they are reliant on the hugely expensive Mac Pro, or external TB3-to-PCIe enclosures: the latter are seriously limited by the 40Gbps/4 PCIe v3 lanes of TB3 and could benefit from the 80Gbps/PCIe v4 or v5 of TB5/USB3v2

...

Maybe a typing error (or my lack of comprehension), but it read to me that your (I bolded) V4 of Thunderbolt mean't to me T-4, which has the same capacity to transfer data to and from an external device as does T-3. So today's T-4 doesn't give great external drive capacity than a 2017 Mac with its T-3 ports. As you said, to increase external data utility, T-5 is needed.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Some reading material:

Thunderbolt 4 vs USB4: What's the difference?

The key differences between Thunderbolt 4 and USB4, explained

www.tomsguide.com

Regarding the monitor sub-discussion:

USB4 supports DisplayPort 2.0 and is capable of outputting video at 8K and even 16K resolution at 60Hz. But unlike Thunderbolt 4, it doesn’t have dual monitor support. DisplayPort 2.0 can use up to 80 Gbps since it’s only transmitting data in one direction (to the monitor).

Doing the math, I get ~27.4 Gb/s bandwidth requirement for the Pro XDR Display at 120 Hz. So, am I miscalculating? Is Apple limiting the display output of USB4/TB4 to half (20 Gb/s or 16 Gb/s if overhead isn’t accounted for)? Am I overlooking something else?

USB 4 2.0 will provide double the speed — even with existing cables

Speeds of 80GBps are incoming

www.tomsguide.com

USB4 v2 Explained: Speed, Spec, Use Cases | Synopsys Blog

We explain USB4 version 2.0, unpacking the specification's speed, exploring its use in AI accelerators, and laying out the USB4 v2 controller IC design process.

www.synopsys.com

I think, the USB4 storage transfer speeds are sufficient:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/most-bizarre-cto-ive-ever-seen-in-refurb-store.2419811/post-32949721

 

[Onimusha370]

Some reading material:

Thunderbolt 4 vs USB4: What's the difference?

The key differences between Thunderbolt 4 and USB4, explained

www.tomsguide.com

Regarding the monitor sub-discussion:

Doing the math, I get ~27.4 Gb/s bandwidth requirement for the Pro XDR Display at 120 Hz. So, am I miscalculating? Is Apple limiting the display output of USB4/TB4 to half (20 Gb/s or 16 Gb/s if overhead isn’t accounted for)? Am I overlooking something else?

USB 4 2.0 will provide double the speed — even with existing cables

Speeds of 80GBps are incoming

www.tomsguide.com

USB4 v2 Explained: Speed, Spec, Use Cases | Synopsys Blog

We explain USB4 version 2.0, unpacking the specification's speed, exploring its use in AI accelerators, and laying out the USB4 v2 controller IC design process.

www.synopsys.com

I think, the USB4 storage transfer speeds are sufficient:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/most-bizarre-cto-ive-ever-seen-in-refurb-store.2419811/post-32949721

For the XDR, it has 20 million pixels, running 10 bit colour, at 60hz, so isn’t it 20m*(10*3)*60=36Gb/s? So I think 120hz would require TB5.

 

[theluggage]

Maybe a typing error (or my lack of comprehension), but it read to me that your (I bolded) V4 of Thunderbolt mean't to me T-4, which has the same capacity to transfer data to and from an external device as does T-3. So today's T-4 doesn't give great external drive capacity than a 2017 Mac with its T-3 ports. As you said, to increase external data utility, T-5 is needed.

I did have a typo but it was "USB3v2" instead of "USB4v2".

The point was that USB4 supports PCIe version 3 tunnelling whereas USB4v2 adds support for PCIe version 4 (and possibly 5) as well as some other efficiency improvements (see Wikipedia) so it should be better for external PCIe cards.

