Thundercrap

[Filliam H. Muffman]

modelamac wrote:
I have 4 Macs I have to sync (2 User accounts each), 3 of which can use TB. I use it for TM, cloned backups, transfers among Macs because I want the jobs done now.

If you don't back up a SSD to your TM on another SSD, how much does Thundercrap speed it up compared to USB 3.0?

[Lew Zealand]

silvarios wrote:
[quote=August West]
I'm not sure how a small user base makes it crap. I, and many I know, are using Thunderbolt.

Because you wanted to or your devices didn't have USB 3.0? Are you a professional video editor?
As an different example, USB3 will not let me run a 3440x1440 monitor on a 2011 or 2012 Mac at a reasonable refresh rate - 50Hz. In fact it won't do any refresh rate at all but Thunderbolt does. On these machines, you can run 3440x1440 at 30Hz with Displayport but no higher. TB enables the bandwidth to make this monitor usable.

That said, I bought a 2012 2.6 quad mini refurb to replace a 2011 2.0 quad mini refurb for equal parts USB3 and faster cpu. 2011 should have been USB3 but was USB2 only. Lame.

[silvarios]

Lew Zealand wrote:
As an different example, USB3 will not let me run a 3440x1440 monitor on a 2011 or 2012 Mac at a reasonable refresh rate - 50Hz. In fact it won't do any refresh rate at all but Thunderbolt does. On these machines, you can run 3440x1440 at 30Hz with Displayport but no higher. TB enables the bandwidth to make this monitor usable.

That said, I bought a 2012 2.6 quad mini refurb to replace a 2011 2.0 quad mini refurb for equal parts USB3 and faster cpu. 2011 should have been USB3 but was USB2 only. Lame.

USB 3.0 is not a proper display output. I would never compare the two. You could compare DisplayPort, VGA, DVI, HDMI, and Thunderbolt. I've noticed a lot of Apple systems have a port that's technically capable of higher resolutions and refresh rates, but the GPU can't handle that capability off all outputs. Someone was just posting about this recently with an older Mac, 2009 or 2010 model perhaps? In your case, you might be right,

Thunderbolt might have more bandwidth than DisplayPort 1.2. Can anyone do the math to push 4K at 50 or 60Hz? DisplayPort 1.2 can handle up to four lanes, 5.4Gbps per lane. How does the GPU and associated connections function on those Macs? If Thunderbolt wasn't present, could those Macs have been given more lanes on DisplayPort? I have no idea.

[Lew Zealand]

silvarios wrote:
[quote=Lew Zealand]
As an different example, USB3 will not let me run a 3440x1440 monitor on a 2011 or 2012 Mac at a reasonable refresh rate - 50Hz. In fact it won't do any refresh rate at all but Thunderbolt does. On these machines, you can run 3440x1440 at 30Hz with Displayport but no higher. TB enables the bandwidth to make this monitor usable.

That said, I bought a 2012 2.6 quad mini refurb to replace a 2011 2.0 quad mini refurb for equal parts USB3 and faster cpu. 2011 should have been USB3 but was USB2 only. Lame.

USB 3.0 is not a proper display output. I would never compare the two.
Yeah I know, but the discussion was moving towards storage only which is a limited way of viewing TB. That said, USB3 is the best option available for general storage for the vast majority of people— lots of speed and little cost.

I look at TB storage on occasion but the use case can only really improve once the rest of the storage chain catches up. I can move files from my UASP USB3 drive dock to & from the internal SSD at 420MB/sec. and TB can't deliver that data much faster as my SSD like most is SATA-III and tops out at 510MB/s. TB2 and 3 will get you more but really only for delivering data directly to working memory, not other devices unless they are also TB 2 or 3. Or PCI-E/M.2 SSDs.

[Lew Zealand]

silvarios wrote:
You could compare DisplayPort, VGA, DVI, HDMI, and Thunderbolt. I've noticed a lot of Apple systems have a port that's technically capable of higher resolutions and refresh rates, but the GPU can't handle that capability off all outputs. Someone was just posting about this recently with an older Mac, 2009 or 2010 model perhaps? In your case, you might be right, Thunderbolt might have more bandwidth than DisplayPort 1.2. Can anyone do the math to push 4K at 50 or 60Hz? DisplayPort 1.2 can handle up to four lanes, 5.4Gbps per lane. How does the GPU and associated connections function on those Macs? If Thunderbolt wasn't present, could those Macs have been given more lanes on DisplayPort?

I'm not sure about the math as I invariably miss some detail about the total bit depth of the bandwidth and this I'm off by a factor of 1.5 or 2. I'll have a look at the specs for these machines and compare to the listed bandwidths in Wikipedia to see.

In any case I was using tests I'd done with a collection of 2011-2013 Macs when I got the LG TBolt ultrawide monitor. You can hook up the monitor to Macs in various ways but the best support for full 3440x1440 resolution and OK refresh rate in 2011 and 2012 is through TBolt. Quickly:

2011 Mac Mini
MiniDisplayPort - 30Hz
Thunderbolt - 50Hz

2012 Mac Mini
MiniDisplayPort - 30Hz
Thunderbolt - 50Hz

2013 15" MacBook Pro
MiniDisplayPort - 60Hz
Thunderbolt - 60Hz

That missing 2013 Haswell Mini is annoying for yet another reason.

[sekker]

My TB hubs are pricey but work pretty darn well.

I'd like to see the new TB/USB connector that combines power, USB and TB into a single connector.

Until we have true wireless connectivity, TB has a place.

However, for many people USB3 is the way to go.

[Mike Johnson]

My son’s iMac has Thunderbolt but not USB 3. I use TB for a boot SSD. But that drive was wicked expensive. And it doesn’t have its own port for daisy chaining, and the iMac has only one TB port. So what, if I want another peripheral, I’m supposed to spend hundreds of dollars on a hub? His iMac is a fine machine but it would have been great if it had had USB3 instead.

[sekker]

Mike Johnson wrote:
My son’s iMac has Thunderbolt but not USB 3. I use TB for a boot SSD. But that drive was wicked expensive. And it doesn’t have its own port for daisy chaining, and the iMac has only one TB port. So what, if I want another peripheral, I’m supposed to spend hundreds of dollars on a hub? His iMac is a fine machine but it would have been great if it had had USB3 instead.

I would have gotten a hub and booted by USB3. Then you'd have that iMac fully tricked out and updated.

TB has a lot of flexibility. It's expensive but an option at least.

[Onamuji]

USB 3.0 cannot come near the exploitable bandwidth of the Thunderbolt 2 RAID that I installed today.

...Connected to a Mac Mini server.

...In two or three years, we'll be able to buy a single pro SSD that matches the storage and speed.

Ain't progress great!

[silvarios]

Onamuji wrote:
USB 3.0 cannot come near the exploitable bandwidth of the Thunderbolt 2 RAID that I installed today.

...Connected to a Mac Mini server.

...In two or three years, we'll be able to buy a single pro SSD that matches the storage and speed.

Ain't progress great!

And neither can my Thunderbolt 1 machine.