At least it seems to be made out of common Windows UI controls, even if they're arranged in an ugly way. This is a huge improvement over all the "GAMER!!" software where everything is an image or a custom control that doesn't respond properly to things like screen readers.
Presumably you'd place a power supply at each location where the hub was to be used, but it is comical to see Anandtech consider the hub "pocketable" above a photo of the hub as it is dwarfed by the comparably large power brick. It made me laugh a little at how peoples' minds work.
It would be used instead of a laptop power brick. I wonder if it works the other way too, laptop providing power to the hub via TB4. Battery wouldn't last long though.
No mention of compatibility with Thunderbolt 2. I recently tried connecting a thunderbolt 4 hub from anker to my 2015 MacBook Pro 15" using Apple's Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter which failed. So much for that backwards compatibility.
On that note I tried the Anker 5-in-1 (which is basically the above unit plus USB-A) on a Nuc10 and a Lenovo something-from-work, and they passed through TB3 devices fine (TB3 host - TB4 hub - TB3 device). Notwithstanding an Error 12 on the Nuc...
Devices are usually backward compatible Hub might be a different story since the different connections will require a higher total bandwidth that the previous TB2 will not have.
You do get forward compatibility though. I tried a TB4 dock on my TB3 laptop and it didn't work, but the manufacturer didn't claim it would, they outright said it wouldn't.. I tried it anyway. But if I get the TB3 dock that I want, it'll work with my TB4 11900K / Z590 desktop and my laptop just fine. TB3/4 are both 40Gbps. TB2 is asking a lot. You may get away with a TB3 dock that works for your Macbook, and it will also be forward compatible.
And then TB5 will come out and will barely have compatibility with these products, even if they're all using PCIe. Not to mention that it's $180-$330 just to allow you to do what a laptop should already be doing in the first place.
Intel's still trying, and still failing, to make Thunderbolt a thing. It amazes me that the company refuses to learn from FireWire's failure; Apple is the king of "we know best" and yet it didn't take them four freaking iterations to figure out nobody wanted something that was overpriced while offering few tangible benefits over a "lesser" opposing standard.
In fairness, IEEE 1394 was on the verge of becoming a standard. The intent in the industry had been USB1 for slow devices and 1394 for fast devices. Computer manufacturers not named after a music publisher were shipping their first systems carrying the port when Apple decided to start charging a hefty per-port royalty for use of their relevant patents.
The Fruit backed off when everyone else involved threatened to do the same to Apple, but the damage was done. No one wanted to touch 1394 anymore except the digital video crowd.
The USB-IF were the only winners, as the void left by 1394's sudden departure meant they could release a turbocharged version of USB1 and take over the world.
(The only device with a 1394 port I've ever owned was a Sound Blaster Audigy.)
1394 (1986, Apple, Sony, Panasonic, ) started 8-10 years before USB1 (1994/1996) and had 400Mbit/s, 30V 1.5A from start. Thunderbolt and USB (USB-IF, Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, and Nortel, ) are, at least partly, Intel engineering products (Intel, Apple, https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/d... had 12Mbit/s, 5V 0.1A (0.5A high-power port/hub, optical TB1 TB2) on USB 1.x. Lightning connector (Apple, compatible to USB with adapter cable) was followed by USB-C. USB 4.x ( Apple Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Renesas Electronics, STMicroelectronics, and Texas Instruments) Power Delivery Rev. 3.1 is now at up to 48V 5A, 40000Mbit/s.
I don't dispute this wall of statistics. But the publicised intent in the mid-90s was to replace RS-232 and "parallel" and SCSI and PS/2 and ADB with USB and 1394. And just as that started actually happening, a cash-strapped Apple decided to take 1394 hostage and demand a ransom. It went horribly wrong, and 1394 died in the crossfire.