Just to recap, very roughly speaking:

TB3 = up to 40Gbps with PCIe v3 and DisplayPort tunnelling + USB-C PD and alt modes for USB, Displayport etc. Emphasis on TB daisy-chaining with peripherals getting 4 lanes of internal PCIe.
USB4 = TB3 plus USB 3.2 tunneling and multi-port USB4 hubs but lots of features (inc. legacy TB backwards compatibility) are optional. Emphasis shifts to USB-like hub architecture, USB ports in hubs/docks driven by USB tunnelled from the host's controller.
TB4 = USB4 with most of the optional extras made mandatory, higher minimum specs (e.g. min. 2 displays, 15W power on host ports) plus Intel certification and branding.
USB4v2 = USB4 plus 80Gbps and 120/40 Gbps speeds and extras such as better PCIe v4 tunnelling
TB5 = USB4v2 with most of the optional extras made mandatory, higher minimum specs plus Intel certification and branding.

Currently, TB4/TB3 have to co-exist since TB4 peripheral chips provide downstream TB ports at the expense of internal PCIe lanes, and aren't really suitable for PCIe enclosures or x4 NVMe drives etc. There's a good (if slightly vendor specifric summary) here:

https://sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/thunderbolt-products.html

 

[MacCheetah3]

For the XDR, it has 20 million pixels, running 10 bit colour, at 60hz, so isn’t it 20m*(10*3)*60=36Gb/s? So I think 120hz would require TB5.

I see, I forgot to do the 10-bit by each channel.

So, yes, (6016 x 3384) x (10 x 3) x 60 = 36644659200 or ~36.6 Gb/s or double, ~73.3 Gb/s, for 120 Hz
(6016 x 3384) x (10 x 3) x 120 = 73289318400

This falls within the 77.4 Gb/s unidirectional capability of TB3/DP2.0 — barely but does.

However, if we calculate with the timing parameters:
(6016 + 560) x (3384 + 90) x (10 x 3) x 60 = 41121043200 or ~41.1 Gb/s
(6016 + 560) x (3384 + 90) x (10 x 3) x 120 = 82242068400 or ~82.2 Gb/s

The 120 Hz bandwidth requirement is outside, thus requiring a connection such as USB4v2. Now am I concluding that properly?

P.S. None of this ultimately matters to me as I don’t have a Pro Display XDR nor expect to purchase one — I haven’t had a computer cost that much, let alone a peripheral. I just like to learn/understand.

 

[Onimusha370]

I see, I forgot to do the 10-bit by each channel.

So, yes, (6016 x 3384) x (10 x 3) x 60 = 36644659200 or ~36.6 Gb/s or double, ~73.3 Gb/s, for 120 Hz
(6016 x 3384) x (10 x 3) x 120 = 73289318400

This falls within the 77.4 Gb/s unidirectional capability of TB3/DP2.0 — barely but does.

However, if we calculate with the timing parameters:
(6016 + 560) x (3384 + 90) x (10 x 3) x 60 = 41121043200 or ~41.1 Gb/s
(6016 + 560) x (3384 + 90) x (10 x 3) x 120 = 82242068400 or ~82.2 Gb/s

The 120 Hz bandwidth requirement is outside, thus requiring a connection such as USB4v2. Now am I concluding that properly?

P.S. None of this ultimately matters to me as I don’t have a Pro Display XDR nor expect to purchase one — I haven’t had a computer cost that much, let alone a peripheral. I just like to learn/understand.

I agree with the maths! Like you say I think with the timing parameters there’s no chance of 120hz over TB3/4. I wasn’t even aware of the unidirectional bit of TB3, does that really mean you can get up to 80Gb/s?

I also think we’re probably oversimplifying the math as I know there’s all the 4:2:2 compression stuff (I have no idea what I’m talking about but I’m sure someone here does!) I’ve always just assumed that TB5 will get us a 120hz XDR, and hopefully a 7K/8K version if they do update it

 

[theluggage]

Is Apple limiting the display output of USB4/TB4 to half (20 Gb/s or 16 Gb/s if overhead isn’t accounted for)? Am I overlooking something else?

