[HN Gopher] USB4 v2 is also 120 Gbps
___________________________________________________________________
USB4 v2 is also 120 Gbps
Author : WithinReason
Score : 184 points
Date : 2022-09-02 19:19 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.angstronomics.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.angstronomics.com)
| antman wrote:
| USB v4.1574787547zXQ 120gb mode will be enabled if you buy a rare
| cable captured from Hades by Hercules himself and your laptop has
| a chipset certified by Intel, Huawei and WWF. Side question: Does
| anyone know where I xan find a USB display cable for under 30$?
| (Don't remember the version)
| userbinator wrote:
| IMHO they should've just used a similar convention to what IEEE
| did with Ethernet, given that the speeds are now roughly
| comparable:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_physical_layer#Naming...
| jaimehrubiks wrote:
| Will USB replace Ethernet at some point?
| syngrog66 wrote:
| I've lost track of how many different USB standards exist now
| dopa42365 wrote:
| https://fabiensanglard.net/usbcheat/index.html
| dataflow wrote:
| That's even worse than I thought. So SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps is
| known not only was "USB 3.1", but also "USB 3.2"? And
| SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps and 20Gbps are also _both_ known as
| "USB 3.2"? So when someone says "USB 3.2" what are they
| referring to?!
| garaetjjte wrote:
| You can't tell without that Gen suffix, because it got
| retroactively renamed so that manufacturers could stick
| "USB 3.2" label on their old USB 3.0 devices.
| userbinator wrote:
| I have a feeling that things went off the rails starting with
| USB 3.0. They should've just gone with USB 3, 4, 5, 6, ...
| pmalynin wrote:
| When are we going to hear about USB4.1 2x2 Gen 1 V2? Surely that
| will be compatible with existing cables.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| The touted 80gbps one is presumably USB4 Gen4x2x2 (or Gen4x4?),
| this is presumably USB4 Gen4x3x1 or something.
|
| No, I don't even know. Can we please just call them fucking
| USB11 and USB12 or something?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The number after the x is the number of lanes, FYI.
| sophacles wrote:
| No, V1 of the USB versioning scheme has been deprecated for
| several versioning scheme versions now.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The simple solution is to specify which versioning scheme
| you referring to when talking about USB, so USB4
| Gen4x2x2(V1)
| LexGray wrote:
| Even easier. Just have the EU mandate that everybody will
| be required this year to support USB4 Gen4x2x2(v1) on all
| devices. This will solve everything!
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 80gbps is a bit of a weird one. To work with 120gbps, that
| would imply that 80gbps is two lanes and 120gbps is three
| lanes in a single cable. I suppose this is possible with the
| type C connector as it has plenty of pairs.
|
| This would make USB4 80gbps (the sticker you see on the box)
| USB4 Gen 4x2, as there are two lanes of the fourth lane type.
| The 120Gbps one contains three lanes of the fourth lane
| version, or USB4 Gen 4x3.
|
| There's no need for USB11 and USB12. Look at the
| 10/20/40/80/120Gbps sticker on the box. That tells you all
| you need to know.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >80gbps is a bit of a weird one. To work with 120gbps, that
| would imply that 80gbps is two lanes and 120gbps is three
| lanes in a single cable. I suppose this is possible with
| the type C connector as it has plenty of pairs.
|
| As I understood it from TFA, 80gbps is realized with 2
| lanes down, 2 lanes up; while 120gbps is realized with 3
| lanes down, 1 lane up (yes, the opposite direction is
| capped to 40gbps).
|
| So that's USB4Gen4x2x2 and USB4Gen4x3x1 if we use the
| current genxlane nomenclature? Who knows.
|
| >There's no need for USB11 and USB12. Look at the
| 10/20/40/80/120Gbps sticker on the box. That tells you all
| you need to know.
|
| I can't recall the last time I actually saw a gbps marking
| on USB cable/device marketing, so no I can't "look at the
| sticker" because it doesn't exist.
|
| Just give me an unambiguous, whole, unique USB standard
| revision number for me to compare with my other devices and
| cables. The current system of superceding and overlapping
| standard revisions and meaningless genxlane numbers is
| fucking worthless and a waste of my time and nerves.
| metadat wrote:
| But what revision? R1 or R1.31?
|
| If you use an R1 cable on a 1.31 device, you may end up with a
| brick, or even worse a fire.
|
| Before plugging them in, I always dissect open the ends of my
| cables and examine the chips under a microscope just to be
| certain. Sometimes a delid is also needed, in such instances I
| head over to Ken Shirriff's house. :P
| [deleted]
| noisy_boy wrote:
| If you make things compatible, how will you sell more things?
| al2o3cr wrote:
| Personally, I'm waiting for USB4 HD Chain of Memories 358/2
| Birth by Sleep Remix Final Chapter Prologue 2.0
| ArcMex wrote:
| Wow, this comment is a sight for Soras
| bxparks wrote:
| I _think_ you are joking about "USB4.1 2x2 Gen 1 V2", but I
| can't tell. USB naming is messed up.
| MBCook wrote:
| To make it less confusing they'll be moving to the old WiFi
| style names. The new versions will be called, in order:
|
| USB-A, USB-B, USB-R, USB-CZ, USB-L2, USB-S, then USB-D. To
| avoid confusion they'll use the same physical port, which is
| now Type-C, but renamed Type-1138.
|
| USB-D is somewhat theoretical as we're likely to go through
| more renaming by then. But I digress.
|
| It's important to note each version of the standard supports
| both active ("o") and passive ("u") variants depending on
| distance.
|
| Power levels are a simple scale of 10^nth milliwatts,
| expressed as a Roman numeral for readability. So I = 10mw, II
| = 100mw, etc.
|
| Soon you can buy a highly advanced passive USB cable capable
| of delivering 10kW to your car for charging.
|
| USB-SuX.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Thanks, I hate it.
| [deleted]
| ffhhj wrote:
| Waiting for USB-BSU
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| Sounds like a knock-off of NTSF:SD:SUV::
|
| (a great show by the way)
| whynaut wrote:
| when I see that many letters, I just think Law and Order.
| drdaeman wrote:
| But in the end they'll "restart" it and call it just "USB".
| jeroenhd wrote:
| On consumer devices, this would be "USB4 120Gbps". Look for
| this when you're in the store.
|
| If you're designing circuit boards or writing drivers, you'll
| need the full spec.
|
| Assuming the new spec pushes 60Gbps over a single lane, that
| would be "USB 4 Gen 4x2" going by the USB spec. Two lanes
| (x2) at the new lane type (4), part of the new USB 4 spec. A
| device only capable of driving a single new fancy lane would
| be "USB 4 Gen 4x1".
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I think it's only a matter of they renaming every model every
| time the standard is updated. So models come with
| $standard_version $standard_revision $main_model_version
| $minor_model_version, and there are different sets of all of
| those numbers that refer to the same thing.
|
| Or maybe they have another naming schema orthogonal to that
| that I don't know about.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| This kills me because USB naming is actually super
| straightforward.
|
| USB3.0, USB3.1, and USB3.2 are spec revisions.
|
| USB3.1 (and 3.2) support Gen 1 and Gen 2 physical
| layer/transmission modes (gen 1 is 8b/10b encoding and gen2
| is 128b/132b encoding).
|
| USB3.2 adds support for using the extra differential pair in
| the cables to transmit data. So now you get x1 and x2 which
| correspond to the number of lanes available for data
| transmission (akin to PCIE x1, x4, x8, and x16).
|
| So USB3.2 gen 2 x2 is just the USB3.2 standard using
| 128b/132b encoding over 2 lanes.
|
| The problem is that everyone decided to use the tech spec
| identifiers rather than the consumer identifiers for labeling
| products. If you are in engineering working on making the
| product which uses USB ports, then you would look for ICs
| that support USB3.2 gen2x2 operation but if you are selling a
| consumer product, you are supposed to label it as a USB3 SS+
| 20Gbps port.
| chx wrote:
| They did learn their lesson. The marketing name for USB4 cables
| are simply
|
| USB4(r) 20Gbps
|
| and
|
| USB4(r) 40Gbps
|
| https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_produc...
|
| These version numbers are internal.
|
| Products will be called USB4(r) 80Gbps.
| okanat wrote:
| The USB3 names were also internal (Proper marketing terms
| were Superspeed 5/10/20 Gbps). However motheboard
| manufacturers loved technobable as marketting.
| dheera wrote:
| I dunno but why can't we just use fiber already
| le-mark wrote:
| I wish I could get 100gbs+ fiber as cheap and ubiquitous usb
| 2.0. I'm curious why not as well.
| eru wrote:
| Optical fibre ain't useful for the kinds of applications that
| USB does.
|
| (We have fibre to the home here in Singapore. It's great. But
| also fragile.)
| jabbany wrote:
| Doesn't pass power?
|
| A huge chunk of the newer USB protocols has also been support
| for higher wattage faster charging.
| cesarb wrote:
| Playing devil's advocate: a fiber+power cable makes some
| sense. The main thing which limits the cable length is the
| data wires, not the power wires (just notice how one of the
| main counter-arguments for "one USB cable to rule them all"
| is "the higher bandwidth passive USB cables have to be
| shorter and thicker").
