So is it better to buy a separate 0.5m TB3 cable (like Belkin's) if anyone purchases an LG ultrafine 5K monitor? The 2m cable that comes with it doesn't do 40Gbit/s right?
The cable that comes with the LG Ultrafine 5K is in fact an active 40Gbps cable. In use, it appears to use 32Gbit/sec of the total bandwidth.
However, I'm not fond of the build quality of the cable. The review unit that I got had a bad cable out of the box.
What you don't want to do, though, is use a 20Gbit cable to a dock that connects to the LG 5K display downstream of it.
Yea, I just bought an iMac 5K 2017, and I was confused the hell out this usb-c, thunder port 3 shit show. Anything designed by a committee is indeed toxic.
I don't see anything confusing in this. Perhaps because I've been closely monitoring the Thunderbolt spec for years. I'm presuming like TB2, TB3-enabled USB cables will probably have the Thunderbolt logo on it, whereas USB-c will always be enabled.
It's up to the cable manufacturers to properly label these things.
I know Corning had Thunderbolt2 optical cables. Will there be the equivalent in TB3/USBc format that will make the bandiwidth limitation by length moot?
I know Corning had Thunderbolt2 optical cables. Will there be the equivalent in TB3/USBc format that will make the bandiwidth limitation by length moot?
Please edit this article to include a grid (Excel) chart of the choices with options for length, wattage, active/passive, speed and compatibility. That would make a good article a great resource.
The problem with this, is there's no universality to it. A 2 meter cable doesn't have to be active. An 18-inch cable doesn't have to be passive -- but most of the cables packed into docks are. Cable length is not a deterrent to power delivery - that's up to the manufacturer.
The only firm detail is an Active cable will provide 40Gbps at any length, where a passive cable only delivers it to about 24 inches. There are no other relations.
You just need a 6 dimensional grid with all cables indexed by manufacturer, price, classification, length, passivity, speed. Might need the VR goggles to view it properly, but it's easy enough to do...
[Edited to add] As one of my maths lecturers at University was fond of saying, it does get hard to visualise things above 5 dimensions, but if you picture a 6 dimensional grid as multiple 5 dimensional grids all orthogonal to one another, it's a lot easier.
Yea, I just bought an iMac 5K 2017, and I was confused the hell out this usb-c, thunder port 3 shit show. Anything designed by a committee is indeed toxic.
Having been on a couple of standards committees over the years, I can say that to a certain extent, you’re right. But it depends on what it is, and where it’s coming from.
so if a connector is being designed in one company, it’s usually ok, because that company is designing it for their own specific uses. If it becomes prevalent, and therefor, a defacto standard, well, then that’s it. It’s done, and everybody uses it, as long as it’s been offered up to the appropriate organization for that particular part, and is accepted into the standards.
but it’s often not that simple. One reason is that there are usually three levels to any standard like this. The lowest level is that of electronic use and what it does. This, these days, can be very complex. Then these is the electrical level above that. That’s the actual electrical usage of the device. The last is what we see, which is the mechanical portion of the connector itself.
the problem here is that everyone has, or wants, skin in the game. We often see several companies, or organizations, with their own designs through all three levels. Each obviously thinks theirs is the best, and so the standard should be mainly based on that. Too often, they all have good points to make, which makes it harder. Then there is money, or/and prestige to be gained if THEIR design is chosen. Also, if one or two companies are dominant, and refuse to play nice, they may refuse to cooperate. If that’s happens, we get two or more standards for what is basically the same thing.
we had this a few years ago with Apple and Nokia, when Nokia was still a major force in the cell industry. Apple was pushing their design for a nano sim, and Nokia was pushing for a different one. The industry was siding with Apple on this, and Nokia stated that if Apple’s was chosen, they wouldn’t accept it. They were convinced to, and that’s what we have now. It could have become ugly.
sometimes, as we have with Thunderbolt, a standard evolves so rapidly, that connectors and cabling just can’t keep up. Thunderbolt isn’t a true standard in the sense that usb is. Thunderbolt is more of a container that allows different standards to be carried over it. Remember that, at first, it was supposed to be using usb connectors. But the usb group didn’t allow it. Ever since usb became a standard, and was taken over by an outside group, they’ve been calling a lot, but not all of the shots. We had the same problem with the HDMI committee when they forced Apple to discontinue the DisplayPort to hdmi cable, saying that it wasn’t allowed under their rules.
confusing? Yes, but unfortunately, there’s no other way to do this in any practical sense.
Thank you for illustrating what an unmitigated disaster USB-C is.
USB C isn’t an unmitigated disaster. It’s an evolving standard, the way scsi was, and FireWire was, and as were many other standards. Perhaps if computer technology wasn’t itself evolving so rapidly, these standards would be fixed for longer periods, but it is, and they aren’t.
So is it better to buy a separate 0.5m TB3 cable (like Belkin's) if anyone purchases an LG ultrafine 5K monitor? The 2m cable that comes with it doesn't do 40Gbit/s right?