Well, as @Onimusha370 pointed out, the actual figure for 6l@60Hz is 36.6Gbps.

However, all this works via DisplayPort signals tunnelled over Thunderbolt, so the critical factor is not the bandwidth of TB4 vs 5 but the versions of DisplayPort that they support.

DisplayPort - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

TB4/USB4 only supports the DP 1.4a protocol which maxes out at 32.4 Gbps, so TB5/USB4v2 isn't just needed for the 80Gbps overall bandwidth, but because it adds support for the DisplayPort 2 protocol that can actually use that bandwidth.

USB4 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that even with 6k@60Hz, 36.6Gbps > 32.4 Gbps so the Pro XDR is already relying on DisplayPort 1/4's Display Stream Compression (DSC) to shrink the bandwidth.

 

[MacCheetah3]

TB4/USB4 only supports the DP 1.4a protocol which maxes out at 32.4 Gbps, so TB5/USB4v2 isn't just needed for the 80Gbps overall bandwidth, but because it adds support for the DisplayPort 2 protocol that can actually use that bandwidth.

I guess, I must be missing something. The article I linked to earlier (as well as others from as far back as 2019) reference DP 2.0 associated with TB3.

DisplayPort 2.0 Supports Up to Two 8K Displays or One 16K Display, Rollout Expected to Begin in Late 2020

VESA today announced the release of DisplayPort 2.0, the first major update to the standard since DisplayPort 1.4 in March 2016. DisplayPort 2.0...

www.macrumors.com

So… Apple just never got around to implementing DP 2.0?

 

[theluggage]

I guess, I must be missing something. The article I linked to earlier (as well as others from as far back as 2019) reference DP 2.0 associated with TB3.

Ah, the joys of secondary sources and press releases. Personally, I'd trust a current Wikipedia entry over an old MacRumors post but neither is definitive... Maybe somebody fancies ploughing through the actual TB3, USB4 and USB4v2 developer docs to get the real truth...

Looking at the VESA press release linked by that MR article, it doesn't say anything about DP2.0 over Thunderbolt 3, just that DP2.0 uses Thunderbolt's physical layer - i.e. the electronics used to send 20Gbps over each physical twisted pair of wires. Not the same thing. A full DisplayPort connection (whether its the old school DisplayPort connector or USB-C in DisplayPort alt mode) has 4 pairs of wires, so that would enable 80Gbps, unidirectional. However, an actual Thunderbolt 3 connection uses those wires for 2 bidirectional 40Gbps channels containing a mix of PCIe, DisplayPort and (with TB4/USB4) USB 3 data packets - it can't carry a DP stream that uses 80Gbps.

I think one confusion might be is that the current USB-C and USB4 standards (and therefore Thunderbolt 4) support DisplayPort 2.0 over alt mode - in that mode DP takes over all 4 high-speed data lanes of the USB-C connection and can use them as 80Gbps unidirectional. I don't think that's made mandatory by TB4, though - it is by TB5. That leads down the semantic rabbit hole over whether DP alt mode (i.e. with a DisplayPort display connected directly to the host port) "is Thunderbolt"...

So… Apple just never got around to implementing DP 2.0?

Well, in 2019 they were still relying on Intel TB3 controllers (and Intel integrated GPUs on many systems) which probably didn't support DP2.0.

In any case - you can't support the higher resolutions provided by DP2.0 unless you also have a GPU that can hack them... It's quite possible that some future Macs will have "USB4v2/TB4" ports instead of TB5 for that reason.

 

[MacCheetah3]

Ah, the joys of secondary sources and press releases. Personally, I'd trust a current Wikipedia entry over an old MacRumors post but neither is definitive...

It was covered by more than just MR:

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/24/th...t-2-0-is-coming-80-gbps-bandwidth-and-8k-hdr/

and more...