| lazide wrote:
| Fiber is far too fragile to deal with the abuse even
| babied USB cables put up with, unless you mandate some
| kind of semi-articulating steel conduit anyway.
| dheera wrote:
| So do it? Steel is cheap and recyclable.
| eternityforest wrote:
| It's also heavy and won't be recycled till we can
| landfill mine.
|
| Now your short cables need heavy steel and fiber just to
| make long cables possible. Or else you have to have
| fiber+high speed copper in one connector.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy312cUHumk&t=288s
|
| Fiber can be _very_ durable.
|
| Once you get past the sticker shock of the transceivers.
| _hypx wrote:
| We can just make them thicker so abusive bending is not
| easy to do.
| dheera wrote:
| So put power? You can run fiber right alongside 50 amp high
| voltage cables if you want without any signal corruption
| issues whatsoever.
|
| For practical purposes they'd need just {fiber, 19VDC,
| GND}, and none of the schengens that USB-C has. No
| shielding issues, no signal corruption issues, nothing. And
| you could run it for kilometers.
| dTal wrote:
| You need at least 5V DC for backwards compatibility with
| devices that expect that.
| dheera wrote:
| No, you don't. Get an adapter with a voltage converter,
| just like you would if you need to plug a 120V-only
| device in a 240V outlet.
|
| 120VAC outlets have not changed in 60 years and that's
| owing to the fact that they output just straight-up
| power, no negotiation BS.
| eternityforest wrote:
| Voltage converters are big and not that reliable at the
| consumer level. Putting the power supply in something
| replacable is a good thing. Going from 19 to 5 would be
| an extra conversion step.
|
| Plus, 19v is too low. USB does 48v for the 240W mode. You
| could use more current, but then you are wasting copper
| and making connectors bigger and heavier.
|
| I used to not be a fan of negotiation but it seems that
| it's highly reliable these days, stuff isn't getting
| fried because of incorrect voltage selection.
| cesarb wrote:
| > 120VAC outlets have not changed in 60 years
|
| Where I live, 120VAC outlets last changed less than 20
| years ago, with the adoption of the new NBR 14136
| standard for plugs and sockets.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| You can, there is no reason that the data transmission cannot
| be done with fibre. You just need a fibre to USB coupler at
| the end and a source of power. If you have a use case for it
| you could build it with two Raspberry Pi and a pair of
| couplers.
|
| Now is it worth it? That's another issue.
| RicoElectrico wrote:
| ... & Knuckles (tm)
|
| But in all seriousness, this is one of the worst things
| marketer types make us suffer. Breaking consistency of naming
| and numbering. EACH and EVERY model series of ANYTHING
| successful just has to break the pattern at some time.
|
| Remember when Nokia phones had 4-digit model numbers,
| optionally with "i"? Then Nseries and Eseries arrived which all
| had Symbian, but confusingly enough they continued to make
| 4-digit models with Symbian in parallel. They also started
| "classic" and "slide" series which often reused other unrelated
| model numbers. Around 2010 they changed it all to a hot mess
| like X3-02, C3-01, then came 3-digit optionally with Asha in
| front. Thankfully they were not as creative with Lumia which
| had 3-digit or 4-digit models.
| rcthompson wrote:
| USB4.1 2x2 Gen 1 V2 & Knuckles requires you to plug the cable
| into a special active adapter that then plugs into the
| device.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I was SURE they had learned their lesson after the clusterfuck
| that was 3.1/3.2 but no, right back at the same shit again.
|
| It's hard to see this as anything but purpose-built to make it
| harder to tell what a cable is capable of (a huge boon to
| scammers, aka: 90% of cable sellers). If the USB-IF had half a
| brain between them all (clearly they don't) they would require
| the data/charging/etc specs to be printed on the cable. Instead
| they spend their time coming up with confusing standards that
| are indecipherable to the average person which lead to a shitty
| world where everyone needs a cable tester to know what a cable
| is capable of, or they have constant bad experiences with a
| cable that fits the port but underperforms if it works at all.
|
| I've heard some people say this is because it's all marketing-
| driven vs engineering-driven, if that's the case the fire the
| whole department because they suck at marketing. It's gotten to
| the point the only cables I can trust are from Anker and even
| those suffer from lack of labeling on them.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The USB versioning makes total sense. People just
| misunderstand versioning, in a similar way to how some people
| thing version 1.2 is higher than version 1.11 because
| versioning sucks.
|
| For the general consumer, there are three labels. SuperSpeed
| USB 5Gbit/s, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbit/s, and SuperSpeed USB
| 20Gbit/s. More Gbit/s is more better. Easy and
| understandable. SuperSpeed USB 10Gbit/s used to be called
| SuperSpeed+ but that was a mistake that was soon corrected.
| All the gen-X-Y-by-Z stuff is for people who read data sheets
| for fun. You don't need to care and you shouldn't.
|
| The Gen 3.2 2x2 label is juar not for general consumers. It's
| a technical spec written in a similar way to how law works:
| the spec has revisions.
|
| Take food for a comparison. There have been big lawsuits
| around whether something is a biscuit or a cake for weird tax
| reasons. For this analogy I'm going to assume cakes are just
| better biscuits, swap them around in your head if you
| disagree.
|
| Now, if I sell a biscuit, I'll say "1 biscuit". This is
| similar to 1x1 in USB terms. Then I come up with my improved
| biscuit, or a cake, and I'll also sell cakes; I'll put "1
| cake", or 2x1 in USB terms. The generation is just how good
| the food is or how fast the lane is.
|
| Through the magic of engineering I also find a way to pack
| multiple foodstuffs into a single box! I now sell boxes of "2
| biscuits" (1x2) and "2 cakes" (2x2). In practice, nobody
| needs boxes of 2 biscuits, but it's a technical possibility.
|
| However, suppose the law changes this year. Some biscuits are
| now cakes, some cakes are now biscuits.
|
| If my target audience is the general public, I'll put "2
| cakes" and "2 biscuits" on the right boxes with updated
| packaging or ingredients. This is similar to the USB logo
| with a little 10 or "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbit/s". Because nobody
| buys my boxes of two biscuits, I don't even bother designing
| a logo for them.
|
| If my target audience demand technical specs on my food, I'm
| in trouble now, though. How do they know if my definitions
| are based on the new law or the old law? Will their dietary
| compliance officer let them buy from me? The solution is
| simple: add the spec you're following to the ingredient list
| on the back!
|
| Now I'm selling "two biscuits (food law of 2021)", or in USB
| terms "USB 1x2 Gen 3.2", and "two cakes (food law of 2022)",
| "USB 2x2 Gen 3.2" in USB terms.
|
| Cakes can be cakes in both 2021 and 2022 law, but I don't
| think anyone will be confused if you write down according to
| what law they're considered cakes. Similarly, people
| shouldn't get confused by what spec the USB description
| works. Look at the consumer name for comparison of actual
| products, look up the provided spec the conversation table
| that came with your copy of the latest USB spec if you want
| to get a pedantic view.
|
| This versioning problem is everywhere. Are two PCIe Gen 4
| lanes faster or slower than four PCIe Gen 3 lanes? How does a
| PCIe Gen 5 lane compare? What about memory, is DDR5-3200
| faster or slower than DDR4-3200? Is an Intel Core i7 12700
| faster than an Intel Core i9 11900K? What about a Ryzen 7300
| versus a Ryzen 3950X?
|
| The label "USB4v2" should probably be changed to "USB4 Gen 2"
| for consistency, but this random Chinese hardware
| manufacturer might just have used the wrong name here. This
| isn't part of the official USB spec, it's just a name some
| person found on some machine.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| If we're going to be talking about general consumers, most
| can't (and righteously shouldn't) handle anything more than
| one whole incrementing number. WTF is a "gbits", a layman
| would ask; is it Google Bits?
|
| Car manufacturers have this drilled down: Each new model
| car gets a new version number based on year of release,
| nothing more nothing less. 2020 Honda Civic, 1995 Toyota
| Camry, 2022 Tesla Model S. Newer year? Newer model. Simple.
| Done.
|
| Likewise, USB should be numbering each and every new
| different standard revision with a whole number if the goal
| is to attain general consumer understanding. By my tally,
| we're up to USB12 with USB4v2120gbps (USB11 for
| USB4v280gbps).
|
| How fucking simple everything would be if instead of asking
| if a cable/device is compatible with USB3.2, which can be
| USB3 or USB3.1 and Gen1x1, Gen2x1, Gen2x1, Gen1x2, or
| Gen2x2 because nobody knows WTF Gens are, we ask if it's
| compatible with USB6 (aka USB3.2Gen2x2). It's simple and
| unambiguous.
|
| USB naming schemes as it stands is pig latin to computer
| nerds, let alone the layman. If the goal is universal
| understanding by the public at large, aka the general
| consumer, it is failing hard.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| All consumers need to know is that more 'gbits' is
| better, so it's fine. I think that's true enough as a
| generalisation to be acceptable.
| prng2021 wrote:
| It's definitely nowhere near that easy for general
| consumers.
|
| This Lenovo page lists USB ports "USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (full
| function, USB+DP+PD)" and " USB-3.2 Gen 1 Type-A", with no
| mention of speed https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thi
| nkbook/thinkbook-s...
