Intel's Thunderbolt Pushes Into Mainstream as Fast Alternative To USB (cnet.com) 193
Thunderbolt, Intel's super-speedy connection technology, isn't widely used. But that may change in the coming year, as more computer makers incorporate the USB competitor into their new models. From a report: Intel has hoped Thunderbolt, which debuted in 2011 on Apple's 2011 MacBook Pro, would become commonplace for computer users. A year later, the chipmaker forecast that "most PCs" would have Thunderbolt by 2015 to 2017. Despite the hype, only premium PCs carry the fast connection. To get a boost in adoption, Intel has built Thunderbolt into its newest Core processors, code-named Tiger Lake, which means laptop makers get Thunderbolt without having to pay extra for separate controller chips. Because Intel chips are so widely used, the company says Thunderbolt will now have its moment to shine.
"I would expect by 2022 Thunderbolt will be in more than 50% of the PCs sold," said Jason Ziller, who runs Intel's connectivity products, adding that more than half of laptops that ship in the next year will "definitely" carry the technology. Ziller has led Thunderbolt work since before it debuted in Apple's 2011 MacBook Pro laptops almost exactly 10 years ago. PC ports don't capture the imagination the way fast processors or smartphone cameras do. But they're a crucial part of most people's computing experience. Thunderbolt ports provide fast and versatile connections to external storage devices, monitors, network adapters and other peripherals. They can replace ports for HDMI, DisplayPort, Ethernet and power. The new Thunderbolt 4 lets multiport docks and hubs offer three Thunderbolt ports instead of just one.
"I would expect by 2022 Thunderbolt will be in more than 50% of the PCs sold," said Jason Ziller, who runs Intel's connectivity products, adding that more than half of laptops that ship in the next year will "definitely" carry the technology. Ziller has led Thunderbolt work since before it debuted in Apple's 2011 MacBook Pro laptops almost exactly 10 years ago. PC ports don't capture the imagination the way fast processors or smartphone cameras do. But they're a crucial part of most people's computing experience. Thunderbolt ports provide fast and versatile connections to external storage devices, monitors, network adapters and other peripherals. They can replace ports for HDMI, DisplayPort, Ethernet and power. The new Thunderbolt 4 lets multiport docks and hubs offer three Thunderbolt ports instead of just one.
No Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine thinkging USB is fine in the world of 240hz gaming (in addition to 7,5Gb/s storage and all your peripherals).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
60hz here, no problems with it whatsoever.
I am happy for your future eye surgeon.
Re: (Score:2)
And so is 640k am I right folks? What is the deal with those TV dinners...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Now Apple dropped Intel, and is dropping Thunderbolt too.
This is false. M1 Macs have Thunderbolt.
https://www.apple.com/macbook-... [apple.com]
Re: Apple left-overs? (Score:2)
Dropping implies they're in the process of doing so. Is that not true?
Re: Apple left-overs? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't true. All new Macs have Thunderbolt, and Apple has committed to retaining it for the foreseeable future. It's the only way to support eGPUs, among other things, and also many pros use it for other purposes, too (e.g. folks with thousands of dollars in FireWire audio interfaces).
Not sufficient (Score:4, Informative)
All new Macs have Thunderbolt,
Yes, ...
It's the only way to support eGPUs,
Currently, the "only way to support eGPUs" is providing a *PCIe link*.
Thunderbolt is just *one of the ways* to expose PCIe lanes.
(Good old grampa's ExpressCard is another way to do it which has been available for ages).
Also, providing a PCIe is a condition, but not the sole requirement.
Not only do you need a PCIe link, but you also need to support all the peculiarities of talking to a more demanding hardware such as a GPU (e.g.: larger BAR spaces, etc.)
Turns out, most of the ARM chipset on the market can't, and Apple M1's isn't an exception.
The only PCIe hardware that M1 laptop can manage is simpler stuff like network cards.
So 5G network? Yes. NVMe SSD? Yes. Pluggin a Titan RTX into an ARM-based Apple laptop or mini? Nope, won't work.
You're basically stuck with the same kind of limitation as a Raspberry Pi 4 compute (which isn't surprising given that current Apple M1 is just a souped up version of their iPhone/iPad CPUs, thanks to a small 5nm process enabling higher frequencies).
and also many pros use it for other purposes, too (e.g. folks with thousands of dollars in FireWire audio interfaces).
