The point I thought the discussion made in favor of 10GbE over Thunderbolt 3 was 10GbE's ability to support many more connections and longer "range." I've found no NAS with Thunderbolt support for more than two simultaneous users. The 6.6 foot maximum length of Thunderbolt 3 cables means those two users would have to be close (or daisy-chained in through intermediate powered Thunderbolt docks). I don't think anyone doubts that Thunderbolt 3 is faster than 10GbE.I took a brief look at that, and the argument for 10GbE seemed really weak: that hard drive NAS can't take advantage of faster speeds.
This QNAP NAS line supports both Thunderbolt 3 and 10GbE. Fill it with SSDs in RAID 0, and it should be blazing fast on Thunderbolt, while offering the opportunity to connect to a 10GbE network.
In my own view, it would be better to provide those who need massive fast local storage their own devices. Then back them up to storage configured for durability and reliability.
Amazon said:QNAP TVS-472XT-PT-4G-US 4 Bay Thunderbolt 3 NAS with 4GB RAM, 10GbE, M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD slots
Current Amazon price, diskless, is either $1,149 or $1,139, depending on which of Amazon's variable price tabs open!
And that's another really good point, though it would favor Thunderbolt if really fast external storage is crucial. "My" networks (home and office) are built with "consumer grade" gear. No 10GbE in sight - Netgear Nighthawks in two locations together with unmanaged switches, an Airport Extreme in another.That being said, you probably won't achieve those speeds just running typical applications (web browsers, video streamers, etc.) on a consumer network.
We have one system and one MacBook Pro used for graphic design, and both of those rely on local attached storage for both creation and backup of large files.
The kind of "work files," spreadsheets, small databases, word processing documents, PDFs, in our daily workflow seem plenty fast from a slow 6-year-old ARM Synology over its 1GbE RJ-45.