|
| This HP laptop lists USB 3.1 Type C and 3.1 Type A, with no
| mention of speed. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-
| envy-x360-2-in-1-15-6-touch-...
|
| Apple's MacBook Air page lists "USB 3.1 Gen 2 (up to
| 10Gb/s)".
|
| Now, imagine someone buying a USB hub or dock. You might
| ignore the details from above and just search Best Buy or
| Amazon for any usbc compatible device. You'll most likely
| mess up. Alternatively, you could search for a device
| specifically compatible with "USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 (full
| function, USB+DP+PD)" as mentioned above for your Lenovo
| and get immediately super overwhelmed and confused.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > However, suppose the law changes this year. Some biscuits
| are now cakes, some cakes are now biscuits.
|
| > Cakes can be cakes in both 2021 and 2022 law, but I don't
| think anyone will be confused if you write down according
| to what law they're considered cakes.
|
| But all cakes are biscuits and always have been, better in
| every way.
|
| And many cake-biscuit packages just say the year the cake
| upgrade was invented.
|
| So if you put the cake year on something, people expect
| those biscuits to also be cakes, and not just biscuits.
|
| Even if the packages are _supposed_ to say "cake", what
| actually happens in practice should be taken into account.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >indecipherable to the average person
|
| Average person? This shit is indecipherable even for hardcore
| computer nerds.
| pvorb wrote:
| Now I'm imagining a team of archaeologists in 2000 years
| who are struggling to decipher USB cable packaging in an
| abandoned electronics warehouse.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| They have successfully reverse engineered our computer
| architectures, found abundant documentation on TCP/IP et
| al, one team had a major breakthrough and international
| recognition when they recovered large parts of the
| network infrastructure of an old obscure company called
| Google, which uncovered a platform for hosting audio-
| visual content, giving researchers abundant material to
| reconstruct how past societies worked. But that one thing
| they just can't crack is those weird cables with
| different plugs and colors and names, misleading and
| contradicting instructions, documentation and
| specifications. They'll never find out what secrets these
| plastic-encased HDDs hold.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| The most probably cause for the civilizational downfall,
| argue the archeologists, is that after a software update
| everyone's devices stopped being able to communicate with
| each other. They found references to a prophecy of this
| in old books, and refer to it as the "Babble" event.
| [deleted]
| bsimpson wrote:
| You know what's handy about a Thunderbolt 3 cable? It has a
| thunderbolt and the number 3 silkscreened onto the plugs.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| The target market for thunderbolt and USB cables are very
| different though. Most USB cables are bought by people who
| just want to charge their iphone and don't want to spend a
| cent too much. Thunderbolt cables are bought by people who
| want to send data between very specific and expensive
| devices.
| bravura wrote:
| Can you recommend a reliable cable tester?
| voltagex_ wrote:
| What do you want to test? Another reply has mentioned the
| 15K USD TotalPhase device, which I'd love to use one day.
|
| For "home" testing, I've used a USB C -> NVMe enclosure
| (UGreen is my favourite) with a half decent NVMe drive in
| it. Does the drive reach 1 gigabyte / second sustained
| read/write? Congrats, the cable supports 10 gigabit.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| You can get little USB power meters but they only tell you
| voltage and current, not transfer capability. Actual cable
| testers cost thousands.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Actual cable testers cost thousands.
|
| Why? Surely there could be some SBC or something for like
| $100 which you could connect to your computer. The
| testing software can measure how long it takes to
| transfer a file. Then it could try charging itself from
| the computer requesting a higher and higher wattage. I
| don't see how a device like that could be so expensive.
| mikewhy wrote:
| So that measures transfer speeds, but what about the rest
| of the things USB carries?
|
| Here's an example of the data that cable testers can give
| you: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFbJD6RE4EY
| charcircuit wrote:
| The goal is to determine the type of cable. Testing the
| signal quality is an entirely different thing.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| It would be helpful if the connectors for the different
| cables had different shapes, so it would be immediately
| obvious what kind of cable it is and mostly prevent
| plugging incompatible cables into the wrong places. Thank
| you for listening to my TED talk.
| jimmydorry wrote:
| Thanks to "helpful" legislation, everything must use the
| same port. Expect this to only make the situation worse
| in the coming years.
| _adamb wrote:
| Yeah, I would like a test device that could let me know
| which transfer rates a cable supports. I've got a huge
| pile of USBC cables (and adapters). A good chunk of them
| might even be USB 2.0!
|
| It seems like a device capable of acting as a host &
| device could just try to shove data down a cable and see
| what the max is...
| newaccount74 wrote:
| On the Mac, there's a simple way to check cables:
|
| Take a USB3 device, plug it in with the cable, and then
| go to System Profiler (Apple Menu -> About this Mac ->
| System Profiler). Look for the device, and check the
| speed. If it says 480MB/s it's a USB 2 cable, if it says
| 5GB/s, 10GB/s or 20GB/s then it's a USB3 cable.
|
| I assume there's a way to do the same thing on Windows
| and Linux.
| hanche wrote:
| I just tested that, and it works. Using a Samsung T7 SSD.
| Clever. Now I wonder if a similar trick works for power
| capabilities?
| voltagex_ wrote:
| There's $50-200USD USB PD meters on AliExpress. I like
| Ruideng / RD-Tech brand ones.
| eyegor wrote:
| I mean sure, but you can't see signal quality at 1gb/s
| without a scope capable of much higher rates (you need at
| least a few points in each period). Short of muxing
| together several fpgas and hand picking components, you
| straight up can't see the signals. There's a reason why
| you can buy a 4 digit multimeter for $30, 5 for maybe
| $500, and >5 costs thousands.
| gumby wrote:
| Real cable testers are specialized high speed scopes with
| all sorts of protocol support and cost thousands.
|
| But what you need is a device that simply queries the cable
| and asks it what it thinks it can do. I haven't seen one
| for sale and am too busy to make one, but it shouldn't be
| that hard.
|
| Apple's system info ought to tell you this but doesn't.
| userbinator wrote:
| Thousands? You're about 1-2 orders of magnitude low...
| input_sh wrote:
| Thousands sounds about right to me. For example the only
| one I've played with is $15k (Advanced Cable Tester by
| Total Phase).
| joshstrange wrote:
| I wish, I've looked a little but part of the problem is the
| new specs. I doubt many testers can be "forward compatible"
| to be able to test new specs before they exist. I have an
| old USB-A tester I used but it's obviously useless for
| USB-C and all it's specs. Even then, the old tester I have
| just tells you the speed/wattage, not the max, it's more
| for monitoring than testing.
|
| At some point I'll just have to bite the bullet and get
| whatever is on the market and hope there aren't new specs
| right around the corner.
| edude03 wrote:
| I believe Totalphase tests signal integrity instead of
| specifically what kind of cable it is - which solves the
| forward compatibility problem but their stuff is very
| expensive for the home user
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| AFAICT they are learning some lessons. Its not supposed to be
| called USB4 V2. It's USB 80Gbps. But whether vendors get with
| the program...
| chx wrote:
| They did learn their lesson. The marketing name for USB4
| cables are simply
|
| USB4(r) 20Gbps
|
| and
|
| USB4(r) 40Gbps
|
| https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb4_language_produc.
| ..
|
| These version numbers are internal.
|
| Products will be called USB4(r) 80Gbps.
| vinay_ys wrote:
| Little good it did with USB-C. They have a similar language
| guidelines for USB-C -
| https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_type-
| c_language_...
| chx wrote:
| Nothing this simple, no.
| Macha wrote:
| The old marketing names assume a user can understand the
| difference between Full Speed, High Speed and Super Speed
| without prior knowledge, and that is somehow easier
| than... numbers.
| eternityforest wrote:
| An average person doesn't need mods than USB 2.0 speeds.
| Anything past microSD speeds is fine. Even M.2 can only do
| 2GB/s or so, right?
|
| 120Gbps is way beyond anything an average person needs.
|
| The only issue is that hopefully it will replace HDMI and
| some cables might not handle that. But even then, it's solved
| by buying a few Ankers and marking them with tape.
|
| Yeah, it's all super confusing, and could be better, but in
| practice it works really well.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Even M.2 can only do 2GB/s or so, right?
|
| M.2 can do anywhere from 0.5GB/s to 14GB/s depending on the
| protocol used.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| No, it really doesn't work well. Have you ever used a USB
| protocol analyzer or written a USB device driver?
|
| Bad cables operating out of spec don't just make things a
| bit slower - they introduce noise. They corrupt data which
| best case is caught by a checksum and just creates latency
| but worst case triggers device driver bugs and makes
| devices behave oddly, hang, need to be plugged and
| unplugged, etc. This is _enormously_ frustrating for users
| and it happens _all the time_. Users typically blame their
| devices, or their computers, rather than the bad cabling.
|
| Furthermore, it's not even remotely correct that an average
| person doesn't need more than USB2.0 speeds. That's only
| 480Mbit/s, which isn't nearly enough to drive the $80 HD
| webcams that we're all using while WFH. Common modern
| webcams need like 1.5Gbit/s, and that's _just_ the webcam.
| You can 't run a typical WFH computer on USB 2.0 in the age
| of zoom meetings.
|
| USB is an absolute nightmare right now.
| eternityforest wrote:
| I don't think average consumers use $80 webcams.
