Thunderbolt is basically useless.

thezooloomaster

Honorable
Apr 19, 2012
78
0
10,630
I just realised, when browsing this useful page on wikipedia about the transfer rates of various devices, that in theory the average user cannot actually take advantage of the thunderbolt interface (which has a 1.25GB/s bit rate). It seems to me that unless you happen to have a (very expensive/ only useful for workstations) PCIe SSD then your SSD will be stuck with a 600MB/s transfer rate (SATA-600). In other words, the almost twice as high bit rate of thunderbolt would be wasted, and more poignantly, be in no way superior to USB 3.0.

Maybe I'm missing out on something here (buffers in system memory perhaps?), but when it comes to transferring large quantities of date it would seem there's no difference whether you use USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt.

I could be deeply mistaken. What do you think?
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960
Your analysis is based on the assumption that Thunderbolt is only used for copying data from a single drive. This is just silly.

Thunderbolt can:

1. Daisy chain devices
2. Copy to and from very fast RAID arrays
3. Drive displays
4. Drive external GPUs

And probably lots of other stuff I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
 

thezooloomaster

Honorable
Apr 19, 2012
78
0
10,630


Ok then, thanks for the information. Let's see if they actually start making more devices fitted with Thunderbolt.
 
They are. There is the yet to release MSI GUS II and a new Vi-dock thunderbolt based eGPU enclosure. Available product include Sonnet expansion chassis and the Pegasus RAID HDD enclosure that use thunderbolt.