more than right or wrong, these devices are time dependent possibilities and for the customers advance developed in usability and capability and now getting from serial simplicity (few data lanes) towards parallel (high bandwidth) complexity again? 1394 has clear advantages for network connectivity and cpu offloading (dma access, peer-to-peer), but lower priority on connector acceptance and its backward compatibility. Mass customers decided (and USB-IF served markets a suitable product)? 1394 over CAT5 is 100Mbps for 100m, and with fiber cables any data rate (400-1600Mbps,3200Mbps?) for this 100m (72m full 16 devices sharing bandwidth). ADB (superseded 6522 VIA and RS422) is 4 pins pre USB 1.x and looks like PS/2 Mini-DIN, 7 pins and (theoretically, with adapters) USB compatible. RS232 is 9 pins, serial protocol, still requested. SCSI started 50 pins to 68 pins, for SCA getting twrds 80 pins. USB-4.x 40Gbps is theoretically sup. to even SAS-4? 1394 is a 6,4,9 pins connection, USB 4,5(<=2.0),10(=3.0),24(USB-C,3.x-4.x) pins. USB-C enables 1394 capabilities from 1990-y2k's nowadays, but on higher security implementation (DMA), what was not obvious on decision between 1394 and/or USB-IF then ? TB2 optical up to 50m, TB3 optical is ~$10/mtr for 50m cable (~$40/mtr for 10m), up to 60m on standard? USB-C, copper, 0.5m(40Gbps)-0.8m-2m(10-20Gbps) distances for several $. Active USB-C might enable bridging up to 33feet. This, why RJ45 still around?
I love Thunderbolt. It's so handy.. nothing else really does what it does except USB4 and that's just TB3 renamed and made available to zero R&D peasant leeches.
When Intel introduced TB4, it promised cheap, long, braided TB4 cables. What happened?
There are many companies with many promises, which falls by the wayside once products start shipping, by which time, everyone forgot about the promises.
Still waiting for MS to sort out systemwide colour management with seamless HDR promised soon after creators update. Never happened, never will.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
cosmotic - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
Oh my, that Thunderbolt UI... Come on, intel.Eliadbu - Friday, September 24, 2021 - link
As long as it works I can even manage with command line software, this is a damn thunderbolt software not photo/video editing software.evilspoons - Saturday, September 25, 2021 - link
At least it seems to be made out of common Windows UI controls, even if they're arranged in an ugly way. This is a huge improvement over all the "GAMER!!" software where everything is an image or a custom control that doesn't respond properly to things like screen readers.fazalmajid - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
The power bricks on these hubs are monstrosities...PeachNCream - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
Presumably you'd place a power supply at each location where the hub was to be used, but it is comical to see Anandtech consider the hub "pocketable" above a photo of the hub as it is dwarfed by the comparably large power brick. It made me laugh a little at how peoples' minds work.voicequal - Sunday, September 26, 2021 - link
It would be used instead of a laptop power brick. I wonder if it works the other way too, laptop providing power to the hub via TB4. Battery wouldn't last long though.adisor19 - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
No mention of compatibility with Thunderbolt 2. I recently tried connecting a thunderbolt 4 hub from anker to my 2015 MacBook Pro 15" using Apple's Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter which failed. So much for that backwards compatibility.Scabies - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
On that note I tried the Anker 5-in-1 (which is basically the above unit plus USB-A) on a Nuc10 and a Lenovo something-from-work, and they passed through TB3 devices fine (TB3 host - TB4 hub - TB3 device). Notwithstanding an Error 12 on the Nuc...crimsonson - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
Devices are usually backward compatible Hub might be a different story since the different connections will require a higher total bandwidth that the previous TB2 will not have.Flying Aardvark - Monday, October 4, 2021 - link
You do get forward compatibility though. I tried a TB4 dock on my TB3 laptop and it didn't work, but the manufacturer didn't claim it would, they outright said it wouldn't.. I tried it anyway. But if I get the TB3 dock that I want, it'll work with my TB4 11900K / Z590 desktop and my laptop just fine. TB3/4 are both 40Gbps. TB2 is asking a lot. You may get away with a TB3 dock that works for your Macbook, and it will also be forward compatible.Wereweeb - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
And then TB5 will come out and will barely have compatibility with these products, even if they're all using PCIe. Not to mention that it's $180-$330 just to allow you to do what a laptop should already be doing in the first place.The_Assimilator - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
Intel's still trying, and still failing, to make Thunderbolt a thing. It amazes me that the company refuses to learn from FireWire's failure; Apple is the king of "we know best" and yet it didn't take them four freaking iterations to figure out nobody wanted something that was overpriced while offering few tangible benefits over a "lesser" opposing standard.Exotica - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
Usb4 is based on thunderbolt and will bring that tunneled protocol design to the mass market.Lord of the Bored - Sunday, September 26, 2021 - link
In fairness, IEEE 1394 was on the verge of becoming a standard. The intent in the industry had been USB1 for slow devices and 1394 for fast devices.Computer manufacturers not named after a music publisher were shipping their first systems carrying the port when Apple decided to start charging a hefty per-port royalty for use of their relevant patents.