|
| If you're not a 45k+ a year type, you might very well be
| doing remote work on phones, assuming you're WFH at all.
| Almost all laptops have built-in cameras and the
| convenience factor is pretty high.
|
| Even if you are, webcams could very well run in 480Mbps
| if they had to, if in camera encoding was still the norm,
| which it would be if high speed cables weren't
| (theoretically) widespread.
|
| I agree that the situation might not be ideal for people
| doing stuff beyond average consumer level, but even that
| could be mostly worked around with a controller firmware
| update(Count the bit error rate, inform the user if they
| are using a trash cable).
|
| No amount of standardization and marking of the cables
| will eliminate scammers without killing cheap uncertified
| stuff totally, so I would think software and
| documentation fixes would be best.
|
| Most stuff already comes with a suitable USB cable. Just
| pop up a reminder to fish out the good one if the one
| you're using is bad.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| "Almost all laptops have built-in cameras and the
| convenience factor is pretty high."
|
| How do you think the internal camera on most laptops is
| connected to the rest of the computer? (Hint: It's
| permanently wired to the USB bus. It's a non-removable
| USB webcam)
|
| Given this fact, it seems you should actually agree with
| my original statement.
| adrian_b wrote:
| That is correct for most older laptops.
|
| However, many newer laptops have begun to use cameras
| with a MIPI interface, like the smartphones. This has
| created problems with bad device driver support for non-
| Windows operating systems, as discussed in a recent HN
| thread.
| voxadam wrote:
| > This has created problems with bad device driver
| support for non-Windows operating systems, as discussed
| in a recent HN thread.
|
| That story for the interested was "The growing image-
| processor unpleasantness" and can be found here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32516826
| [deleted]
| Shorel wrote:
| The average person now has a laptop without an HDMI port,
| without a dedicated GPU, without Ethernet. It only has one
| or two USB-C ports.
|
| A USB cable replaces the HDMI connection. That by itself
| requires more than USB 2.0 speeds. HDMI is 3.2 GB/s vs USB2
| 480 MB/s.
|
| Now add connecting an external GPU, Gigabit Ethernet, they
| require faster speeds.
|
| eGPUs in particular, use a lot of bandwidth.
| NavinF wrote:
| >Even M.2 can only do 2GB/s or so, right?
|
| 2012 called and they want their PCIe 2.0 devices back.
|
| My PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD does 7GB/s for bursts up to ~700GB at a
| time (SLC cache) which is very convenient when I'm moving
| video around. You can also get x8 and x16 data center SSDs.
|
| PCIe 5.0 SSDs should come out next month and double that.
| faster wrote:
| I think standards in general are confusing to the average
| person. The average person doesn't care about standards, they
| care about completing a task: can I use this cable to connect
| my Mac to a 4k Monitor? Can it pass all the power that my
| device needs from my charger? Will this cable be a bottleneck
| if I connect it to my external SSD storage?
|
| None of my computers support USB4 today, but I'm buying USB4
| cables so I don't have to waste so much time looking for a
| cable that will do a particular job.
|
| I want to say that I will only buy cables that are labeled
| clearly with capabilities and bandwidth but I'm not sure that
| is a promise I can keep.
| easygenes wrote:
| Worth noting: the USB cables I have which reliably work at
| 20Gbps currently are considerably bulkier than other
| cables. Thicker wire AWG and more shielding. They're not
| always the most practical and they're considerably more
| costly.
|
| Also, I had to test quite a few cables which were sold as
| supporting 20Gbps before finding ones that actually worked,
| so pre-buying ones which supposedly work at a certain rate
| when you cannot test that may not be the most prudent
| approach.
| causality0 wrote:
| I don't understand why they can't use trademark law or
| something to keep companies from violating the spec all over
| the place. Even the Nintendo Switch's implementation has a
| list of violations a full page long.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I don't think the Switch is sold as USB-C in the US. (You
| can charge with one, but I think they tell you to use the
| Nintendo Power Adaptor and make no mention of USB-C.)
| GlitchMr wrote:
| https://www.nintendo.com/switch/tech-specs/ says "USB
| Type-C".
| bsimpson wrote:
| Oh hey - that's new.
| plasticchris wrote:
| My personal favorite was a usb-c gpu dock that I had actually
| shorted out and smoked when used with any other cable.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| My old workplace had laptops with USBC docks that would
| only accept the cable flipped in one orientation. 50%
| chance you'd get it wrong every time.
| alliao wrote:
| more variants than covid
| shmerl wrote:
| USB4 v2, really? How hard was it to call it USB 5?
| adverbly wrote:
| Cable noob here: can someone explain how this is possible? It's
| faster than a max speed cpu, so is this done by multiplexing
| things in parallel over like 10+ wires or something at a low
| enough voltage where there is minimal induction between them?
| mysterydip wrote:
| Can consumer devices even transfer data that fast? Or is this
| future-proofing?
| AaronFriel wrote:
| High end displays can. 8k60Hz at full (8-bit) color depth and
| chroma (4:4:4) is around 64Gbps. The article notes that with
| some features of the spec to reduce bandwidth, this enables
| "8K144 HDR with Display Stream Compression and no chroma
| subsampling" with room to spare.
|
| It's a common complaint of even current generation displays &
| docks that dual display 4k 60Hz docks are few and far between,
| and good luck getting even one display at 4k 120Hz on docks. My
| experience there is mostly miss, rarely hit.
| threeseed wrote:
| You can bet Apple is dying to release a 6K 120Hz (Promotion)
| Pro Display XDR.
|
| Be interesting if this USB4 v2 ends up in the upcoming
| MacBook Pro M2.
| NavinF wrote:
| Yep I've been itching to upgrade my monitor, but 4k 120Hz is
| still as good as it gets without compression. This is a
| DisplayPort limitation which should improve over the next
| year or two as new GPUs are released
| NegativeK wrote:
| I mentioned in a previous version of this discussion that PCIE5
| NVME is specced to > 14GB/s, and I'd really like to have
| external drives capable of that.
| mjan22640 wrote:
| It will actually be USB 4.2.1c.1
| bee_rider wrote:
| We should really mandate little bands on USB cables, like
| resistors have, to tell us their properties.
| rrgok wrote:
| I keep dreaming the day when every peripheral (Display, Speakers,
| Keyboards..) and component (RAM, SSD, HD, GPU, CPU) will come
| with a just single connector ( like RJ45 or Fiber optics) and
| they all will be connected to a switch (yes like a layer 2 switch
| or layer 3 switch). They will comunicate with each other through
| packets like regular TCP/IP connections.
|
| You have computer A and B with a single display C. In the morning
| you use your computer A and in the evening you want to switch to
| computer B? Easy: go to web interface of display C and set the IP
| address of computer B. That's it. Same for every other peripheral
| and component. The GPU wants more RAM? Easy: just comunicate
| directly with the RAM through the switch.
|
| I know, it will be security nightmare. I know, fiber optics (I
| guess this is the fastest network cable today?) cannot reach RAM
| speed. In the end we are just sending bits over the wire (or
| wireless) and we have a gazillions type/revisions of cables and
| sockets. There will come a time where Network speed will reach
| RAM speed (I guess this is, after CPU registers and caches, the
| fastest component?) or close to it.
|
| I don't understand it. Maybe because I'm missing something at a
| fundamental electrical level.
| rrgok wrote:
| Dumb question: what is stopping us from creating TCP/IP over
| USB4v2 so that I can create a home network (LAN) of 120Gbps?
| mortenjorck wrote:
| The biggest thing stopping you might be the cost difference
| between 100 feet of cat7 versus a 100-foot certified
| Thunderbolt 4 cable.
| lazide wrote:
| The longest true thunderbolt 4 cable you can have is 3 meters
| or a bit under 10 ft.
|
| I guess you could try making some kind of thunderbolt 4 media
| converter and do it over fiber, but R&D would probably be
| pretty steep.
| magixx wrote:
| There are optical Thubderbolt 3 cables made by Corning/Wero
| up 100m ($$$$). While not TB4, I've used regular TB3 cables
| with TB4 devices without issue. I assume it would be
| similar for those optical cables given same bandwidth
| requirements. I've also seen TB4 5m cables being sold with
| the listing saying they are rated up to 30gbps instead of
| 40.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| USB is a tree so IDK seems hard to generally map that to a
| packet switched network
|
| If 100G NICs were avalible you could do: computer -> usb4 ->
| 100GB NIC -> optical -> 100GB NIC -> usb4 -> computer
| prvit wrote:
| We already have things like thunderbolt-net
| jeffbee wrote:
| And we already have link aggregation, so you can have
| 120gbps "networking" over very short distances today, if
| you want it. All you need is four short, expensive cables.
| The problem is you will rapidly run into system-level
| limitations, given that 120gbps would consume more or less
| all of the I/O resources on many common desktop-class CPUs.
| DannyBee wrote:
| The max cable Length at that speed is pretty darn short.
| amelius wrote:
| What's stopping us from adding a repeater every couple of
| feet? Transistors aren't expensive and integrating it into
| the cable shouldn't be too difficult.
| ip26 wrote:
| I'm sure it's possible, but 40Gbps fiber bundles probably
| win easily on cost per bandwidth over any significant
| distance.