Thunderbold doesn't support talking to Firewire peripherals, unless you plug a Firewire controller on that PCIe bus.
Re:Not sufficient (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the only way to support eGPUs,
Currently, the "only way to support eGPUs" is providing a *PCIe link*.
Thunderbolt is just *one of the ways* to expose PCIe lanes.
(Good old grampa's ExpressCard is another way to do it which has been available for ages).
Also, providing a PCIe is a condition, but not the sole requirement. Not only do you need a PCIe link, but you also need to support all the peculiarities of talking to a more demanding hardware such as a GPU (e.g.: larger BAR spaces, etc.)
Yes, sure, but we're not going to see ExpressCard coming back. No chance. Its form factor is the entire thickness of a MacBook Pro. Thunderbolt is the only mechanism for eGPUs that will work with any Mac built after 2009.
Turns out, most of the ARM chipset on the market can't, and Apple M1's isn't an exception.
The only PCIe hardware that M1 laptop can manage is simpler stuff like network cards.
So 5G network? Yes. NVMe SSD? Yes. Pluggin a Titan RTX into an ARM-based Apple laptop or mini? Nope, won't work.
???? You're saying that you think its IOMMU is incapable of mapping large regions of memory and/or large numbers of regions? I'm pretty sure Apple is using DART silicon derived from the stuff that was used on the G5, which handled video cards just fine.
eGPUs are not currently supported on M1 Macs, but there are also no ARM-based drivers available for those chipsets on macOS, which would have to happen first. We'll see what happens going forwards, if and when Apple starts building higher-end M1 Macs with discrete GPUs.
You're basically stuck with the same kind of limitation as a Raspberry Pi 4 compute (which isn't surprising given that current Apple M1 is just a souped up version of their iPhone/iPad CPUs, thanks to a small 5nm process enabling higher frequencies).
That's a joke, right? You're comparing the M1 to the toy chip in a Pi that can't even reliably decompress H.264 at 1080p? SMH.
and also many pros use it for other purposes, too (e.g. folks with thousands of dollars in FireWire audio interfaces).
Thunderbold doesn't support talking to Firewire peripherals, unless you plug a Firewire controller on that PCIe bus.
Apple makes a Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter that you can buy for $30 [apple.com].
Re: (Score:3)
eGPUs are limited to a single x4 PCIe, so yes, there is a sever performance bottleneck.
However you forget why people use laptops in the first place: portability
Desktops are for people who need power.
Laptops are for people who need portability.
Re: (Score:2)
When Laserdisc came around a lot of people said VHS was just fine . . . and they won in the market. Eventually DVD replaced VHS but the point is just because a better technology is introduced doesn't mean it catches on - it has to be better ENOUGH that it makes switching worth it.
Thunderbolt may be better than USB, and some people can use its features to great advantage, but the majority of users just don't have a need.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody bought into Laserdisc or S-VHS. You're an idiot.
Let me guess -- you have a **1**MASSIVE**1** BLACK BEARD, and ***1***HUGE***1** black GLASSES.
WHY do you have those ***1**HUGE**1** black glassess, and a **1**HUGE**1** black beard?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah - I'm the rare clean shaven geek with perfect eyesight :).
At least Thunderbolt 4 has DMA protection (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the newest version of Thunderbolt requires VT-d to provide some protection against the DMA-based attacks. That was a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Any IOMMU will do the trick, in the mobile/embedded world we've had them for 10+ years. (for example, Tegra SMMU)
The DMA hole was a problem with early FireWire hosts as well. And even with a simplistic IOMMU there were problems when running in a hypervisor. (Intel and AMD have resolved this for the most part)
Re:At least Thunderbolt 4 has DMA protection (Score:4, Informative)
Intel's VT-d itself doesn't protect thunderbolt... it's just a means to protect DMA. Modern OS's have kernels that will use it to protect Thunderbolt connections, but doing it in the kernel still leaves known vulnerabilities. Apple initially only loaded the protection at the kernel level which led to vulnerabilities that they fixed by moving the protection into their UEFI firmware . https://www.slashgear.com/thun... [slashgear.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Intel is a little wishy-washy on what DMA protection you actually get with their TB4 sticker... The way the requirement is written allows a little wiggly room for other VT-d technologies and I'm not sure if they require it to protect everything. Intel's VT-d itself doesn't protect thunderbolt... it's just a means to protect DMA. Modern OS's have kernels that will use it to protect Thunderbolt connections, but doing it in the kernel still leaves known vulnerabilities. Apple initially only loaded the protection at the kernel level which led to vulnerabilities that they fixed by moving the protection into their UEFI firmware . https://www.slashgear.com/thun... [slashgear.com]
Microsoft appears to be at the forefront of pushing these security measures earlier and earlier into the boot process. But keep in mind that your OS has to support preboot IOMMU Or you won't be able to use any of these features. In fact a lot of security features that could be used during the preboot window are often not included in the firmware because it makes life hard on the OS.