The cable that comes with the 5k ultra fine is 40gpbs and delivers 87w to charge the 15” MacBook. 5k would not work at 20gbps speed. I’ve had zero issues with the included thunderbolt 3 cable.
The Belkin Thunderbolt 3 dock was recently reviewed. It comes with a TB cable that's 3.3' long, but it's not specified if this cable achieves the 40Gbps performance advertised on the box. What is that included cable's speed, power, and active/passive specs? I can confirm it is compatible with a 2017 MacBook Pro 13", but understandably not with a 2015 MacBook 12".
Seems the 'universal' in USB-C doesn't mean much anymore. Beyond the lack of clearly visible specifications for cables with a USB-C connector, Belkin's TB3 dock is only for certain Macs, while Dell's TB3 dock is only for Dell laptops, etc...
Since the TB3 announcement I've mistakenly looked forward to eventually buying one TB3 dock that would work with any TB3-equipped Apple, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Panasonic, etc. computer. Not anymore.
At least confusion is pretty harmless. The thought of a cable that fits the port being able to do physical damage is more worrying.
Perhaps the industry should have gone a step further and given every cable/device model an official universal ID so that just scanning IDs into a web page would reveal the connection options.
This would also have the knock-on effect of reducing (although not eliminating) cowboy operators.
Thank you for illustrating what an unmitigated disaster USB-C is.
USB C isn’t an unmitigated disaster. It’s an evolving standard, the way scsi was, and FireWire was, and as were many other standards. Perhaps if computer technology wasn’t itself evolving so rapidly, these standards would be fixed for longer periods, but it is, and they aren’t.
USB-C has been awesome. Power and data on one cable. TB3 has been pretty optional so far but I'm not using a 5K display. My first TB3 device is likely a eGPU box.
some folks want to be outraged so any bit of friction is the end of the world.
The Belkin Thunderbolt 3 dock was recently reviewed. It comes with a TB cable that's 3.3' long, but it's not specified if this cable achieves the 40Gbps performance advertised on the box. What is that included cable's speed, power, and active/passive specs? I can confirm it is compatible with a 2017 MacBook Pro 13", but understandably not with a 2015 MacBook 12".
Seems the 'universal' in USB-C doesn't mean much anymore. Beyond the lack of clearly visible specifications for cables with a USB-C connector, Belkin's TB3 dock is only for certain Macs, while Dell's TB3 dock is only for Dell laptops, etc...
Since the TB3 announcement I've mistakenly looked forward to eventually buying one TB3 dock that would work with any TB3-equipped Apple, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Panasonic, etc. computer. Not anymore.
Hm, I thought I posted about this yesterday. Guess not.
Anyway, the Belkin cable is a 1-meter active 40Gbps cable capable of 87W.
Every dock we've tested works on Windows. However -- you're right. The Dell only works on the Dell machines it was intended for, and the Lenovo only works on Windows.
Thanks Mike, important topic but still a pretty confusing, not so much your TB3 descriptions but your USB 3.1 descriptions. You say USB 3.1 Type C can be 5 or 10 Gbps, the first supposedly USB 3.1 Type-C Gen 1. Is the 10 Gbps Gen 2, and how do you tell those apart? And you say that active TB3 cables are not USB 3.1 Type C "compatible"? What does that mean? In what way not compatible? What speed will then run, what wattage will they support? Any? None? A bit more specificity would be super.
Thanks Mike, important topic but still a pretty confusing, not so much your TB3 descriptions but your USB 3.1 descriptions. You say USB 3.1 Type C can be 5 or 10 Gbps, the first supposedly USB 3.1 Type-C Gen 1. Is the 10 Gbps Gen 2, and how do you tell those apart? And you say that active TB3 cables are not USB 3.1 Type C "compatible"? What does that mean? In what way not compatible? What speed will then run, what wattage will they support? Any? None? A bit more specificity would be super.
USB 3.1 type-C generation 2 is 10Gbps. You can't tell them apart externally, until you plug them in.
Active TB3 cables can't be used as USB 3.1 type-C data cables, full stop. You literally cannot connect to a USB 3.1 type-C device with one. Only Thunderbolt to Thunderbolt. They can be used as charging cables, and the wattage will vary based on the manufacturer.
Thanks Mike, important topic but still a pretty confusing, not so much your TB3 descriptions but your USB 3.1 descriptions. You say USB 3.1 Type C can be 5 or 10 Gbps, the first supposedly USB 3.1 Type-C Gen 1. Is the 10 Gbps Gen 2, and how do you tell those apart? And you say that active TB3 cables are not USB 3.1 Type C "compatible"? What does that mean? In what way not compatible? What speed will then run, what wattage will they support? Any? None? A bit more specificity would be super.
USB 3.1 type-C generation 2 is 10Gbps. You can't tell them apart externally, until you plug them in.
Active TB3 cables can't be used as USB 3.1 type-C data cables, full stop. You literally cannot connect to a USB 3.1 type-C device with one. Only Thunderbolt to Thunderbolt. They can be used as charging cables, and the wattage will vary based on the manufacturer.