| DannyBee wrote:
| It will be infinitely more expensive and harder than just
| using fiber. Two transceivers is 350 bucks total for 2km
| single mode. 200 for multi mode if you want cheapest
| possible A 4 port switch is about 700 bucks.
|
| You could also do 25gb x 4 and aggregate at probably 1/3
| price. You could upgrade later, without changing fiber. You
| could also go with the switch but use 25g transceivers, and
| upgrade the transceivers later. This is about 60% cost.
|
| In a year this will all be half that price. USB4 plus a ton
| of repeaters plus ... is going to dwarf the initial cost of
| 100g fiber quickly. In 5 years, you will probably be able
| to run 800g over the same fiber if you are bored. A or
| aggregate 100g links. You would have to replace all the USB
| with new USB-9 2x2.4 SE stuff.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| * USB-9 2x2.4 SE Gen 3 Plus :D
| wyager wrote:
| Transistors that can pass 120gbps are probably expensive as
| hell, possibly into InP territory.
|
| The cheapest way to do this is over OS2 fiber. Look up how
| much money you have to spend to get 2x 100gbps OS2 PHYs and
| 2x 100gbps QSFP28 cards.
| amelius wrote:
| > Transistors that can pass 120gbps are probably
| expensive as hell, possibly into InP territory.
|
| That's a strange argument, given that USB devices and
| your USB ports and CPU need a multiple of the amount of
| transistors in a repeater to process these signals.
| wyager wrote:
| Internal busses can operate in parallel, at some fraction
| of the serial bandwidth. You only need really fast stuff
| at the PHY. An interleaver/deinterleaver circuit is not
| much more complicated than the kind of signal shaping
| hardware you would need multiple copies of in the cable.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| 120Gbps repeaters will be expensive. Making circuits that
| fast is incredibly tricky, with power, heat, rf (and more)
| issues.
|
| If you think it's cheap make one and get rich.
|
| But it's most certainly not cheap or easy or low cost.
| NavinF wrote:
| You can get a dirt cheap 56gbps infiniband card today and
| connect it to your laptop via a thunderbolt riser.
|
| 100gbps is not dirt cheap but it exists today and definitely
| cheaper than the first 120gbps USB cards when they're released.
| vxNsr wrote:
| As others have said, it comes down to length, if you want
| 120Gbps you'll need to go with fiber
| rektide wrote:
| Using a valuable rate-limited post to say: you can. USB4
| mandates direct host-to-host connectivity. If you bought an
| Intel laptop with 11th-gen/Rocket Lake (March 2011) or better,
| the cpu has built-in 40Gbps USB4/thunderbolt that can do host-
| to-host, although not every laptop implements the actual PCIe
| side of that. This has been support in Thunderbolt since Linux
| 4.15[1] in 2017.
|
| Alas more generally, things aren't super hot for USB4 devices &
| things like ethernet integration. USB4<->ethernet options are
| still very very limited. Paying multi-hundred dollars for 10Gbe
| is... unfortunate. We have a long way to go before USB4 IP
| starts coming to actual devices; the hubs shield us from the
| obviousness of the need by being, in effect, a far-away mini-
| southbridge with wild behavior-switching on each port. So it's
| easy to keep doing what we're doing. But eventually I hope we
| stop using bridge chips and have some re-usable PCIe tunneling
| or other just better actual USB4<->flash or USB4<->ethernet
| chips that really try to be modern. It'll be a while.
|
| As another poster says, cable length is short. 2m with active
| cables. USB3 had a lot of great cables with active repeaters
| built in (for a while there my desktop was 10m away from my
| desk), and I admit, I'm surprised I haven't seen this happen
| yet for USB4, but it should. One of my desires from USB is to
| make a longer range USB spec. Please give me 20Gbps over 10m?
| But for people just wanting to plug their laptop or desktop
| into their NAS, or wanting to direct-attach a mini-cluster
| together... heck yeah, USB4 is there for you, today.
|
| [1] https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-4.15-Networking
| hotpotamus wrote:
| There was at least one model of Dell switch that used HDMI for
| 10G connectivity a few years back, so it seems doable. I think
| most people looking for cheap and fast home networking end up
| going TCP over infiniband, which is a project I've been meaning
| to look at sooner rather than later myself. You won't touch
| 120G though, but I don't think you'll find disks that fast
| anyway.
| bitwize wrote:
| And the only reasonable implementation will be in Apple hardware.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Is there a reason (other than design by committee) that USB is so
| complicated? You need to have the right kinds of connectors,
| cables, and device support. The speeds you get vary for any
| number of reasons. Why didn't someone just say "all the cables
| are fast and charge good and if you want slow or bad, use old
| USB"? It seems we've found the worst possible situation, where
| consumers don't understand what they need or can use or why, and
| instead of making it easier, we get the second version of the
| fourth version which has multiple versions that all do different
| things under different circumstances.
| bombcar wrote:
| Because if you're selling a computer, and it has a USB 2 port,
| you don't want your spec sheet saying "USB 2" while others have
| "USB 3", but it's hard to upgrade your stuff mid-cycle, so you
| get "USB 3.1" to be defined as "USB 2" so you can look at least
| competitive.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| USB 3.1 is like 10Gbps, though?
| Filligree wrote:
| I think that's only USB 3.1 Rev2, but don't quote me on
| that.
| okanat wrote:
| Neither is true. Because those are document generation
| numbers being used as marketting terms by the product
| manufacturers.
|
| USB-IF should refuse to certify manufactured products
| that doesn't use the marketing terms that do include the
| actual speed. But it is funded by those manufacturers so
| they do whatever they want to confuse and trap consumers.
| sharikous wrote:
| Certified Thunderbolt 4 called are available and the fastest
| and most compatible you can get.
|
| Expensive but reliable.
|
| I don't understand all this hate for USB. Sure the labeling
| could be better but having a standard that is basically back
| compatible all the way to the nineties and now a single
| multipurpose port for charging/storage/displays/devices is a
| nice feat.
| nuker wrote:
| > having a standard that is basically back compatible all the
| way to the nineties
|
| My brand new 2TB SSD with USB3.2 2x2 (20Gbps) is not
| supported by anything I have today, and looks like is not
| supported by USB4 (and TB4).
| summerlight wrote:
| Thunderbolt adopting USB-C was definitely a clever move for
| both Thunderbolt and USB. Thunderbolt now effectively becomes
| a high-end branding for USB while being fully compatible for
| lower end devices. You're willing to pay more money for
| simplicity? Go for Thunberbolt. You wanna get an idea for how
| the next-gen USB will look like? Go for Thunberbolt.
| nuker wrote:
| > high-end branding for USB while being fully compatible
| for lower end devices
|
| But TB4 will not support USB3.2 2x2?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| I believe TB4 _cables_ at least are required to be
| compatible with USB3.2 gen2 x2, but _ports_ aren 't
| (Apple laptops are not compatible apparently).
| ifsothen wrote:
| Lmao, is this true? What an absolute joke.
| nuker wrote:
| And USB4 neither. Sigh. Just got an 2x2 WD SSD drive.
| rektide wrote:
| Exactly. Yes.
|
| I'd also just say this is a low information environment.
| Traditionally, we'd rely on the media as a line of defense.
| Product reviews would tell us who to trust, what the good
| deals are. We trusted the media to review & find problems &
| surface issues in the past. But those institutions have
| undergone enormous revenue crunch, and there's very few left
| who can really go in depth & do the deep, thorough,
| intelligent exploration we ought trust them for. Online
| marketplaces in the world today are bedlam, and there are few
| trusted authorities. This is a general world condition, but
| with tech it's extra bad because when things don't work, we
| almost ever know why/who to blame, it's all just frustrating
| wizard-shit that's broken & not going, & we are left bereft
| utterly impotent in the face of these high tech system's
| mysterious failures.
|
| Honestly, I'd prefer not paying for USB-IF certification on
| my cables, and I don't care that none of the official logos
| designating certain compliances are met are embossed on my
| cables. But I also am a geek who will go spend 3 hours to
| find Benson (alas no longer active) or Linus's in-depth tech
| reviews[1], and who doesn't mind trying some cables (buy a
| couple different ones at a time), finding some not working, &
| returning those, to save a couple bucks at some hassle. For
| most people: just buy certified gear.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn2vdQZhs0w https://docs.
| google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ1maB_K91Aw...
| bee_rider wrote:
| Ok but it is kind of ridiculous that we have to solve the
| whole "lack of trust in institutions and the media" and
| also "unreliable global supply chain" problems -- very real
| things we should be working on, sure -- in order to make
| sure our laptops charge at full speed reliably, right?
| cogman10 wrote:
| The reason is $$$
|
| Unfortunately, USB has more features than USB manufactures want
| to support. So, the end result is a bunch of those features are
| optional. That complicates everything. Is this a USB-C cable
| that can support PD 3.1? Who knows! Because, not all USB-C
| cables NEED to support PD 3.1, some of them just need to
| transmit data at USB 2.0 speeds. Those can be made super cheap.
|
| This is especially bad when talking about things like devices.
| Sure, every device now-a-days has the USB-C connector, but does
| your phone really need to be capable of doing 80gbps on that
| port? Nope, so it's optional. (and would be sold, rightly so,
| as a power saving measure).