Let's just create more confusion (Score:3)
That's just what we need: yet another general-purpose connector!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it uses USB-C connector. As long as it can fall back to USB, no problem. But I don't have any use for Thunderbolt, and never had.
Thunderbolt devices are still way too expensive. Not sure if intel can work on that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Too expensive?
I got Thunderbolt to HDMI cable for $15
I got used Thunderbolt dock with HDMI, display port, gigabit, etc. etc for $50
The same dock/hub with USB instead of TB and brand new is likely half the price.
But anyways I was talking about Thunderbolt monitors, or multi-bay SSD enclosures, external GPU. You know stuff that actually benefit from TB. They are all overpriced.
For that reason, most people with a TB port will NEVER use any TB device. Just like most people never used Firewire.
Re: (Score:2)
The same was really true of USB 3.0 at one point. But once everyone's computer actually supported it, you finally saw faster devices to take advantage of it hit a decent price. Before that it was niche and specialty and overpriced.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. And I expect the same will happen to USB4.
Thunderbolt, however, will likely remain a niche. TB 1/2/3 devices never got cheap. Why would it be different for TB 4?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the USB4 spec is basically just thunderbolt3 though...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully being widely adopted will push down the price.
That's the problem with "premium" connectivity. Firewire, Thunderbolt. They never get widely adopted so the price is always high.
Plugging in a single connector to get everything from fast charging to external 4k monitors to wired ethernet to real speakers is nice.
The problem is that USB and display port alt mode is able to do it too, for cheaper. Next generations are going to be even faster and able to drive higher resolution display. There is simply no need for Thunderbolt as well for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Try it with your smartphone. (Score:3)
I got used Thunderbolt dock with HDMI, display port, gigabit, etc. etc for $50
Try plugging it into your phone.
Chance are, the 50$ "Thunderbolt dock" you bought, is actually the same as most $20 docks available from no-name asian companies:
Just a USB3+Displayport over USB-C connector.
And it works with most modern hardware that has USB-C (though the HDMI part requires supporting Displayport alternate mode on one of the twister pairs).
Thunderbolt is supposedly *PCIe* over a USB-C connector, not *USB3+DP*. i.e.: a different alternate mode
(though it's a bit more complicated. It's not litt
Re: Let's just create more confusion (Score:2)
The TB ports I have use USB-c. You have a problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Not interested (Score:2, Insightful)
USB is a world standard and it works. Intel can take their proprietary new-shiny and go do one.
Re: (Score:2)
USB is cheap and most machines have multiple ports. Even the most basic Thunderbolt hardware and cables are orders of magnitude more.
Re: Not interested (Score:2)
Intel developed USB too...
Re: Not interested (Score:2)
No they didnt they are on a list of 7 companies who had a hand in developing it
Re: (Score:2)
So they did then.
Re:Not interested (Score:5, Insightful)
USB is a world standard and it works. Intel can take their proprietary new-shiny and go do one.
USB-C is actually a very loosely defined standard that manufacturers can interpret very loosely. This causes all kinds of confusion for customers as they don't know what capabilities a given port or connector will have beyond the bare minimum.
Thunderbolt, for its faults, defines a much stricter minimum set of requirements.
Thunderbolt bandwidth is needed for external GPUs (Score:2)
Skeptical about the motivation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Skeptical about the motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
I actively use Thunderbolt. I have multiple displays, plus a 10gbe NIC daisy chained from a single TB3 think on my ITX desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Skeptical about the motivation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that explains why it's always going to remain a niche product. Most people don't care about ITX desktops or 10 Gbps Ethernet. And those who do usually have a built-in Ethernet port, not a dongle.