I'm just trying to square that with something you wrote back in October, regarding the Macbook Pro with TouchBar: "Thunderbolt 3 is twice as fast as Thunderbolt 2, and uses the same physical connector. Since the connectors are shared, and Thunderbolt 3 contains USB 3.1 generation 2, users can plug in a USB 3.1 Generation 2 Type-C connector and get the same connectivity as always." Just trying to understand. And to figure out what my MPB 13 with TB actually has for connectors.
Comments
However, I'm not fond of the build quality of the cable. The review unit that I got had a bad cable out of the box.
It's up to the cable manufacturers to properly label these things.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HE125VC/A/thunderbolt-33-ft10-m-optical-cable-by-corning
That's not clear at the moment. Nothing is imminent, but Corning at one point said that they'd support TB3.
You just need a 6 dimensional grid with all cables indexed by manufacturer, price, classification, length, passivity, speed. Might need the VR goggles to view it properly, but it's easy enough to do...
[Edited to add] As one of my maths lecturers at University was fond of saying, it does get hard to visualise things above 5 dimensions, but if you picture a 6 dimensional grid as multiple 5 dimensional grids all orthogonal to one another, it's a lot easier.
so if a connector is being designed in one company, it’s usually ok, because that company is designing it for their own specific uses. If it becomes prevalent, and therefor, a defacto standard, well, then that’s it. It’s done, and everybody uses it, as long as it’s been offered up to the appropriate organization for that particular part, and is accepted into the standards.
but it’s often not that simple. One reason is that there are usually three levels to any standard like this. The lowest level is that of electronic use and what it does. This, these days, can be very complex. Then these is the electrical level above that. That’s the actual electrical usage of the device. The last is what we see, which is the mechanical portion of the connector itself.
the problem here is that everyone has, or wants, skin in the game. We often see several companies, or organizations, with their own designs through all three levels. Each obviously thinks theirs is the best, and so the standard should be mainly based on that. Too often, they all have good points to make, which makes it harder. Then there is money, or/and prestige to be gained if THEIR design is chosen. Also, if one or two companies are dominant, and refuse to play nice, they may refuse to cooperate. If that’s happens, we get two or more standards for what is basically the same thing.
we had this a few years ago with Apple and Nokia, when Nokia was still a major force in the cell industry. Apple was pushing their design for a nano sim, and Nokia was pushing for a different one. The industry was siding with Apple on this, and Nokia stated that if Apple’s was chosen, they wouldn’t accept it. They were convinced to, and that’s what we have now. It could have become ugly.
sometimes, as we have with Thunderbolt, a standard evolves so rapidly, that connectors and cabling just can’t keep up. Thunderbolt isn’t a true standard in the sense that usb is. Thunderbolt is more of a container that allows different standards to be carried over it. Remember that, at first, it was supposed to be using usb connectors. But the usb group didn’t allow it. Ever since usb became a standard, and was taken over by an outside group, they’ve been calling a lot, but not all of the shots. We had the same problem with the HDMI committee when they forced Apple to discontinue the DisplayPort to hdmi cable, saying that it wasn’t allowed under their rules.
confusing? Yes, but unfortunately, there’s no other way to do this in any practical sense.
The Belkin Thunderbolt 3 dock was recently reviewed. It comes with a TB cable that's 3.3' long, but it's not specified if this cable achieves the 40Gbps performance advertised on the box. What is that included cable's speed, power, and active/passive specs? I can confirm it is compatible with a 2017 MacBook Pro 13", but understandably not with a 2015 MacBook 12".
Seems the 'universal' in USB-C doesn't mean much anymore. Beyond the lack of clearly visible specifications for cables with a USB-C connector, Belkin's TB3 dock is only for certain Macs, while Dell's TB3 dock is only for Dell laptops, etc...
Since the TB3 announcement I've mistakenly looked forward to eventually buying one TB3 dock that would work with any TB3-equipped Apple, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Panasonic, etc. computer. Not anymore.
DED also had a clear one a while back. Both worth bookmarking along with this mix of opinion and fact:
http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/29/total-nightmare-usb-c-thunderbolt-3/
"USB-C" = Universal Confusion
At least confusion is pretty harmless. The thought of a cable that fits the port being able to do physical damage is more worrying.
Perhaps the industry should have gone a step further and given every cable/device model an official universal ID so that just scanning IDs into a web page would reveal the connection options.
This would also have the knock-on effect of reducing (although not eliminating) cowboy operators.
some folks want to be outraged so any bit of friction is the end of the world.
Anyway, the Belkin cable is a 1-meter active 40Gbps cable capable of 87W.
Every dock we've tested works on Windows. However -- you're right. The Dell only works on the Dell machines it was intended for, and the Lenovo only works on Windows.
Active TB3 cables can't be used as USB 3.1 type-C data cables, full stop. You literally cannot connect to a USB 3.1 type-C device with one. Only Thunderbolt to Thunderbolt. They can be used as charging cables, and the wattage will vary based on the manufacturer.