|
| Every USB feature has a fast, cheap, low power tradeoff going
| on and the standard allows for you to mix and match features to
| your heart's content.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > That complicates everything. Is this a USB-C cable that can
| support PD 3.1? Who knows! Because, not all USB-C cables NEED
| to support PD 3.1, some of them just need to transmit data at
| USB 2.0 speeds. Those can be made super cheap.
|
| Assuming you just mean the higher power levels, I'd say
| that's one of the most minimal issues. Every cable supports
| at least 60 watts, and you rarely need to consider it.
| eru wrote:
| > Unfortunately, USB has more features than USB manufactures
| want to support.
|
| It's not necessarily about 'wanting'. Manufacturers have to
| hit certain price points, otherwise they lose business to the
| competition that does.
|
| Yes, it's about dollars. But mostly consumers' dollars.
| summerlight wrote:
| If you're trying to mandate the highest requirements for all
| manufacturers, then they're going to either not build or not
| conform simply because it's too expensive. This is an
| unfortunate consequence of being the universal standard; it's
| even worse if manufacturers decide to ignore the standard so
| you gotta try embrace them.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| I wonder if maybe there was more consolidation if volumes of
| scale would allow for more fully featured defaults.
| summerlight wrote:
| Yes, I think iPhone moving to USB-C will make a dent.
| Currently, nearly half of the mobile ecosystem doesn't work
| with USB very well and a large portion of them represents a
| high-end segment which the recent USB standards target for.
| Also Apple will produce hundreds of millions of high
| quality USB cables which will help economies of scale.
| dmead wrote:
| people who say this haven't had to work with serial devices
| lately.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > Why didn't someone just say "all the cables are fast and
| charge good and if you want slow or bad, use old USB"?
|
| Part of the problem is that making fast cables is expensive,
| and manufacturers will skimp on that expense to save money.
| spicybright wrote:
| Which is fine. There's plenty of devices I own that just need
| a charging cable. But it's near impossible to know what cable
| does what. Even some of the expensive ones I've bought don't
| do what they say.
|
| You would think with how much money is pumped into the
| governing body of the standard they could both force
| classifications of cables/devices and also verify they
| actually do what's advertised.
|
| Every company using USB-C needs to pay $3500 USD to use the
| branding and a proper vendor ID. Every single company. And
| yet they still can't solve the very basics.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| It's not even just that it's expensive: if you look at a
| cable that's full-everything including top-rating for power
| delivery, it's a pretty thick inflexible thing and not at all
| what you want for e.g. a mouse or a keyboard or whatever.
| innocenat wrote:
| This isn't even new. Even USB 3.0 (the first gen, later
| rebranded as USB 3.1) micro-B to A cable, which has been
| around for at least 10 years at this point, is already not
| good for mouse. Nor is my USB-C 2.0 with 60W PD cable.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| But they can just continue making old USB2 cables
| spicybright wrote:
| But there's no profit to be made when everything new uses
| USB-C now.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Usb-c runs usb 2.0 just fine! And yet we still have
| companies trying to make bad USBv(n+2)
| test1235 wrote:
| Nobody would buy their old USB2 cables when they can get
| other faster cables, so the manufacturers of the old cables
| would actually rather pump money into politically
| pressuring the relevant standards committee into
| 'massaging' their latest technical definitions to include
| products which already exist.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| People buy USB2 cables all the time, and they're usually
| correctly labeled too.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| But then why make them USBv4? Just make v3 cables. Has it
| truly been politicized by the industry to add so much
| complexity so crappy manufacturers can sell bad
| cables/hardware with the latest version number instead of
| just making stuff that consumers can use?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > all the cables are fast
|
| Wouldn't that be massively expensive? I don't need my charging
| able to cost that much.
| blark wrote:
| If I'm going to waste a 120 Gbps multipurpose port on
| charging, I want to do it with style.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Sure, then have a charging flavor and a data flavor. Put a
| special little logo on the connectors. Why do we need such a
| complicated spectrum of things that plug into each other but
| don't work well for data or power?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Sure, then have a charging flavor and a data flavor.
|
| Well that's what they do - and then an X flavour and a Y
| flavour, etc, and that's how we ended up where we are.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > Put a special little logo on the connectors.
|
| We absolutely don't do this. All my USB-C connector
| cables look identical, it's utter madness.
| eropple wrote:
| I've found that the good cables that I've got all have a
| PD wattage label at least. Except for the Apple cables,
| but I can recognize those on sight and I'm not buying
| USB-C cables I could confuse for then.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Yeah we didn't do the icon part. But the original comment
| said make them all the same, then we figured out why
| that's not practical.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The spectrum of cables is not really that wide. The problem
| is that almost none of them are labeled.
| smilespray wrote:
| Please send me the number of your dealer.
| AnonCoward42 wrote:
| There is no reason they make the transfer speeds as hard to
| read/decipher as possible. However there is a reason that
| features are separated. These do cost money in implementation
| in regards to the cable, the host, and client.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| But we make the up front cost trade-off at the expense of
| nothing working right. People buy cables or chargers that
| don't support the right level of charging. Cables work with
| some monitors but not others. Instead of paying extra for
| things that just work, we end up paying for impossible-to-
| distinguish hardware that may or may not work because of some
| flavor of the spec that doesn't work with the other piece of
| hardware you're trying to connect it to. A lot of that ends
| up being instant trash. Genuine, good hardware that is just
| incompatible is indistinguishable from badly made hardware:
| to the consumer they both don't work. And so we end up with
| waste and frustration in the name of saving a few bucks.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The charging situation isn't their fault. USB wasn't
| designed for it. Non-compliant devices started allowing
| charging before it was ever permitted. Then they added PD
| but nobody supported it and manufacturers cooked up their
| own ad hoc systems to detect a charger.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| > The charging situation isn't their fault. USB wasn't
| designed for it. Non-compliant devices started allowing
| charging before it was ever permitted.
|
| A standards body at least shares some fault when they
| move so slowly that real solutions have to work ahead of
| them to provide a demanded feature and things end up in a
| mess like this.
| TillE wrote:
| I don't know what you're talking about, everybody uses PD
| these days.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| PD predates USB 3. Nobody supported it until it became
| integrated into modern USB controllers. Prior to that
| there were janky manufacturer specific resistor
| combinations used to signal the presence of a charger.
| poisonborz wrote:
| I'm really starting to think this is absolutely on purpose.
| Clear versioning would make all cables/accessories instantly
| outdated/undesirable whenever the new generation starts to show
| up. Unclear, obfuscated versioning is used to dampen this
| effect - for most purposes the older cables are "good enough"
| anyway, and when not, the user will make another buy. Same
| thing with HDMI or WiFi.
| altairprime wrote:
| USB wants to appeal to everyone, and like HDMI is ready to
| discount themselves (by using 'optional' capabilities) as hard
| as it takes to appease their members. This is why you can buy a
| USB device or cable for $1 -- and why those devices are a
| compatibility nightmare. (The dollar amounts are higher for
| HDMI, but the same problem applies.)
|
| Thunderbolt wants to appeal to "quality at a premium" and does
| not offer optional capabilities. This is why you can buy any
| Thunderbolt cable and use any Thunderbolt device -- and why
| cheap devices decline to certify for Thunderbolt.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| Then you buy a thunderbolt dock, and your mouse and keyboard
| stutter because of mutually incompatible bugs between the
| bios, the thunderbolt chipset and the USB chipset.
| altairprime wrote:
| Implementation defects exist in USB, HDMI, Thunderbolt,
| Ethernet, Wi-Fi, and exist in all protocols.
|
| Thunderbolt considerably reduces the defect surface for
| certified implementations when compared to USB and HDMI, by
| reducing the number of optionals for cables and
| implementors to zero.
|
| That does not imply zero defects in use. It implies fewer
| defects in use. And invisibly-damaged cables are still the
| bane of all of us.
| rektide wrote:
| Does anything else use PAM3? PAM4 is all over the place (PCIe 6.0
| from this winter, 25/100/200 Gbe, GDDR6X, I forget who else but
| more), but PAM3... apparently once was used for 100BASE-T4[1].
| That's 100 mbit, not Gbit, not 1000Mbit, 100 mbit.
|
| Just so excellent that the USB4 nee-Thunderbolt tunneled/packet-
| switched architecture means that, if we do get a speed bump, that
| boost is a win for displays, storage, egpus connected via
| displayport, thunderbolt, what-have-you. (Not necessarily for
| those devices, but the % of throughput they consume diminishes
| respectively). The leap to USB4 is a huge shift, but
| tunneling/packet-switching has so many downstream benefits.
|
| I'm sure to be downvoted, but- grasping the third rail here: does
| anyone else tire of every time USB being mentioned, the thread
| turning into a mudslinging festival? I find repetitive, almost
| never constructive, usually incredibly poorly defined (my dock
| didn't work-- ok, how? at all? doubtful) complaints repeated ad-
| nauseam, and there's such limited energy to refute the waves of
| negativity from the sore & aggrieved. I want there to be room for
| these voices, but the mere mention of USB is a magnet for misery.