USB4 with DP mode is good enough for most uses. Even USB3 is.
Re: (Score:3)
How about laptops? Plugin one cable that connects to your monitor or some sort of multidevice dock. It's worlds better than the old-school PC docks where you'd push down your laptop (e.g. Dell) and hope Windows didn't screw-up the hardware configuration.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see the benefit fully. It has some potential. The problem is
1. You can do it with USB and display port alt mode too. No need for a TB controller for most people. It will only improve with USB4 and more recent DP standards.
2. TB monitors with built-in USB, ethernet and DP ports are overpriced. I'd rather connect two cables than use that.
However, no matter if it's a push-down dock or a USB/TB cable, Windows can still screw-up the hardware configuration, so no improvement on that.
I wouldn't have any probl
Re: (Score:2)
" You can do it with USB and display port alt mode too."
USB3 can only drive a single 4k monitor. I have two, so I currently have two different USB3 docks plugged into my work laptop
Re: (Score:2)
Again, good for you. But you are the niche example, not the common one. By the time dual 4k monitors setup become common, USB with DP will likely be fast enough to drive it. It might be with USB4 and DP2, whatever.
But then you'll complain that we need TB5 to drive 4 8K monitors simultaneously. Most people couldn't care less. And because of that, TB devices will always carry a premium.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying you can't have it. What I am saying is that these devices cost much more than non-TB devices.
When people shop for a PC, they don't look for TB, because they don't have any TB devices. And when they shop for a device, they won't spend more for a TB one, because chances are their PC won't have a TB port. Until you realize that, you'll never understand why TB has been a market failure so far. Despite technological advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
"The USB4 specification is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Thanks, I'm glad you agree USB4 is awesome :)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. I just expect USB4 to replace USB3 as the default port at some point. It's not awesome, just an incremental update over USB3. It even seems to be an even smaller upgrade than USB2 to USB3.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m looking at moving my lan to 10gb because its now the bottleneck in moving data around. Too bad the cheapest 10gb switch is still $350. You guys are going to shit when you see how cheap 40gb infiniband hardware is. Most people don’t run IP over it though.
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck are you connecting to your USB ports that you need that kinda speed? The only think I can think of is a SSD NAS but they're usually connected with ethernet so it's on the network for everyone to use. Feels like it's merely a patent licensing cash grab that solves problems which don't exist.
Many may not view this as a valid question, but it certainly is.
Runs right along the lines of why does the next-gen EV need to post 0-60MPH times of less than 4 seconds in order to "compete" in today's market...
Re:Skeptical about the motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also external GPUs for laptops.
Work while mobile on a 10watt integrated GPU. Then plug into Thunderbolt\USB4 and attach a desktop class 200watt GPU.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is that we seem really close to a single port standard that could eliminate a bunch of other single purpose ports.
Why would we not want a single connector that could support 10GbE, 4k displays, storage performance near NVMe and beyond SAS-4?
Maybe TB isn't the right spec and USB4 is, but whatever, it seems like the technology/bandwidth is there except for a ton of people defending legacy good-enough connectivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we not want a single connector that could support 10GbE, 4k displays, storage performance near NVMe and beyond SAS-4?
Perhaps the same reason everything doesnt go 240V.
You "one standard to rule them all dreamers" never fucking wake up to the fact that behind you is a thousand fucking standard that are already all your fault.
One little reason (Score:2)
> Why would we not want a single connector that could support ...
It's a handy thing to have. And there is one bad thing about it.
The bad thing is you don't know what you're plugging in.
I once made something that looked like a company-issued thumb drive, with the company logo on it. It *worked* as a keyboard. Well, a keyboard that automatically entered Windows key - X - cmd.exe ....
There is some advantage to knowing that phone charging cord isn't typing commands. That's the one thing from a security per
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck are you connecting to your USB ports that you need that kinda speed? The only think I can think of is a SSD NAS but they're usually connected with ethernet so it's on the network for everyone to use. Feels like it's merely a patent licensing cash grab that solves problems which don't exist.