The Fruit backed off when everyone else involved threatened to do the same to Apple, but the damage was done. No one wanted to touch 1394 anymore except the digital video crowd.
The USB-IF were the only winners, as the void left by 1394's sudden departure meant they could release a turbocharged version of USB1 and take over the world.
(The only device with a 1394 port I've ever owned was a Sound Blaster Audigy.)
back2future - Monday, September 27, 2021 - link
1394 (1986, Apple, Sony, Panasonic, ) started 8-10 years before USB1 (1994/1996) and had 400Mbit/s, 30V 1.5A from start. Thunderbolt and USB (USB-IF, Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, and Nortel, ) are, at least partly, Intel engineering products (Intel, Apple, https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/d... had 12Mbit/s, 5V 0.1A (0.5A high-power port/hub, optical TB1 TB2) on USB 1.x.Lightning connector (Apple, compatible to USB with adapter cable) was followed by USB-C.
USB 4.x ( Apple Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, Renesas Electronics, STMicroelectronics, and Texas Instruments) Power Delivery Rev. 3.1 is now at up to 48V 5A, 40000Mbit/s.
Lord of the Bored - Tuesday, September 28, 2021 - link
I don't dispute this wall of statistics. But the publicised intent in the mid-90s was to replace RS-232 and "parallel" and SCSI and PS/2 and ADB with USB and 1394.And just as that started actually happening, a cash-strapped Apple decided to take 1394 hostage and demand a ransom. It went horribly wrong, and 1394 died in the crossfire.
back2future - Tuesday, September 28, 2021 - link
more than right or wrong, these devices are time dependent possibilities and for the customers advance developed in usability and capability and now getting from serial simplicity (few data lanes) towards parallel (high bandwidth) complexity again?1394 has clear advantages for network connectivity and cpu offloading (dma access, peer-to-peer), but lower priority on connector acceptance and its backward compatibility. Mass customers decided (and USB-IF served markets a suitable product)?
1394 over CAT5 is 100Mbps for 100m, and with fiber cables any data rate (400-1600Mbps,3200Mbps?) for this 100m (72m full 16 devices sharing bandwidth).
ADB (superseded 6522 VIA and RS422) is 4 pins pre USB 1.x and looks like PS/2 Mini-DIN, 7 pins and (theoretically, with adapters) USB compatible. RS232 is 9 pins, serial protocol, still requested.
SCSI started 50 pins to 68 pins, for SCA getting twrds 80 pins. USB-4.x 40Gbps is theoretically sup. to even SAS-4?
1394 is a 6,4,9 pins connection, USB 4,5(<=2.0),10(=3.0),24(USB-C,3.x-4.x) pins.
USB-C enables 1394 capabilities from 1990-y2k's nowadays, but on higher security implementation (DMA), what was not obvious on decision between 1394 and/or USB-IF then ?
TB2 optical up to 50m, TB3 optical is ~$10/mtr for 50m cable (~$40/mtr for 10m), up to 60m on standard?
USB-C, copper, 0.5m(40Gbps)-0.8m-2m(10-20Gbps) distances for several $. Active USB-C might enable bridging up to 33feet.
This, why RJ45 still around?
back2future - Wednesday, September 29, 2021 - link
correction: PS/2 Mini-DIN is 6 pin (otherwise 7 pin connector is non-standard S-Video)Flying Aardvark - Monday, October 4, 2021 - link
I love Thunderbolt. It's so handy.. nothing else really does what it does except USB4 and that's just TB3 renamed and made available to zero R&D peasant leeches.bill44 - Thursday, September 23, 2021 - link
When Intel introduced TB4, it promised cheap, long, braided TB4 cables. What happened?There are many companies with many promises, which falls by the wayside once products start shipping, by which time, everyone forgot about the promises.
Still waiting for MS to sort out systemwide colour management with seamless HDR promised soon after creators update. Never happened, never will.
Flying Aardvark - Monday, October 4, 2021 - link
There are 2 meter TB4 cables, how long of a cable were you expecting or did they promise? For me that's pretty healthy. No complaints.