I'm asking because there are dozens, if not hundreds on the market. Are there real-world differences? Are there brands that are less or more reliable than others?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thunderbolt 3/4 cables: recommendations?
- Thread starter Ellis Vener
- Start date
lightandaprayer
Veteran Member
I'm going to quote a few paragraphs from the recently released Take Control of Untangling Connections :
Thunderbolt 4 requires that all certified cables are universal: they all must work at up to 6.6 feet at 40 Gbps, and be compatible with USB 2.0 to USB4 standards at up to 40 Gbps. Appropriately standards- compliant cables include the affordably priced versions from Other World Computing, which cost $24 for 2.3 feet/0.7 m, $34 for 3.3 feet/1 m, and $57 for 6.6 feet/2 m.
OWC Thunderbolt 4 Cables
These cables can also pass up to 100 W, enough for nearly all current devices that draw power over Thunderbolt or USB. (See USB and Thunderbolt Power for the future.) Thus for most purposes, a Thunderbolt 4 cable will support all Thunderbolt and USB standards.
There’s only one question I have unanswered about Thunderbolt 4 cables: are they active or passive? In Intel’s skimpy documents, it simply says they must be “universal” without using the terms “active” or “passive.” Various cable manufacturers’ sites and product listings mix “universal,” “passive,” and “active” for cables up to 6.6 feet/2 m without any further detail. So if any Thunderbolt 4 is active, it still must be universally compatible; if it’s passive, it still must support all the Thunderbolt and USB standards. I would like to insert a shrug emoji here.
In other words, buying quality TB4 cables is worth the cost especially future proofing-wise. . .
Thunderbolt 4 requires that all certified cables are universal: they all must work at up to 6.6 feet at 40 Gbps, and be compatible with USB 2.0 to USB4 standards at up to 40 Gbps. Appropriately standards- compliant cables include the affordably priced versions from Other World Computing, which cost $24 for 2.3 feet/0.7 m, $34 for 3.3 feet/1 m, and $57 for 6.6 feet/2 m.
OWC Thunderbolt 4 Cables
These cables can also pass up to 100 W, enough for nearly all current devices that draw power over Thunderbolt or USB. (See USB and Thunderbolt Power for the future.) Thus for most purposes, a Thunderbolt 4 cable will support all Thunderbolt and USB standards.
There’s only one question I have unanswered about Thunderbolt 4 cables: are they active or passive? In Intel’s skimpy documents, it simply says they must be “universal” without using the terms “active” or “passive.” Various cable manufacturers’ sites and product listings mix “universal,” “passive,” and “active” for cables up to 6.6 feet/2 m without any further detail. So if any Thunderbolt 4 is active, it still must be universally compatible; if it’s passive, it still must support all the Thunderbolt and USB standards. I would like to insert a shrug emoji here.
In other words, buying quality TB4 cables is worth the cost especially future proofing-wise. . .
Philip Eihuyar
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,621
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 690
https://www.lifewire.com/why-apples-3-meter-thunderbolt-4-pro-cable-costs-so-much-5271128
The video teardown of the cable is interesting -
MoreCowbell
Leading Member
n/t
graybalanced
Veteran Member
I'm done buying anything except Thunderbolt 4 cables, because finally, to meet Thunderbolt 4 requirements, you buy a certified cable and it will work with all supported USB and Thunderbolt data speeds, and all supported power levels. No more guessing!
Thunderbolt 4 is more expensive but it is worth it to no longer have to guess whether a cable supports 40Mb/sec or 100 watts PD.
For now, I would trust T4 cables by Apple, OWC, and CalDigit.
The added electronics and high price are for the long length. If you want a cheap Thunderbolt cable, it has to be short to reach maximum Thunderbolt speed. A short distance needs no internal electronics. That is why the cable bundled with Thunderbolt devices tends to be half a meter, which is hard to work with.
If you want a longer length for less money, you can get that, but top speed is around half Thunderbolt maximum. If you want a longer length that is top speed, electronics must be added to the cable, so the cost goes up.
Thunderbolt 4 is more expensive but it is worth it to no longer have to guess whether a cable supports 40Mb/sec or 100 watts PD.
