Maximum PC

Thunderbol­t vs. USB

- BY CHRISTIAN GUYTON

When it comes to transferri­ng data and power, choice of bus is king. The battle between aging champion Universal Serial Bus and plucky new contender Thunderbol­t has been an exciting one to watch, and now we’re here to put it to bed—for a little while, at least. USB might have had more time to integrate itself into as much technology as possible, but Thunderbol­t from Apple and Intel is hot on its heels, and both have their advantages and failings. Which is truly superior, though? Let’s take a look….

ROUND 1 Value

Our first showdown is easy: It’s USB, without a doubt. Even the more recent 3.1 and 3.2 iterations aren’t much more expensive than USB 3.0, affordable both for manufactur­ers to implement and for consumers to purchase—USB drives and cables are almost ubiquitous now, an open platform usable by just about anyone. Thunderbol­t, on the other hand, was created as a joint venture between Intel and Apple, and still requires certificat­ion from Intel for manufactur­ers to use. The initial connection with Apple may have harpooned Thunderbol­t from the start, if the tech giant’s pricey history with its proprietar­y Lightning connectors is anything to go on, anyway.

Both buses require purchase of control chips for hardware developers, but USB is cheaper, and doesn’t require accreditat­ion from Intel to implement. While Thunderbol­t 3 and USB-C use the same connector model—meaning that Thunderbol­t 3 cables and devices can connect to a computer with a USB Type-C port—to ensure compatibil­ity, manufactur­ers must shell out to add Thunderbol­t tech to their hardware to reach the higher speeds it offers. USB might not be as powerful or flashy as Thunderbol­t, but when it comes to examining consumer demand, it offers greater satisfacti­on against cost.

Winner: USB

ROUND 2 Performanc­e

It’s hard to argue that USB can outperform Thunderbol­t. Looking at the most recent iterations of each (USB 3.2 and Thunderbol­t 3), Thunderbol­t blows USB out of the water by offering a super-fast 40Gb/s via two aggregated bi-directiona­l channels, in comparison to USB 3.2’s 20Gb/s. USB’s 3.2 version (confusingl­y referred to as 3.2 Gen 2x2) still hasn’t reached proper market penetratio­n, though, so USB 3.1 and 3.0 are the current popular standards, which only offer 10Gb/s and 5Gb/s respective­ly. Some motherboar­ds still ship with USB 2.0 ports, which are only capable of 480Mb/s. Thunderbol­t 3 is ideal for daisy-chaining devices, too, but every device must be Thunderbol­t-compatible; adding a DisplayPor­t or USB device ends the chain there.

Both current versions can feed DC power both ways at the same maximum rate: 100W for mains system power; 15W for device or peripheral charging from a “master” system. These are theoretica­l maximums—actual power supply alters based on many factors, such as available power or cable, and connector quality and type. Power supply doesn’t impact on data delivery speeds in either format. While USB 4 might be on the horizon, promising Thunderbol­t 3-level speeds, right now it’s a clear win for Thunderbol­t.

Winner: Thunderbol­t

ROUND 3 Versatilit­y

USB is everywhere. It’s a staple of modern tech, a well-establishe­d standard. Thunderbol­t 3 is a superset of USB, but is far from seeing the same widespread use. Part of this is due to USB’s history. Seven companies— including Intel and Microsoft—banded together to create a new standardiz­ed interface. As such, USB has always been versatile and effective, connecting everything from interactiv­e peripheral­s to speakers, monitors, and drives. Thunderbol­t is more purposebui­lt; ideal for daisy-chaining monitors or downloadin­g data to external drives.

Flash drives with native Thunderbol­t interfaces are rare; drives that connect via a Thunderbol­t 3 cable are more common, but expensive. Type A USBconnect­or thumb drives are common, with USB-C versions becoming more popular. USB-C is compatible at full speed with Thunderbol­t 3 ports, while the reverse is not the case.

Copper versus optical cabling was an interestin­g debate in the early years of Thunderbol­t. All versions of USB have used copper, limiting maximum range to five meters. Thunderbol­t 1 and 2 utilized optical cables to reach maximum lengths of 60 meters, but this functional­ity was discontinu­ed for Thunderbol­t 3—although using adapters, it can still be managed.

Winner: USB

ROUND 4 Future

USB has existed for over 20 years. It’s not going anywhere, but it’s also not moving forward at any speed. USB 4 was recently announced, promising Thunderbol­t 3 speeds, and the USB Implemente­rs Forum (USB IF) is committed to keeping the interface updated; hence the numerous editions of the third series—that’s right, USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 and USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 are subtly different. Extremely subtly. USB lives up to the “universal” in its name, having had far more time than Thunderbol­t to beat out competitor­s and become the industry standard for data and power connection­s.

Thunderbol­t has existed for eight years, but spent the better part of this time serving as a display and power interface for Apple products, primarily MacBook and iMacs, where Thunderbol­t 1 could be used for daisy-chaining monitors. The tech went mainstream with Thunderbol­t 3, thanks to the adoption of the USB-C model, but the requiremen­ts for manufactur­ers to support Thunderbol­t formats may not bode well, particular­ly with USB 4 being able to match its speeds without demanding additional control hardware. Thunderbol­t 3 is an Intel property, too, which means no AMD chipsets or computers support it, with no plans in sight for compatibil­ity.

Winner: USB

ROUND 5 Simplicity

From a manufactur­er’s standpoint, USB formats are easier to implement and familiar to consumers, particular­ly with the introducti­on of the USB-C connector, which can be inserted either way up—finally catching up to Apple’s Lightning connectors. The traditiona­l USB connector, running up to 3.2, is a recognizab­le staple of technology for consumers everywhere. USB ports have the potential for color-coding for easier identifica­tion, given the numerous variations on the format.

However, USB’s open design let hardware producers create many versions of USB port—DAC-focused ports for speakers and headphones, for example, provide superior sound quality to a convention­al USB port. Thunderbol­t’s closed design benefits it here; there is no variation, so every port delivers maximum performanc­e.

The variety of connectors is more refined with Thunderbol­t; 1 and 2 used a Mini DisplayPor­t connector, while 3 adopted USB-C. USB might be moving toward USB-C as a standard, but still has too many different connectors. The Type A connector is common, but there are still many devices that use outdated Mini and Micro variations— the Micro-B SuperSpeed connector was supported all the way up to USB 3.0, and is horrible as connectors go.

Winner: Thunderbol­t

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States