 "USB 3.0 vs Thunderbolt: Who will win the Port War?")
With Acer recently saying it will drop support for Thunderbolt ports and instead go with USB 3.0, we believe now would be an excellent time to look at the pros and cons of both interfaces. Without further ado, let’s kick off the comparison.
Round 1: Fight!
Performance
The Thunderbolt interface takes the cake when it comes to raw power. It boasts 10Gbps of bi-directional transfer rate, meaning it can essentially send and receive files at 10Gbps each. USB 3.0 pales in comparison thanks to its 5Gbps bi-directional transfer rate. However, it is worth noting that very few people would actually find the extra 5Gbps useful outside of the professional space.
USB 3.0 also has more utility in general; apart from transfering files, it can also act as a power supply. This essentially lets the port act as a charging hub for a smartphone or any other similar device. It also helps that USB 3.0 is backwards compatible, which means you can plug in your USB 1.0 or USB 2.1 devices into the port without having to worry about whether or not your computer will be able to read the device.
USB interfaces are dime a dozen
Thunderbolt, not to be outdone, has the ability to daisy chain several devices into one port—up to six devices can be daisy chained on to one Thunderbolt port. For example, this can be used to hook up your mobile storage, video capture box and raid storage into one port. Thunderbolt can also be used to plug in a display device, such as a monitor—assuming, of course, that you have the right cable.
Price
USB 3.0 wins here. As stated by Acer when it rationalised its decision to opt for USB 3.0 over Thunderbolt, “It’s less expensive, offers comparable bandwidth, charging for devices such as mobile phones, and has a large installed base of accessories and peripherals including external hard drives, flash drives, keyboards, mice, and gamepads.”
Thunderbolt, on the other hand, is quite a bit more expensive to manufacture. Currently, Intel’s third-generation Thunderbolt controller will set you back $10 (Rs 593 approx) and can power two ports. Intel has previously been on record stating that Thunderbolt is a premium interface and is meant for premium devices. As noble as the goal may be, it’s still not very good for adaptation rates, since the small subset of “premium devices” among countless regular devices actually has the interface.
Thunderbolt cables aren’t exactly what one would call inexpensive
Popularity
However, all of that power and utility means nothing if no one is using, which is currently the problem that Thunderbolt is facing. The interface’s biggest supporter right now is Apple, which, despite its massive success in the mobile industry, has only seen a limited amount of success in the PC space. Acer, the fourth largest PC manufacturer on the planet, pulled out of using Thunderbolt, citing that USB 3.0 is a better alternative.
Very few devices actually come with Thunderbolt ports on them. Apple is the most prominent backer of the technology. In contrast, almost every mid-to-high end computer now comes with USB 3.0 ports right out of the box. This is, in no small part, thanks to the backwards compatibility afforded by the port with devices that use USB 2 or older.
The future
The future is quite bright for both USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. USB 3.0 will be able to catch up to Thunderbolt in terms of transfer rates when USB 3.5 is released. This will bring up the interface’s transfer rates up to 10Gbps. It also helps that the next iteration of USB 3.0 will be able to completely remove the need for an extra power supply on HDDs.
Thunderbolt 2 will be quite an upgrade
Thunderbolt 2, on the other hand, will be going even further with the speed by adding channel aggregation. While on the outside it may look like the same 10Gbps transfer rates, at the logical level, this means that the previously separate 10Gbps channels can be combined into a single logical 20Gbps channel. Thanks to this, Intel claims that Thunderbolt 2 will be able to transfer 4K videos while simultaneously displaying it on a discrete monitor. Intel is hoping that this catches the attention of professionals who work on large files such as movies and professional-grade photographs.
Conclusion
There is no definitive winner here. Both the interfaces have their own unique uses. Sure, USB 3.0 can charge a smartphone, but a laptop with a USB 2.0 and a Thunderbolt port can do the same without compromising on the transfer rates from the Thunderbolt interface. However, Thunderbolt is also much more expensive to make, which inadvertently adds to the price of the computer.
It all comes down to taste. Most consumers will be fine with a USB 3.0 interface thanks to its versatility. Media professionals, however, will undoubtedly opt for a Thunderbolt interface because of its better transfer rates, and given enough cables, daisy chaining abilities.
Different strokes for different folks
However, if Intel does want more people to start using Thunderbolt, it’ll probably have to cater to more than just “premium” devices. Despite its performance, the pricing begs the question, “How good is good enough?”
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