| I can & apparently should write some blog posts on why things are
| they way they are, how incremental evolution happens, and how
| progress isn't always smooth. But to the larger phenomenon of
| muck raking being the popular activity at every mention: it's
| definitely not just USB, in online communities this vocal
| persistent complaint about topics is a social condition that, so
| far, has no remedy, no redress. Systemd had to deal with this,
| Kubernetes, react, rails; so many have had their time on the
| planet of being targetted subjects. It just happens again and
| again and again, and the world doesn't deserve to have only the
| negative so amplified. It'd be so nice to redirect these energies
| to more focused gathering places, and to let the actual news &
| events be discussed in peace.
|
| To add a usb naming joke, and to build constructively &
| consistently on the past, this would obviously be USB4 2x12. Two
| channels of of 60 Gbps (5Gbps * 12). The previous USB4 2.0 would
| be 2x8. There, I fixed it for you.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-amplitude_modulation
| sophacles wrote:
| > I'm sure to be downvoted, but- grasping the third rail here:
| does anyone else tire of every time USB being mentioned, the
| thread turning into a mudslinging festival?
|
| No. I was sold on USB being one cable to replace them all. Now
| we're back to making sure we carry all the right cables for our
| devices. The glorious 20 days of "all my accessories can be
| dealt with by one cable" was amazing and the USB folks decided
| to go ahead and screw that up.
| eternityforest wrote:
| Most people don't do high speed anything. I have a camera I
| can download video from but only at MicroSD speeds.
|
| 90% of USB cables are for charging stuff, or low speed things
| like keyboards. For an average person it's already close to
| perfect. Even PD over 30W is somewhat rare.
|
| USB monitors will be a little confusing but still better than
| bulky HDMI.
| rektide wrote:
| to me it's exactly the opposite. but i've spent effort
| growing into this.
|
| i carry a keyring of adapters, one good 1m $25 heavy-duty
| USB4 cable for connecting fancy stuff, & a regular short-ish
| light $8 usb3 100w cable for most daily usage. there are
| usb-c to anything pigtails/adapters up the wazoo: usb-a
| male/female, usb-mini-b, usb-micro-b, displayport male,
| displayport female, hdmi male, hdmi female, 20v dc barrel
| jack, 12v dc barrel jack. most are under $10, less than the
| specific cable. and a female/female c couplers for good
| luck/desperate times.
|
| there's some subtle side-perks over dedicated cables to. the
| displayport & hdmi adapters often have power in, which means
| if the target is closer to power, i can run a ~2m usb-pd
| cable (if available) from power to target, & it shares the
| same extra 1m to laptop reach.
|
| that i can carry a 100w battery that works with nearly any
| device is just _chef kiss_ icing-on-the-cake /intensely
| better than where we were. thanks usb-c / usb-pd.
|
| it sounds stupid, having a keyring of adapters. but i _used_
| to carry cables for everything, way too often /just-in-case.
| now i just carry one good cable, and a variety of jacks i can
| put on the end of it. it's a world of improvement to me. i'm
| not sure what world you lived in where one cable did it all-
| i always had display, power, data cables, and i also totally
| get how most people haven't realized how to properly/easily
| do usb-c with pigtails/adapter jacks, but wow, it's just
| night & day better to me, & i think it should be for you too.
| sophacles wrote:
| Given the world that exists, I'm interested in this good
| cable and the adapters. Previous experience has shown
| adapters to be janky at best, but that could just be an
| area where tech has improved or I don't know how to find
| quality yet - what do you recommend?
|
| (I reserve the right to still be salty over the wasted
| ideal of one cable to rule them all though)
| rektide wrote:
| I buy no name adapters & not a one has ever shown any
| issue for me. "ChenYang" USB-C female to displayport
| adapter? Runs my 1440p170 & 4k75 monitors fine. $15.
| Ditto for the literally no-name similar looking
| displayport adapter.
| ifsothen wrote:
| Your solution is useless for all but the 10% most tech
| literate users. And also involves carrying around a
| veritable toolkit of adapters and multiple cables.
| rektide wrote:
| It's not well understood/accessible. Yes.
|
| But it's still far far more accessible with way less
| effort & burden than what came before. Functionality
| comes easier, cheaper, with less weight & more
| functionality. It is a new domain of knoweldge &
| understanding than the old ways buts it's better, easier,
| lower cost & more accessible.
|
| The obviousness speaks for itself & re-defines the
| antiquated literacy of before.
|
| Eventually the adapters ought go away. Beacuse every
| peripheral ought, if they give any cares, have a usb-c
| port. You can do whatever else might help. But do the
| good thing: have a usb-c lort that works on you device.
| You should. You should free us from legacy adapters.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| USB deserves it. It's almost as bad as SCSI, but least the 50
| different connectors were differently shaped and I could buy
| one that matches and know what it would do beforehand. I can't
| do that with USB.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The Base-T Ethernet standards get very creative about their
| modulation levels. 1GBase-T (IIRC) uses PAM-5. Using non-
| standard PAM levels is a very weird thing to do, and it appears
| to only be useful for optimizing speeds on old (or cheap)
| cables.
|
| However, PAM-4 did originally have problems with transitions
| between the extreme levels (00 to 11 and vice versa). There was
| academic discussion of line codes that could eliminate these,
| but it appears that this kind of technology has fallen by the
| wayside in favor of PAM-3 for USB.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > The Base-T Ethernet standards get very creative about their
| modulation levels.
|
| Yeah, just look at 100BASE-TX. It also uses 3 signal levels,
| but in a repeating cycle and the incoming bits decide how
| long to linger on each voltage.
|
| Fun fact: Both 100BASE-TX and 1000BASE-T have a symbol rate
| of 125MHz.
| segfaultbuserr wrote:
| Also an Ethernet fun fact: with 100BASE-T1 and 1000BASE-T1,
| you can now get Fast and Gigabit Ethernet over a single
| twisted pair. It's primarily used for embedded and
| especially automotive applications to simplify wiring. Both
| use PAM-3.
| aetherspawn wrote:
| Are you perhaps mistaking 1Gbps with 1Mbps (1000K Baud)?
| Automotive networks are extremely slow, and there's
| virtually no need for them to be faster.
|
| The industry standard is to just add more pairs if you
| really need it, so you see cars now with 15-20 individual
| pairs each running at 500K or 1000K.
|
| But these transports are extremely reliable, and still
| work in most failure cases -- even if you unplug a
| terminator, splice some long random aftermarket branch,
| or ground or short one side. And they don't use small
| cables either, usually just 20 AWG unshielded twisted
| pair (not even in a shared jacket). There is not much
| need for shielding or differential matching on PCBs, it's
| not that sensitive.
|
| Some newer forms of automotive networking used here and
| there for a time, but OEMs keep trying them, ditching
| them, and returning to slow networking.
| segfaultbuserr wrote:
| > _Are you perhaps mistaking 1Gbps with 1Mbps (1000K
| Baud)? Automotive networks are extremely slow, and
| there's virtually no need for them to be faster._
|
| No, it's not a mistake.
|
| Electronics is a large field, quite a few concepts can be
| niche and unfamiliar even to its practitioners, so please
| don't assume something is incorrect just because you
| personally have never heard about it. I recommend doing a
| quick search first before trying to refute anyone. Here
| are just two examples I've came across recently:
|
| 1. Someone asked a question about a "DC-link" capacitor.
| One experienced engineer replied and claimed it's
| nonsense, because DC cannot pass through a capacitor. But
| in fact, it's a standard term in the power inverter
| industry that refers to the capacitors between an AC/DC
| and DC/AC power stage.
|
| 2. An article about Ethernet "magnetics". A reader
| replied and claimed the term "magnetics" is nonsense
| because they've never heard of it, if it's a transformer,
| just call it a transformer! But in fact, it's a standard
| term in Ethernet hardware that refers to both the
| isolation transformer and the optional common-mode choke
| at an Ethernet port. To a lesser degree, it's also valid
| in the power supply industry as a collective term for the
| magnetic components like inductors, EMI chokes, and
| transformers.
|
| > _Automotive networks are extremely slow, and there's
| virtually no need for them to be faster._
|
| High-speed, Gbps-level digital link solutions for
| automotive applications are currently being heavily
| promoted by semiconductor companies, it started since a
| few years ago. This is something you can immediately know
| just by a casual browsing of their websites and take a
| look of their latest chips, like Analog, Maxim, or TI. I
| assume this interest first came from the demand side, by
| the OEMs. You don't just make these chips for nothing.
|
| One major application is the transmission of HD videos in
| a car entertainment system.
|
| > _Some newer forms of automotive networking used here
| and there for a time, but OEMs keep trying them, ditching
| them, and returning to slow networking._
|
| You may be correct. This can be another attempt at it,
| and may or may not be ultimately successful.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Top google results for "1000BASE-T1":
|
| > The 1000BASE-T1 MediaConverter establishes one direct
| point-to-point conversion between automotive ECUs using
| 1000BASE-T1
|
| > DP83TG720S-Q1 1000BASE-T1 Automotive Ethernet PHY
| DP83TG720 is pin-2-pin compatible to TI's. 100Base-T1 PHY
| enabling design scalability with single board for both
| speeds.
|
| > 1000BASE-T1 from Standard to Series Production.
| Enabling Next Generation Scalable Architecture. Olaf
| Krieger (Volkswagen), Christopher Mash (Marvell).
|
| I don't know what they want the bandwidth for, but it's a
| real thing.