And yes, it was just an announcement of the standard. But one would think/hope/assume in five years… by USB4... Anyway.

Looking at the VESA press release linked by that MR article, it doesn't say anything about DP2.0 over Thunderbolt 3, just that DP2.0 uses Thunderbolt's physical layer - i.e. the electronics used to send 20Gbps over each physical twisted pair of wires. Not the same thing. A full DisplayPort connection (whether its the old school DisplayPort connector or USB-C in DisplayPort alt mode) has 4 pairs of wires, so that would enable 80Gbps, unidirectional. However, an actual Thunderbolt 3 connection uses those wires for 2 bidirectional 40Gbps channels containing a mix of PCIe, DisplayPort and (with TB4/USB4) USB 3 data packets - it can't carry a DP stream that uses 80Gbps.

Under the hood, Thunderbolt 3 operates fairly similarly to DisplayPort, with 4 high-speed each lanes carrying packets of information at 20 Gbps. However while TB3 is a true bi-directional, full-duplex link with 2 lanes allocated for each direction, DisplayPort is focused on sending large volumes of data in just one direction: out. As a result, DisplayPort 2.0 reverses the two inbound lanes to outbound lanes, allowing the four total lanes to be combined into a single 80 Gbps link.

VESA Announces DisplayPort 2.0 Standard: Bandwidth For 8K Monitors & Beyond

www.anandtech.com

Again, I’m simply trying to put the pieces together.

In any case - you can't support the higher resolutions provided by DP2.0 unless you also have a GPU that can hack them.

Agreed.

Not to deviate from the topic too much here but I recall Nvidia’s RTX 3090 8K gaming claim being criticized:

Tested: 5 key things to know about Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 3090

Our GeForce RTX 3090 overview distills dozens of hours of hands-on testing to identify the five key takeaways about Nvidia's work-and-play titan of a graphics card.

www.pcworld.com

And doing some quick and dirty apple to orange performance comparisons, it appears the M3 Max GPU is in the realm of the RTX 4070 mobile.

Puget Mobile 17" vs M3 Max MacBook Pro 16" for Content Creation

How does the new Puget Mobile 17" compare to the top-end M3 Max MacBook Pro 16" in performance for content creation?

www.pugetsystems.com

UserBenchmark: Nvidia RTX 4070 (Laptop) vs 4090

UserBenchmark: Nvidia RTX 3090 vs 4070 (Laptop)

By the way, I also used sources such as Notebookcheck benchmarks.

P.S. I’m not trying to downplay Apple’s GPU progress. In fact, the Puget article shows that Apple is doing very well in overall competition.

 

[theluggage]

It was covered by more than just MR:

...so they both confirm what I said: DP 2.0 uses Thunderbolt 3 technology to get 80 Gbps unidirectional out for 4 lanes, but actual Thunderbolt 3 is bidirectional and only gives 40Gbps each way.

DP 2.0 is only using the physical layer of the Thunderbolt 3 standard, which has several other "layers".

 

[Harry Haller]

Is it theoretically possible to upgrade RAM via Thunderbolt?

No.

 

[Adora]

No.

Thanks for the answer.

I heard about PCIe-Cards with RAM slots. So just a thought...

Somewhere else I asked for the difference of RAM speed and very fast flash storage for swapping. But didn't get an answer. Do you maybe know that? There are so many numbers when I look for RAM speeds and I don't really understand it. Just roughly the difference for what Apple is using in recent Macs now.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Thanks for the answer.

I heard about PCIe-Cards with RAM slots. So just a thought...

Somewhere else I asked for the difference of RAM speed and very fast flash storage for swapping. But didn't get an answer. Do you maybe know that? There are so many numbers when I look for RAM speeds and I don't really understand it. Just roughly the difference for what Apple is using in recent Macs now.

Firstly Macs have used storage as memory for a long time. Its called virtual memory.

RAM is several orders of magnitude faster than SSDs.