For now, I would trust T4 cables by Apple, OWC, and CalDigit.
For those who do not know...
The added electronics and high price are for the long length. If you want a cheap Thunderbolt cable, it has to be short to reach maximum Thunderbolt speed. A short distance needs no internal electronics. That is why the cable bundled with Thunderbolt devices tends to be half a meter, which is hard to work with.
If you want a longer length for less money, you can get that, but top speed is around half Thunderbolt maximum. If you want a longer length that is top speed, electronics must be added to the cable, so the cost goes up.
Last edited:
Thank you all for the advice and recommendations. I went with OWC.
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
For anyone who likes very short cables (as I do) I have two of these:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09FYXGP8C/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1
They seem like a quality product. Braided with good strain relief.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09FYXGP8C/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1
They seem like a quality product. Braided with good strain relief.
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
After posting above I noticed a few reviews which say this is not a TB4 cable. This is not the case for me.
As someone else mentioned above, I decided to go all TB4 recently and bought these two 0.3m Maxonar cables at the same time as two 0.7m OWC TB4 cables.
Both the Maxonar and the OWC cables report my OWC Thunderbolt hub as USB4 and both benchmark attached Thunderbolt drives with same results.
When I connect the OWC TB Hub with an older TB3 cable it reports the hub as TB3, also with same benchmark results.
All three leads report as connecting at 40Gb/s.
Last edited:
MoreCowbell
Leading Member
I am interested doing some testing myself and was wondering what application you used for your tests?
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
I have used many but prefer AmorphousDiskMark for routine comparisons and checking that things are working. If you have not done any benchmarking before be warned it is a minefield and very easy to get confusing and inconsistent results!
MoreCowbell
Leading Member
n/t
That’s odd. If the cable is two feet long, how can it work at 6.6 feet? And if it’s longer than 6.6 feet, why does it only need to work for the first 6.6 feet only? And how can it be compatible with USB 2.0 at up to 40 Gbps?
This is super-super true… BUT do not waste money on a Thunderbolt cable if you only need a USB-C (USB 3.0 or 4.0) cable or a 100 Watt charging cable. There is a big difference between a USB-C 4.0 cable and a Thunderbolt cable.
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
Not saying you are wrong but I am not sure what it is! especially after reading this. Seems like the main thing might be that USB4 can be down to 20Gbps and TB4 has to be 40Gbps.
Also surprised that my OWC TB4 cable reports my OWC Thunderbolt hub as USB4 in System Report.
Apple seem to be blurring the distinction.
Mot cables seem to be described as TB4/USB4 with 40Gbps capability.
Any clarity welcome!
Last edited:
It is ridiculously confusing, isn’t it? And explanations are very difficult to find.
USB-C is a connector standard. It’s a much broader standard than older ones. For example, it includes a power charging requirement which lets devices determine how much power can be drawn. This is HUGE, because battery powered devices can optimize their charging speed by knowing how much current they can draw. So there are many charging-only products. And another part is the flip panel connector capability.
USB itself is… USB. And it supports the Type-A and the Type-C connectors. USB 3.2 supports up to 20 Gbps, and USB 4.0 supports up to 40 Gbps, although few products support this 40 Gbps mode. So the first difference is that, in practice, USB goes up to 20 Gbps and Thunderbolt goes up to 40 Gbps.
But there is another difference: Thunderbolt can combine several packetized technologies onto the wire at the same time, and that is the truly big difference. If you have a MacBook Pro, for instance, you can attach a power charger, or a USB 3.2 hard disk, or a DisplayPort monitor to a port. If you attach a DisplayPort cable, the laptop sends video over the pins. BUT in Thunderbolt mode, the computer treats the connection as PCI-E, and it will intermix packets of DisplayPort and USB zoned the SAME pins. Of the 40 Gbps, if 18 is used for DisplayPort video, the other 22 Gbps is available for USB. Or, two 18 Gbps DisplayPort signals can be sent to two daisy-chained monitors, leaving 4 Gbps free for USB data.
So Thunderbolt allows combination of several protocols at once over the same pins, not just the same cable but over the same pins inside the cable.
