Thunderbolt 3 spec announced with support for USB-C connector, transfer speeds of up to 40Gbps

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 98



    I would love to see discrete PCI video card support from the fiber optic version of this connector.  Adding a small PCI card with a USB 3.1  connector could make lots of graphics intensive scream.  A mac mini size graphics module would make Apple TV or a Mac mini a real game playing machine with lots of bells and whistles without adding anything but USB 3.1 to the motherboard.  The Pro's would get an upgrade to the high end iMac.  The lack of multiple monitor support on the new iMac would be a moot point.  Apple has a chance to really change the whole market place if they go this route.  A basic Macbook could compete with a high end PC in gaming with the right graphics card add on.

  • Reply 22 of 98

    I doubt it. This looks more like abandoning the old TB in favour of a new, USB-derived spec. Renaming it TB3 is more about marketing and differentiating from "vanilla" USB.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I assume any peripherals with this will attach to a current Thunderbolt port on a Mac with an adapter but limited to TB 2 speeds?

  • Reply 23 of 98
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

     



    I would love to see discrete PCI video card support from the fiber optic version of this connector.  Adding a small PCI card with a USB 3.1  connector could make lots of graphics intensive scream.  A mac mini size graphics module would make Apple TV or a Mac mini a real game playing machine with lots of bells and whistles without adding anything but USB 3.1 to the motherboard.  The Pro's would get an upgrade to the high end iMac.  The lack of multiple monitor support on the new iMac would be a moot point.  Apple has a chance to really change the whole market place if they go this route.  A basic Macbook could compete with a high end PC in gaming with the right graphics card add on.




    People have been working on this for the Mac Mini, the main comments I've seen is that they needed more bandwidth to counter latency issues. Thunderbolt 3 was expected to finally make it possible, so stay tuned. I wouldn't expect any Apple release, but third parties may whip something up.

  • Reply 24 of 98
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hypercommunist View Post

     

    I doubt it. This looks more like abandoning the old TB in favour of a new, USB-derived spec. Renaming it TB3 is more about marketing and differentiating from "vanilla" USB.

     




    I think it's the reverse; USB 3.1 has a lot of the specs originally planned for Thunderbolt 3. This feels more like Intel continues to be sick of USB (aren't we all?) and finally combined the standards.

  • Reply 25 of 98
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    loekf wrote: »
    Maybe Apple can also skip Lighnting on iOS devices for type-C and include MHL (= "HDMI light").

    One connector to rule them all....
    Yup!

    Funny how Apple's engineers are always a step ahead of us mere users, pundits and media hacks.

    I just don't get it?! :rolleyes:
  • Reply 26 of 98
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    In other words Thunderbolt is on its way out and USB-C is the future.
  • Reply 27 of 98
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    In other words Thunderbolt is on its way out and USB-C is the future.



    Nope. This feels more like an incentive to push Thunderbolt in more places; now the makers just need to add the controller.

     

    Of course, those same garbage PC makers (HP, Dell, Acer) still haven't even implemented 3.0 across the line, so... :rolleyes:

  • Reply 28 of 98
    pembrokepembroke Posts: 228member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleJuicy View Post

     

    This is surely the most excited I've ever been about a port. (What does that say about me? Never mind...)

     


     

    Brilliant, made me LOL - thank you! 

  • Reply 29 of 98
    morkymorky Posts: 198member

    Ended this connector war has.

  • Reply 30 of 98
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    This is great news, I really didn't like the old TB connector, it was always too loose.



    And since TB can mimic any kind of port (it is just a PCI bus on a port) there's no reason not to use the same connector as USB. If someone plugs a USB device in to it it can happily pretend to be a USB port.

  • Reply 31 of 98
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    cornchip wrote: »
    Now the ditching of MagSafe makes a little more sense.
    Nope. MagSafe was a huge Innovation. Anybody can slap an off the shelf USB connector into their hardware. MagSafe saved my laptop on more than one occasion, and the ease of use was unrivaled. In contrast, power is usually the only thing I connect my Mac to. Then I add and remove drives as I need them. So no issue with plugging them in the old fashioned way. Now I have no choice ... the reality is, on the MacBook you need an adapter to plug anything else into at the same time as power, so why not an adapter that plugged into a MagSafe port and USB C? I just don't see the advantage over what's been given up. Presumably when Apple introduces their new 5k Apple Display with one cable for everything that just plugs into that port, it will all be justified, for those people. For the rest of us I'm not so sure ...
  • Reply 32 of 98
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,841member
    rob53 wrote: »
    Please explain what an active copper USB-C cable is