You can use it to connect to a dock which drives multiple displays + gigabit ethernet + power. That was the use case for me for the high end Dell I had for work a few years ago. Of course, I would have preferred it if they had kept the dock connector on the bottom as then I wouldn't have to fiddle with a cable, but one cable is the next best option to 0 I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I have external SSDs and need to move video files. I'd rather that take a few minutes, rather than a significant fraction of an hour.
And I do it a lot more often than you'd think.
The other day, I moved multiple 15 GB OS installer files to an external drive, and it only took a couple of minutes instead of the hour plus it would have with USB 2.x.
I also have an external 5K monitor that I plug in through Thunderbolt.
Just because you don't need the speed doesn't mean lots of other people don't.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I can think of is a SSD NAS but they're usually connected with ethernet so it's on the network for everyone to use.
And how do you get fast Ethernet into a Laptop without a fast external bus?
Slashdot 2021 (Score:5, Insightful)
Slow down there sonny! What in tarnation are people doing with these data rates? Back in my day we used a 60 milliamp current loop at 1200 baud.
This site has officially become nothing but cranky old men. Who are you to say how much bandwidth I need? Hey editors, ditch all the stories about AMD. We know the real needs of slashdot users in 2021. Metamucil and bifocal lenses. Maybe switch out Linux news with the latest in lawn care maintenance. No electric mowers either they’re too scary!
Isn’t the ability to hang an SSD at the end of two 4k displays and still have full bandwidth pretty fucking cool? I think so.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a REALLY fast typist.
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck are you connecting to your USB ports that you need that kinda speed? The only think I can think of is a SSD NAS but they're usually connected with ethernet so it's on the network for everyone to use. Feels like it's merely a patent licensing cash grab that solves problems which don't exist.
7GB/s+ NVME drives, 240hz displays, a modern videocard?
Re: (Score:2)
USB microscopes, for one. Unusable with USB 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck are you connecting to your USB ports that you need that kinda speed?
The real question is, why are you even trying to plug the latest 16x PCIe GPUs and 10gb+ network cards into your USB ports?
Re:Skeptical about the motivation (Score:5, Funny)
There are lots of cases, but everyone knows you never need more than 640K.
USB is good enough (Score:3)
I don't need thunderbolt, I suspect that 99% of people wouldn't give a rats arse about it. It'd be more useful if USB was made faster again.
Re:USB is good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:USB is good enough (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, USB-C ports don't seem very robust compared to HDMI and USB type A. I was debugging some networking equipment so dragged my little dock around and I had to be careful how I positioned everything because either the doc would hang, putting it's entire weight on the plug, or try to balance it on the keyboard. Honestly, it doesn't seem much better than microusb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using your laptop like a desktop is not the best example of why we should be bothered using thunderbolt at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: USB is good enough (Score:2)
What if that faster USB was called thunderbolt?
Re: (Score:2)
Then it'd still work in windows 7 and the port would already support a ton of old devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Hand off? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the Thunderbolt standard was being handed off to the USB consortium to be integrated into USB?
I know they opened it up to everyone, and that there are AMD systems that can technically support it, but it's not enabled because Intel has never "blessed" anything but their own stuff to use it and approval is part of the process.
As long as it's Intel only I won't really be using it.
Re: (Score:2)
I did some looking, looks like there is one AMD board that supports Thunderbolt. I see others advertised as having a "Thunderbolt Header" but I can't find any info as to these boards actually supporting Thunderbolt or not. I don't trust any summary info where Thunderbolt is concerned without deeper explanations. I blame the 10,000 Display Port adapters deceptively labeled "Thunderbolt" all over Amazon and ebay. Now any USB C port could be called a "Thunderbolt Header" without any support for actual Thun
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it now both Intel and Apple (ARM-based M1)? If it's been handed off to the USB consortium then why would AMD be prevented from implementing it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why I made my post.
Intel and Apple worked to get 1.0 off the ground, with Intel maintaining the controlling interest.
I was wondering why this article was up here instead of one saying "Thunderbolt now officially integrated into USB" or something along those lines.
Re:Hand off? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the Thunderbolt standard was being handed off to the USB consortium to be integrated into USB?
USB4 Will be Thunderbolt3 under the Hood.
Thunderbolt 4 will be, well Thunderbolt 4.
