Thunderbolt 3 To Offer 40 Gbps Transfers, USB Type-C Connector

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Thunderbolt 3 To Offer 40 Gbps Transfers, USB Type-C Connector

Intel has announced that they will be abandoning their traditional Thunderbolt connector with the upcoming Thunderbolt 3 specification. Instead, this high transfer speed technology will use a USB Type-C connector...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Thunderbolt-3-USB-Type-C

[kaprikawn]

Christ on a bike, this is confusing.

So wait, it's using the Thunderbolt protocol, but looks like one of the new USB cables? But it isn't compatible with actual USB 3.1 protocols? So if you plug it into a standard USB 3.1 slot with the type C connector it'll do nothing?

I read the article on Ars about the relationship between the 3.1 spec and the new Type C connector, and I'm still none-the-wiser (and I'm fairly tech literate).

This seems like a massive clusterfunk. That's a clusterfunk with the n turned into a type c

[souenzzo]

I'm confused too.
So thunderbold now is just an USB3 controller?

[karasu]

So if you plug it into a standard USB 3.1 slot with the type C connector it'll do nothing?

I think it's like the last Macbook, only one type-c port, you can plug usb device in it, or a thunderbolt screen who will act as a hub/charger for other usb devices, lan, sound, additional screens. Pretty neat when you try it.

[zanny]

I'm confused too.
So thunderbold now is just an USB3 controller?

Its like msata vs mpcie. They are the same slot, but are not electrically compatible. If you stick an mpcie NIC in an msata slot it doesn't work. Same vice versa for an msata SSD.

The difference is that Thunderbolt devices plugged into USB-C ports can, if equipped with the hardware to do so, degrade the connection to just type-c data rates if they support interfacing over both USB and TB protocols. They have to actually support them, though - its like the Apple Thunderbolt Display, which requires Thunderbolt, even though the protocol supports Displayport over TB - the hardware doesn't, though, so you need TB ports on both ends.

TLDR: You can do TB -> TB, or USB -> USB, but never intermixed, and over the same port.

[quintesse]

The difference is that Thunderbolt devices plugged into USB-C ports can, if equipped with the hardware to do so, degrade the connection to just type-c data rates if they support interfacing over both USB and TB protocols. They have to actually support them, though

That's not how I read it. The spec seems to specifically state that TB 3 is compatible with USB 3.1, so it should *at least* always be able to charge and transfer data at USB 3.1 rates. But if both sides support TB3 the data rate can go up to the max 40Gb/s.

So as I see it:

TLDR: TB<->TB = 40Gb/s , Any other combination = 20Gb/s

[dragorth]

Christ on a bike, this is confusing.

So wait, it's using the Thunderbolt protocol, but looks like one of the new USB cables? But it isn't compatible with actual USB 3.1 protocols? So if you plug it into a standard USB 3.1 slot with the type C connector it'll do nothing?

I read the article on Ars about the relationship between the 3.1 spec and the new Type C connector, and I'm still none-the-wiser (and I'm fairly tech literate).

This seems like a massive clusterfunk. That's a clusterfunk with the n turned into a type c

Ok, USB Type C is just a general specification for a connector form factor. It can be used by other standards than USB. It can carry HDMI signals and a host of other things, including providing 100w of power.

The Type C connector can be used for any USB 3 port or later. It isn't a requirement for it, however. It is a requirement for Thunderbolt 3.

Thunderbolt 3 seems to be guaranteeing USB3.1, which will work with all USB 1, 2, 3 and 3.1 devices, just like 3.1. Buy an adapter for Thunderbolt 1 and 2 devices.

It provides a peer-to-peer networking connection at 10 GbE speeds.