| rektide wrote:
| -T1 matters. Thats an uncommon variant. Most base-t &
| what most people would assume Gbe base-t means is
| base-t4, four twisted pair (-T4), connected via 8 pin
| RJ45.
|
| IEEE 802.3bp is I think when 1000base-t1 happened: 2018.
| Way way way after rj45's 1000base-t4.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > -T1 matters. Thats an uncommon variant.
|
| > 2018
|
| Well yeah! That's why it was introduced as a "fun fact"
| that you "can now get".
| jiggawatts wrote:
| All the things you listed are industry-wide standards or
| frameworks where people are essentially _forced_ to use them. I
| mean sure, not at gunpoint, but they're inescapable in
| practice, especially at typical workplaces.
|
| All of those things are also fairly opinionated and all-
| encompassing, trying to be all things for all people... and
| failing to be a good fit for many of them.
|
| Hence the grumbling.
|
| You'll see similar conversations about government too for the
| same reasons: forced on people, wide scope, poor fit for many.
|
| Inevitably someone will say: "But you have a choice! You don't
| _have_ to use whatever the subject is!"
|
| Sure... I can live on an island away from everything.
|
| I'm a Windows systems integrator and I'm learning Kubernetes
| now even though it's a poor fit for Windows.
|
| Why? Because it's the "new hotness" and several vendors support
| it and clients demand it.
|
| So I'm forced to deal with something I don't really want to.
| Not to say that k8s is necessarily bad, just that it's not nice
| to deal with in my scenario...
| imwillofficial wrote:
| A bright spot is, god damn this technology is evolving fast. Sure
| the naming sucks, but isn't it such a great time to be alive?
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Is there any reason why the first generation of USB4 was not 120
| Gbps?
|
| Magical protocol and compression changes beyond the mortal mind?
|
| New discoveries in material and electrical engineering sciences?
| pyuser583 wrote:
| In 100 years we won't have massive underssea cables. Just a
| single Anker USB9 going from New York to London.
| [deleted]
| keyle wrote:
| And the internet will cut off every few hours, with a full time
| employee on both sides unplugging it and replugging it.
| vinay_ys wrote:
| In 100 years, there won't be need for any sea cables because we
| would have had 9th generation laser links 100 kilometers above
| our heads, in the sky.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| And how would that laser be plugged in the routers? Probably
| some form of USB9 8.2x5.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| In 100 years, the sea cables would be above our heads
| alright.
| mjan22640 wrote:
| I would suggest to go through the Earth to reduce the pings.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Unlikely, lasers are impacted by weather... unless they're
| shielded midway, but then you've got a fiber cable again.
| zwirbl wrote:
| There isn't much weather in the mesosphere and above
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| True, i somehow omitted the 100km while reading their
| comment.
|
| It's still unlikely to succeed, as the required precision
| for multiple simultaneous data streams is quiet
| significant. Nonetheless, it's theoretically possible.
| Just not economically useful, as cables are inherently
| cheaper for the same amount of data transmitted.
|
| I'm not saying that these won't exist, they already do to
| some degree with Starlink after all... I'm just saying
| that this tech is highly unlikely to replace the backbone
| infrastructure, which seacables are.
| buran77 wrote:
| > It's still unlikely to succeed
|
| We can't possibly imagine now what can succeed in 100
| years because we can't even conceive what kind of tech or
| societal developments will happen over that period.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _USB9_
|
| You mean USB 2000 SP1
| DocTomoe wrote:
| USB9 V1.742.ac/3 ... it is important to be precise here,
| because otherwise, the cable will be incompatible and the
| systems involved will fall back into a safe mode that's
| essentially, but not quite USB 1.0 standards. /s
|
| So, why exactly wasn't USB4 2.0 not called USB 4.2?
| nani8ot wrote:
| They had to call it USB4 2.0 because the previous generation
| was USB4. How could they change their naming scheme to
| something like 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, that would confuse consumers!
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Certainly you meant USB4 10x10 gen 6
| riedel wrote:
| You will just have to exchange the undersea cable every other
| week due to my mechanical connector problems.
| awoimbee wrote:
| Would asymmetric PCIe tunneling be possible ? For external GPUs
| it would be perfect !
| nickflood wrote:
| Yep, finally my TB3 eGPU starts being at least in theory
| outdated. The fact that there was no improvement in TB speed
| for the last 5 years is ridiculous.
|
| Edit: but probably PCIe lanes to the controller chip would be
| somehow a bottleneck as this is meant for display transport
| first
| BuckRogers wrote:
| My latest desktop has Thunderbolt 4. While I'm glad I have it, as
| it's a mITX system, I really only use it to connect to a docking
| station. It's also great for monitors or 10Gbit ethernet if
| needed. The external SSD that I use is limited to 1GB/sec, and I
| rarely hit that with my use case, closer to 500MB/sec. To take
| advantage of 5GB/sec the external drive would have to be pretty
| well-built (expensive). My drive is the Samsung T7 Shield 2TB,
| which is the best price/performance for sustained performance
| that I could find on the market today.
|
| I do think external IO should try to keep pace with internal IO
| speeds, but it comes at a significant cost on the peripheral side
| of things. You also run into cable length issues. There's a
| reason why internal IO gets to faster speeds so much sooner, path
| traces don't have to deal with real-world external cable lengths.
| The link alludes to this, but I'd love to know how long of a
| cable you can use with 15GBps external devices considering the
| length on my passive Thunderbolt 3 dock cable is 2.3ft. USB 4.0
| "v2" at 120Gbps will support a 2inch passive cable.
| technerder wrote:
| Are there any reputables places where I can buy a USB type C
| cable that supports everything? It probably wouldn't be cheap but
| I'd love to just stop having to check to see if my _cable_ is the
| issue.
| CharlesW wrote:
| One option is to buy Thunderbolt 4 cables.
|
| https://www.cablematters.com/pc-1283-132-40gbps-thunderbolt-...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Anker-Thunderbolt-Supports-Transfer-C...
| ungamedplayer wrote:
| I just realised that USB is a recursive acronym for USB's such
| bullshit.
| zac23or wrote:
| USB: Universal Serius Bulshit.
|
| HDMI is crazy too. A lot of governmental regulamentations are
| generated by these craziness.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| USB is no good, and HDMI is no good. UEFI is also no good, and
| Unicode also is no good.
|
| I should quote Steven J. Searle:
|
| > The sad fact of the matter is that people play politics with
| standards to gain commercial advantage, and the result is that
| end users suffer the consequences. This is the case with
| character encoding for computer systems, and it is even more
| the case with HDTV.
| eternityforest wrote:
| Without the politics, would we even have standardization to
| this degree? Before USB-PD we had barrel jacks with not even
| polarity fully standardized.
|
| I'm sure the standards could be done better, but it sure
| beats no standards.
| blackoil wrote:
| IIUC USB 4 has two variables power and bandwidth and few feature
| flags like display port. Why isn't it a requirement to lost the
| value of these explicitly on packaging/listings? That would solve
| most of the practical problems, yeah we may have to stop buying
| cheap/unbranded cables but branded ones would be easy to choose.
|
| Thunderbolt provides easy but costly branding for high end.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| How does this relate to Thunderbolt, if it does? Is it daisy-
| chainable?
|
| What a PITA this has become. Does USB still impose excessive
| processor overhead?
|
| Then there's the unavailability of any USB hub that doesn't suck
| donkey balls.
| sylware wrote:
| Seriously, what is the speed limiting element for 1 lane? The
| controller manufacturing process (2nm/5nm/etc?), or some
| eletronic components?
| gaudat wrote:
| Signal integrity first, then maybe cost or power usage.
| Commercial state of the art is around 100Gbit/s per pair using
| a gearbox chip, as seen in 100G single lambda transceivers. For
| ASIC/FPGA i think 58GHz PAM4 is available giving 116Gbps per
| pair. Actual data rate will be a few percent lower due to line
| coding and forward error correction.
|
| Normal circuit boards start interacting with the signal from
| about a few gigahertz. At really fast rates you need some black
| magic like Teflon or ceramic substrates for the signal to even
| get through.
| sylware wrote:
| Well, the EM environment would be a CPU die on a motherboard
| full of gigahertz chips, it means this EM environment has
| been so much "improved" they can double the speed?? I am
| really curious at how they choose to limit the speed of USB
| lanes, that said I really don't like that as this smells
| "don't go too fast or we won't be able to sell USB
| controllers with really faster lanes". I would understand if
| one of the major limiting elements is the controller silicium
| process (2nm/5nm/etc).
| Scootwilli90 wrote:
| npunt wrote:
| If there's one thing that the EU should be regulating its this
| USB naming madness.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| This isn't the name of the USB spec, it's the name that someone
| noticed a random manufacturer used. The new name will follow
| the common pattern, or "USB4 120Gbps".
| eru wrote:
| I hope you ain't serious?
| Filligree wrote:
| Well, they can't _possibly_ make it worse.
| capableweb wrote:
| Why not? Regulations should help protect consumers make
| informed choices when purchasing things. Currently, USB +
| manufacturers are purposefully making it confusing to
| purchase cables because they want more cash, in exchange for
| making the experience worse for consumers.
|
| Sound like exactly the right place for some new regulation.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-03 23:02 UTC)