Storage in M Macs have speeds of around 4 to 6 thousand MB/sec, with access speeds of 100-500 microseconds. RAM is measured in access speeds from 1000 to 4000 Hz typically these days. 10-20 ns is a typical RAM speed measurement - and that 10-20 is not microseconds, but nanoseconds. Hence orders of magnitude different. Which is why in a Mac when the memory is full, the storage is used, called virtual memory, and the computer will slow down a lot when its memory runs short.

Data and specialised computing use/have used PCIe for RAM to extend performance. M.2 slot can be for RAM or for SSD storage in some cases. Intel Optane Memory H10 can extent memory and SSD using that tech. Cutting back on memory and going for a bigger drive in a Mac that would use lots of memory in its main app such as in 4 or more K video work, would result in the Mac being dysfunctional.

Finally thunderbolt 5 would double data transfer speeds, but compared to memory paths inside the Mac (which vary a lot depending on the M processor chosen) , thunderbolt is orders of magnitude slower, no matter thunderbolt version 1 or even when version 6 arrives someday.

 

[Lucas Curious]

T-5 would be backward compatible.

So a T-3 PCI external, would work ... as long as the card inside the PCI external T-3 is supported. For instance my Classic Mac Pro has an internal Highpoint PCI RAID card in it. The card will work when connected to a T-3 or T-4 Mac. But its speed will be less than in the old Mac, because Thunderbolt 3 (or 4) is a bottleneck. A T-5 equipped Mac would work too. But if the external device with the PCI slot was T-3 (or T-4 as they perform the same for such devices), the bottleneck would not be the T-5 in the Mac (not here yet). The botteneck would be the T-3 (4) in the external device. So a T-5 equipped Mac running an external T-3(4) device will not be faster. You'd need an external T-5 device to get a speed benefit.

T-5 externals will I imagine cost a fortune for some time. Just as Firewire devices cost the earth, then Thunderbolt devices cost the earth compared to USB-C devices ... but if they come, they will likely overcome current T-3(4) device connection bottlenecks. Or at least approach halving those bottlenecks (because T-5 is around twice the speed).

The whole point of the type C connection is that things that look like they work (due to the adpater size & shape) will work. But depending on what type of device on both ends, they will have differing speeds (ie bottlenecks).

Different plugs for different devices is the old days. And Europe forced Apple to drop their Lightning adapter for their iPads / phones etc. because they said type C plugs or nothing. Its a better thing but as usual it benefits the buyer to check what version the buyer is going to get. 'Coz yeh they look the same ...

I saw the guys on Mythbusters check out Type C cables. Apple's T-3 cable is very costly. Similar spec ones can be one tenth the price. They scanned the internals of the plugs, and looked at the tiny motherboards inside the plugs, the wiring, how many wires and connections, and they tested 'em too. They said for people needing the performance (ie the cable itself could be the bottleneck) the Apple cable was worthwhile.

First rule of computing issues is that 99% of failures are the network. So first check that its plugged in! And go from there ...

I bought one of those TB3 enclosures and the included cable disconnected. Got the Apple TB3 cable that was returned on amazon for a big discount. The cable is fast and locks into the ports tight. I'll stick with apple although these days id buy new due to counterfeit items flooding amazon.

 

[Lucas Curious]

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.

I dont see the difference day to day. I only saw a clear color and backlight difference when putting the same HDR video on both screens and set to full brightness.

 

[Lucas Curious]

reading these posts it seems TB5 may double the external SSD speeds to 6gb/s. External TB4 currently does 3,000 mb/s read and write. TB3 does 2,400 mb/s

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

Probably tomorrow.

 

[hajime]

Probably tomorrow.

I am almost certain that this time, they will include TB5 on MacBook Pro 16".

 

[Harry Haller]

I am almost certain that this time, they will include TB5 on MacBook Pro 16".

Yeah, to offer it on a $499 Mini and not on a $4,999 MBP 16" is unlikely.