Thunderbolt?, USB, DisplayPort, and power on USB-C
USB-C connector and cables (small, reversible)
40 Gbps Thunderbolt? 3 ? double the speed of Thunderbolt 2
Bi-directional, dual-protocol (PCI Express and DisplayPort)
4 lanes of PCI Express Gen 3
8 lanes of DisplayPort 1.2 (HBR2 and MST)
Supports two 4K displays (4096 x 2160 30bpp @ 60 Hz)
USB 3.1 (10 Gbps) ? compatible with existing USB devices and cables
DisplayPort 1.2 ? compatible with existing DisplayPort displays, devices, and cables
Connect DVI, HDMI, and VGA displays via adapters
Power (based on USB power delivery)
Up to 100W system charging
15W to bus-powered devices
Thunderbolt? Networking
10Gb Ethernet connection between computers
Daisy chaining (up to six devices)
Lowest latency for PCI Express audio recording



"I'm confused too.
So thunderbold now is just an USB3 controller?"

No, Thunderbolt is not just a USB 3 controller. First the USB Type C is just a connector. They could have put it in any connector they wanted, they just chose to put it in this one.

Now, Thunderbolt 3 does now include a USB 3.1 controller, but it also includes all the things I already listed.



"I think it's like the last Macbook, only one type-c port, you can plug usb device in it, or a thunderbolt screen who will act as a hub/charger for other usb devices, lan, sound, additional screens. Pretty neat when you try it."


Well, it could be used like this. Or just plug a USB device into it and get USB speeds. Or two 4K displays. Or a PCI-E extender, to support external PCI-E devices such as graphics cards, specialty compute units, NVMe PCI-E SSD, anything that works on a 4x PCI-E 3.0. Or into another computer, up to six, for bidirectional 10GbE

[TheBlackCat]

That's not how I read it. The spec seems to specifically state that TB 3 is compatible with USB 3.1, so it should *at least* always be able to charge and transfer data at USB 3.1 rates. But if both sides support TB3 the data rate can go up to the max 40Gb/s.

I have found statements saying a TB3 port on the computer side supports USB 3.1, but I can't find anything that suggests TB peripherals need to. Do you have a link saying that? Logically, it couldn't, since any device requiring faster transfer speeds or networking won't work with a standard Type-C port.

[TheBlackCat]

Ok, USB Type C is just a general specification for a connector form factor. It can be used by other standards than USB. It can carry HDMI signals and a host of other things, including providing 100w of power.

It is a specification for a connector form factor and a description of what the pins for the connector can do. One of the things the pins can do is carry additional data, like video, but that fits within the normal specification of USB Type-C.

As far as I can tell, Thunderbolt 3 does not. It uses the same connector, but it doesn't sound like it fits within the existing USB Type-C standard.

[schmidtbag]

Thunderbolt and USB 3 are getting dumber and dumber after every release. USB used to be a problem because some people (not including myself) had a hard time figuring out which was the right side up. The C connector is supposed to fix that, but now people are going to get confused about "is this Thunderbolt compatible?" and for people who don't have the C connector, they're going to get confused, thinking "well, this is a USB 3.x device, why doesn't it fit?"

The next problem is the speed of USB. 5Gbps was really pushing it, but it was doable since many ARM platforms and PCIe 2.0 compatible PCs could handle it. Anyway, the point of USB is universal compatibility, and they're totally ruining that when you buy a 10Gbps+ device and it pretty much only works (at full potential) on brand new intel-specific hardware. Considering the only [portable] devices that tend to need that much bandwidth are hard drives, I'd rather go with eSATA and save myself the insane amount of CPU load that comes with USB.

The 3rd problem is the friggin 100W supply. First of all, not all devices even have a power supply that can offer that much juice for even 1 port. That being said, I'm sure the vast majority of USB/TB ports won't even supply 25W. Considering how diverse the power supplies will be, no device will be designed to require 100W, so what's the point of going that high?
Second, the average USB rechargeable device cannot handle that much power. The device itself should not be obligated to contain components to regulate the power and I personally would not trust the computer to control how much power it should be outputting. If the computer fails to properly recognize the device, it will either supply too much power and ruin the device, or, it will supply so little power that it won't charge. I don't like that kind of risk.

Intel is trying to make a 1-size-fits-all and they're totally overcomplicating everything.