While USB is a published standard, Thunderbolt is not; it is Intel-proprietary.
So now let’s look at what you will attach to a Thunderbolt port:
Disk drive: These are almost always going to be USB-based, unless you buy a very expensive Thunderbolt drive array. Always test transfer speed to make sure your cable is operating properly.
Monitor: You can attach a DisplayPort cable or an HDMI dongle directly. Or, if you have a very expensive Thunderbolt Display, you can attach a Thunderbolt cable and then attach USB devices to the monitor.
Docking Station: These again come in USB-only and Thunderbolt flavors, with the Thunderbolt models being clearly better in this case.
USB hub: In this case, of course, you’re USB only.
GPU: You can attach an external GPU, and here the Thunderbolt models are far superior.
Last edited:
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
Thanks for that detailed reply. I have been following the USB/TB saga quite closely over the years, and understand the basics quite well, including the difference between connector design and protocol used.
However I have not clearly understood the most recent twist of the saga....the difference between USB 4 and TB4, which was the only part of your previous post I was reacting to. You said there was a "big difference" between USB4 and TB4, which I don't think you covered in the reply. Any more on that would be welcome.
This is probably the best explanation I have come across (found since posting earlier):-
https://www.tomsguide.com/uk/features/thunderbolt-4-vs-usb4-whats-the-difference
As I said earlier, I am surprised that my OWC TB4 hub connected by OWC TB4 cable is reported Apple System Report as connected by USB4. Do you understand that?
Thanks.
EDIT Just to support the last question, here is a screenshot of my OWC hub in System Report. Note That the heading on the left is a single heading for "Thunderbolt/USB4", and many references to the "Thunderbolt/USB4 bus" and "Thunderbolt/USB4 Device Tree". Apple seem to be blurring the distinction between TB4 and USB4.
Last edited:
The port on the computer can operate in USB4 or TB mode, that is clear. I would think the OWC device would run in TB mode, because it breaks out to DisplayPort, doesn’t it? I would ask OWC about this, but the difference between the two modes is that one is only USB and (optionally) Power, and the other is USB/DP/PCI-e and Power. Although I haven’t read the protocol specs in detail, I think that video over USB will be less efficient than video over TB because of USB protocol overhead.Thanks for that detailed reply. I have been following the USB/TB saga quite closely over the years, and understand the basics quite well, including the difference between connector design and protocol used.
However I have not clearly understood the most recent twist of the saga....the difference between USB 4 and TB4, which was the only part of your previous post I was reacting to. You said there was a "big difference" between USB4 and TB4, which I don't think you covered in the reply. Any more on that would be welcome.
This is probably the best explanation I have come across (found since posting earlier):-
https://www.tomsguide.com/uk/features/thunderbolt-4-vs-usb4-whats-the-difference
As I said earlier, I am surprised that my OWC TB4 hub connected by OWC TB4 cable is reported Apple System Report as connected by USB4. Do you understand that?
Thanks.
EDIT Just to support the last question, here is a screenshot of my OWC hub in System Report. Note That the heading on the left is a single heading for "Thunderbolt/USB4", and many references to the "Thunderbolt/USB4 bus" and "Thunderbolt/USB4 Device Tree". Apple seem to be blurring the distinction between TB4 and USB4.
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
Thanks. Yes, as you say, I am sure the OWC hub runs in TB mode even though reported as USB4.The port on the computer can operate in USB4 or TB mode, that is clear. I would think the OWC device would run in TB mode, because it breaks out to DisplayPort, doesn’t it? I would ask OWC about this, but the difference between the two modes is that one is only USB and (optionally) Power, and the other is USB/DP/PCI-e and Power. Although I haven’t read the protocol specs in detail, I think that video over USB will be less efficient than video over TB because of USB protocol overhead.Thanks for that detailed reply. I have been following the USB/TB saga quite closely over the years, and understand the basics quite well, including the difference between connector design and protocol used.
However I have not clearly understood the most recent twist of the saga....the difference between USB 4 and TB4, which was the only part of your previous post I was reacting to. You said there was a "big difference" between USB4 and TB4, which I don't think you covered in the reply. Any more on that would be welcome.