The differences being:
a.) Things that were optional in TB3 (and made it slightly more expensive), become mandatory in TB4
b.) Certain issues regarding the certification process and trademark payments for TB4.
use mine, pay me! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
of course. and force people to buy more crap , cables , to interface their devices to it .. replace existing perfectly working hardware because they want more money. There's no real need for thunderbolt.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah who would ever want to plug in a 4k display, 10gb nic, and ssd. The nerve of some fucking people.
Replace? (Score:2)
> They can replace ports for HDMI, DisplayPort, Ethernet and power
Actually, it can't really replace any of those except maybe power. You still need dongles.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunberbolt dock, one BIG dongle that does everything. Back when I was in the office I got power, audio, 3x monitors, ethernet, USB hub all from 1 cable. It's actually very slick.
Re: (Score:2)
I have one of those (Caldigit TS3+); it's kind of finicky. It's an odd product because if you're spending a significant amount of time at your desk, you might as well get a more powerful desktop machine. The dock is certainly not made for portability, where the laptop is.
Re: (Score:2)
I considered those when I posted; though I continued when I re-read the OP that said displayport, not USBC monitor.
they picked the right connector this time (Score:4, Informative)
Thunderbolt 1 and 2 were both piggybacking off the mini displayport connector, which wasn't very common in anything but macs. NOW they're using the USB-C connector for thunderbolt 3, which has a MUCH higher adoption rate.
So it comes as no surprise to me that we're going to see more thunderbolt-enabled computers.
They need to quit biting stingy though on the number of ports on the machines. They're taking a charge port, a video port, and two USB-3 ports off and replacing it with like a pair of USB-C/TB ports, and act like that's okay. Everyone's having to buy mini-docks, not because they lack the port they need, but because they don't have ENOUGH ports. Manufacturers still trying to save a buck!
(facepalm)
Re: (Score:3)
Now I wish Apple would just rework all of their Thunderbolt adapters to use the new connector. It's a serious pain in the backside to have a Thunderbolt 3->2 adapter to a FireWire 800 adapter to a FireWire 400 adapter hanging off the side of my laptop when working with all of my audio interfaces. For an extra few cents per unit, they could have a dual 400/800 adapter with the new Thunderbolt 3 connector. :-/
And I'd like to see their Thunderbolt Ethernet adapter upgraded, too.
Touchy unreliable connector (Score:2)
Competitor? Too late (Score:5, Informative)
USB4 is literally Thunderbolt.There's no competition at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I came to say this, USB4 is basically standardized Thunderbolt 4
Re: (Score:2)
USB4 is standardized Thunderbolt 3.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Intel so they might be planning to screw up the USB4 chip supply chain...
Isn't that an anti trust violation? (Score:2)
Good to see Thunderbolt coming forward (Score:4)
A rose by any other name smells as sweet... (Score:2)
Under the hood USB4 IS Thunderbolt 3, so yes, thunderbolt will enter the mainstream one way or another...
Re: (Score:2)
I remember some of MSI's X570 motherboards had thunderbolt support when launched... They had the required header on the motherboard and advertised support for it. Then when I went to look at them later, all mention of thunderbolt had been stripped from the marketing material as well as the documentation, and the header was completely unlabeled/unmentioned in the manual. So clearly the state of Thunderbolt on AMD boards is still poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I like the idea of a more strict USB-C standard (USB is such a crapshoot of optional features it makes it more frustrating than it should be) but as long as Thunderbolt is basically Intel only, I really could care less about it.
Re: (Score:3)
So, if your host supports it and you make sure your cable, external port connections, etc, etc all support TB3 you can get 20 MB/s the same as fastest USB (but pay 50% more) or get TB4 which is 40 MB/s but you have to sell your house and your first two children to a science lab.
I dont know what year you time traveled from, but here in 2021 our USB has been faster than 20MB/s for 20 years and counting now.
You seem to have completely failed your research efforts, unless you only meant to research USB 1.0, in which case you over-stated its fastest speed by about 8MB/s. When we consider USB 2.0 we see that you have massively understated its speed by nearly 300%. Even the slowest USB 3 speeds are at least an order-of-magnitude (1000%) faster than you are saying is the fastest usb sp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That’s how elderly and confused the typical slashdot user is now. Thunderbolt is too fast, new things are scary. That and they can’t be bothered to actually learn about something before shitting on it.