    There’s no such thing as “active copper” so it’s a bit of a misleading name. The wire itself is still just standard copper, but in an active cable, the plugs contain super-high-speed transmit and receive integrated circuits that require power to function.
  • Reply 33 of 98
    lebartlebart Posts: 4member
    Well this is really BREAKING. Hopefully the standard connector for the next 15 years.
  • Reply 34 of 98
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,500member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    I think it's the reverse; USB 3.1 has a lot of the specs originally planned for Thunderbolt 3. This feels more like Intel continues to be sick of USB (aren't we all?) and finally combined the standards.




    I was going to say the same thing.  USB has never been a well-designed spec, but it caught on because it was cheaper than other connectors (and "good enough" for consumer devices).

     

    I'm guessing that USB 3.1 is actually Thunderbolt 3 simplified since there's no reason to have 2 specs now that both standards can support consumer and pro devices (the main distinction between USB and Firewire/Thunderbolt in the past).

  • Reply 35 of 98
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member

    My question is whether the next generation of 5K/retina iMacs will support target display mode once they are updated with Thunderbolt 3.

  • Reply 36 of 98
    thewhitefalconthewhitefalcon Posts: 4,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

    My question is whether the next generation of 5K/retina iMacs will support target display mode once they are updated with Thunderbolt 3.




    That's the expectation. Dell's 5K monitor has to daisy chain two DP 1.2 cables to deliver the pixels at the moment, so the lack of 1.3 has been the most commonly cited reason for not having it (or a 5K Thunderbolt Display).

  • Reply 37 of 98
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post

     

    I'm guessing that USB 3.1 is actually Thunderbolt 3 simplified since there's no reason to have 2 specs now that both standards can support consumer and pro devices (the main distinction between USB and Firewire/Thunderbolt in the past).


     

    USB 3.1 will support garden variety passive cables, where the higher throughput of Thunderbolt 3 will require expensive/proprietary cables with embedded circuits (which has been true for all Thunderbolt cables since the outset).  What will be interesting to see is whether Thunderbolt 3 devices are going to have backward compatibility to USB 3.1 if used with passive cables.

     

    Edit:  From the Ars article linked below:

     

    Quote:

     Originally Posted by Ars Technica View Post

     

    At launch, there'll be one passive Thunderbolt 3 cable that supports Thunderbolt, USB 3.1, and DisplayPort 1.2, but with a max bandwidth of only 20Gbps. There'll also be an active cable that allows for up to 40Gbps, but drops DisplayPort 1.2 connectivity. The passive cable should be quite a lot cheaper than the active option, as it doesn't require special circuitry at each end.



  • Reply 38 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ChiA View Post



    Just how much of a hand did Apple have in creating Thunderbolt 3?

     

    Looks like Apple led the development.

  • Reply 39 of 98
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,500member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

    USB 3.1 will support garden variety passive cables, where the higher throughput of Thunderbolt 3 will require expensive/proprietary cables with embedded circuits (which has been true for all Thunderbolt cables since the outset).  What will be interesting to see is whether Thunderbolt 3 devices are going to have backward compatibility to USB 3.1 if used with passive cables.


     

    Right, makes sense.  Cheaper cables for devices which don't have high requirements (generally consumer devices) but still have an option for devices which do.  Best of both worlds.

     

    As for whether TB3 devices can work with USB 3.1 cables, I'm guessing it'll be based on the bandwidth and power requirements of the device.  If the device doesn't have high bandwidth requirements, and gives the option for a separate power supply, then it should be able to work with USB 3.1.

     

    The only detail here is that, traditionally, USB has required more CPU power for bus management (at least, compared to Firewire).  If that's still the case with USB compared to TB, then you'll need a fairly powerful computer to run a device which has high bandwidth requirements.  This is where you see the "you get what you pay for" effect.

  • Reply 40 of 98

    I think it's the reverse; USB 3.1 has a lot of the specs originally planned for Thunderbolt 3. This feels more like Intel continues to be sick of USB (aren't we all?) and finally combined the standards.

    Looks like you're right.

    http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/06/thunderbolt-3-embraces-usb-type-c-connector-doubles-bandwidth-to-40gbps/
Sign In or Register to comment.