This is probably the best explanation I have come across (found since posting earlier):-
https://www.tomsguide.com/uk/features/thunderbolt-4-vs-usb4-whats-the-difference
As I said earlier, I am surprised that my OWC TB4 hub connected by OWC TB4 cable is reported Apple System Report as connected by USB4. Do you understand that?
Thanks.
EDIT Just to support the last question, here is a screenshot of my OWC hub in System Report. Note That the heading on the left is a single heading for "Thunderbolt/USB4", and many references to the "Thunderbolt/USB4 bus" and "Thunderbolt/USB4 Device Tree". Apple seem to be blurring the distinction between TB4 and USB4.
The reason I am sure is that I have two Thunderbolt-only NVMe/SSD enclosures which will not connect to a USB port of course. These work perfectly on the OWC hub and test up to the expected 2600Mbps speed, even though it is reported as USB4 connected. Does this make sense to you?
I have another (very short) cable which was sold as a "USB4 cable, compatible with TB4" (aside...in the world of cables and drives "compatible" is very dangerous word!). Anyway this USB4 cable connects my pure TB drives.
Everything I do and see on my computers USB4 and TB4 are equivalent. But I accept that for some uses there is a difference. The clearest hard fact statements in the Toms Guide article I linked earlier are:
"USB4 devices can have a minimum of 20Gbps link speeds. In comparison, all Thunderbolt 4 devices have a 32Gpbs minimum requirement. UBS4 has a 7.5W minimum power requirement whereas Thunderbolt 4 doubles it with a minimum of 15W."
and
"Thunderbolt 4 cables support 40Gbps speeds over 2 meters. In contrast, UBS4 can only support 40Gbps within one meter and reduces to 20Gbps on cables that are 2 meters or longer".
I probably don't see any differences because of preference for short cables and I dont use them for eGPU or displays. Although a USB4 cable is allowed to be 20Gbps, as far as I can see they are marketed as 40Gbps and described as USB4/TB4, like the very short one I have.
Last edited:
lightandaprayer
Veteran Member
Maybe if you try to find the information online or rely on forums. . . But I provided a link to an excellent resource in my previous post: Take Control Of Untangling Connections
I got the ebook soon after it was released In March because I was tired of wasting so much time chasing down the info I needed. I'm glad that I did because there was all of the data that I had been piecing together over time. . . And that was still incomplete on my end.
Now I have info about data, video, audio and networking ports, cabling and more in a searchable PDF. (It's also available in other DRM-free formats.) Frankly, I had no idea how complex things have become until I stuck my nose into this book.
There are helpful things like a simple graphic for deciphering the iconography found on USB cables:
USB Cable Iconography
Of course there are other more complicated areas of interest. Thankfully they are presented in such a way that not-so-techie inquiring minds like myself can successfully grok what is going on.
Then there are the surprising arcane details, such as the fact that more than a few USB-C charging cables (including some with 100W max potential) transfer data at the USB 2.0 snail-slow speed of 480 Mbps. Apple has sold such a cable since 2015 and it still ships with some laptop models.
There is even a one-page appendix about Firewire, where I learned that with an adapter you can use a FireWire 800 device with a modern Mac over Thunderbolt 3 or 4. I paid extra for a USB 3.0 port on my OWC FW800 enclosures but I know that there are still people using FW800 devices in 2022.
Yes, the ebook lists for a whopping $9.99. . . (I paid $6.99 by using the coupon code PHOTOACTIVE.) But I shudder to think how much time I would have spent online to find a comparable amount of useful information.
Last edited:
graybalanced
Veteran Member
The Take Control series in general is worth buying. They do not hire lightweights. The authors of those books tend to be long time (decades) Mac/computer experts with long track records of factual help for users.
Mike Boreham
Senior Member
Agreed. I am a big fan of the Take Control series but hadn't bought this one because I thought I had sufficient knowledge and didn't feel confused on the subject. But I just bought it as I was curious to see what it said about USB4 and TB4 and it has not disappointed. Much more thorough than anything I had found. Well worth anyones money.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum