Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables (macrumors.com) 159
A new USB specification has been introduced today by the USB 3.0 Promoter Group, which is comprised of Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, and other companies. The new USB 3.2 specification will replace the existing 3.1 specification and will double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires available if your device embraces the newest USB hardware. Mac Rumors reports: An incremental update, USB 3.2 is designed to define multi-lane operation for USB 3.2 hosts and devices. USB Type-C cables already support multi-lane operation, and with USB 3.2, hosts and devices can be created as multi-lane solutions, allowing for either two lanes of 5Gb/s or two lanes of 10Gb/s operation. With support for two lanes of 10Gb/s transfer speeds, performance is essentially doubled over existing USB-C cables. As an example, the USB Promoter Group says a USB 3.2 host connected to a USB 3.2 storage device will be capable of 2GB/sec data transfer performance over a USB-C cable certified for USB SuperSpeed 10Gb/s USB 3.1, while also remaining backwards compatible with earlier USB devices. Along with two-lane operation, USB 3.2 continues to use SuperSpeed USB layer data rates and encoding techniques and will introduce a minor update to hub specifications for seamless transitions between single and two-lane operation.
Drop the Serial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Drop the Serial (Score:5, Funny)
next they'll add daisy chaining though it might need a terminator at the end and little DIP switches to set each device to a unique ID. It could be called something like Simultaneous Chained Serial Interfaces
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If sacrificial goats become a requirement for proper operation, I'm going to pivot to a career in landscaping.
Re:Drop the Serial (Score:4, Funny)
If sacrificial goats become a requirement for proper operation, I'm going to pivot to a career in landscaping.
It might be a complex science, but it is a science. Once you figure the correct type of dagger (both blade and handle), the number and color of required candles, you should be set.
Re: (Score:3)
Once you figure the correct type of dagger (both blade and handle), the number and color of required candles, you should be set.
I assume you have to have the proper dribbly wax?
snake
Re: Drop the Serial (Score:2)
Don't trust the above poster! They tell wicked lies.
The declination of the moon is the most significant factor. Waxing gibbous is optimal.
Re: (Score:2)
How boring, here I thought sacrificing virgins via impaling with meat sword was the correct protocol.
Re: (Score:3)
You sacrificed goats? I was lucky enough to just get away with chickens, especially when using differential SCSI.
Re:Drop the Serial (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that the data on each line is sent serially, with embedded clocking and controlled skew between lanes- meaning that the data on each lane is somewhat independent. In general a parallel bus includes separate clocking. In a serial bus like this, the data is encoded in certain ways to allow the clock to be a part of the data- the most basic encoding is what is used in 10Mb Ethernet- Manchester, where every bit has it's own clock, and it goes up from there.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to expand on that a little, the issue with parallel busses became that data on each line would arrive out of sync with other lines and the clock.
For example, PCIe 4.0 is 16 gigabits/second per serial channel. Each bit has a width of 0.0625 nanoseconds, during which time light can travel about 18mm. If you wanted to transfer say 32 bits in parallel like the old PCI bus, you would need 32 connections. Problem is that for practical reasons the PCIe slot needs to be quite wide, so if your 32 pins are space
Re: (Score:3)
Over RJ45, it got to 10Gbps (though there is also 2.5 Gbps and 5 Gbps, which are appealing for range and power requirement reasons, largely done due to the oddity that many wireless access points were constrained by their ethernet uplink, which is embarassing for etherenet...). Over SFP+, it's at 25 Gbps now, and QSFP is at 100 GBps.
Of course, in terms of what's relevant to the sorts of systems that use usb seriously, it pretty much is at 1 Gpbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Only thing that has ever held 10Gb/s Ethernet back is price. They need to drop to near 1Gb prices for the enterprise to give a toss. £200 for a 10Gb NIC compared to a 1Gb for £15. 10Gb switches are horrendously expensive.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The data on each bus is still transfered serial ...
Re: (Score:2)
Gary Busi?
wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction.
having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.
Replacing all the legacy ports is necessary (if only because the old plugs are simply just too big for modern hardware), but replacing EVERYTHING with one plug, when everything now looks the same, you end up with a situation where you simply do not know if a cable or port can do what you need it to do.
So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort? What voltages/amps can it provide? nobody knows (where "nobody" can include the person whose hardware it is, much less someone else who has to work with it). just look at e.g. the many forum posts of people who connected "the wrong type" of USB-C-to-HDMI connectors because they didn't know their USB C wasn't the USB C that they thought USB C was supposed to be.
this is made even worse considering that there's active circuitry involved, where you need to worry about whether the cable itself is built right (see e.g. Benson Leung's long list of cables that can fry your hardware). in the old days, a crap cable just means crap performance or no connection. not any more.
Re:wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
"the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction."
I disagree. I'm utterly fed up with multiple different types of USB plug, some of them very similar making it an utter pain finding a cable with the correct connectors on both ends. There is zero reason to have all these - its not for space reasons like RS232 had its 9 pin plug since even the largest USB connector is pretty small.
"you end up with a situation where you simply do not know if a cable or port can do what you need it to do."
In 99% of cases you simply need to connect 2 devices, its not complex. If there is a max voltage/current issue then colour code the cables, but DONT create yet another sphagetti soup of connectors.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you're channeling Mr. Ive?
Three plugs for the Mac Mini under the desk,
Seven for the ancient X-serve in their halls of wire,
Nine for MacPros doomed to die,
One for Jony Ive on his dark (but tastefully brushed aluminum) throne
In Cupertino where the Shadows lie.
One Plug to rule them all, One Plug to find them,
One Plug to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In Cupertino where the Shadows lie.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm waiting to see how this all plays out before I make any judgments, and I'm curious how devices are going to identify and select the proper use for the same USB cable. For instance, I'm used to having USB for I/O and HDMI for one-way A/V. If I connect 2 devices that both previously had HDMI out ports AND HDMI in ports (for video capture) as well as USB ports for I/O, how will they know what I want them to do if there's a single port on both and I connect them together? Will they both think I want t
Re: (Score:2)
Every USB Cable including C has a little microchip in the cable end that negotiates and controls the connection and discovers the capabilities of both ends and reports it back to the connecting computer.
Re:wrong direction (Score:5, Informative)
No it's the right direction providing they get to the correct end goal. We're in a transition period where the capability of the spec is being built up. The end goal is perfectly in line with what you are saying: one plug, do everything, no confusion.
It's just not there yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. There will always be "optional extensions". You can never know visually (let's say there's any rule in colour coding to indicate capability, for example, well, can you trust the manufacturer put in the right colour?)
That means that upon encountering a Type C cable, you can never know what it actually does (except some lower baseline of capability which may or may not be sufficient for you).
This really matters because of the problem of time.
A cable manufactured today cannot be expected to suppor
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it _never_ will be achieved
Except it was. For a long time. The only problem now is new bandwidth has been opened up and with that more applications.
We don't have a requirement for infinite bandwidth and as such we will get to that point again.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a minimum standard for the Type C cable- once you get into the more complex cables there is active circuitry inside the cable that identifies the capabilities of the cable. Cables that are compliant with the standard should prevent dangerous situations (such as trying to put 100W down a cable that is not rated for it). At the super high data rates we're talking about and more than a few feet- we're stuck with active circuitry for redrivers. We're going to have to get away from the idea that it is j
Re: (Score:2)
3m = 9'. That's more than a few feet IMHO. Some cable vendors claim >=5m with a passive cable at USB 3+ speeds, that's 16'.
But aside from that I agree.
Re: (Score:3)
Claiming to and actually making a cable that can still meet the spec after the specified number of insertions and removals is 2 different things. If someone is claiming this and doesn't have a traceable USB logo (back to the USB-IF) I wouldn't count on it.
Re: (Score:2)
that's the problem! in the real world (remember - "lowest cost bidding" is the iron law of business, random manufacturers out there who basically have profit margins of a penny per cable etc.) you can't be sure of the quality and provenance of cables that you encounter - of $x used in the manufacture of the cable, the vast majority of it will be spent on making the cable look good, not whether the internal circuitry is good.
I've had situations where people hand me a Type C cable and the emotion I feel is f
Re: (Score:2)
If we want higher speeds and capability, this is the way it must go. Even a badly manufactured USB 2.0 cable could fry (or at least trigger the overcurrent protection) if its V+ and GND were crossed.
Re: (Score:2)
having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.
Surely that's only important if the plug and cable are limited in what they can do? I mean, if my PC has separate ports for my PS/2 mouse and my PS/2 keyboard, it's important for me to know that the two are different and I shouldn't plug the latter into the socket for the former. It's far less important when they have identical ports and sockets and it doesn't matter which way round they go.
There are absolutely some scenarios where distinguishing them is useful, but they've become small and rare enough (ove
Re: wrong direction (Score:2)
That'd be why they often color-coded them, green and purple, as I recall. ;-)
On a more serious note, most required you to insert them into the right port. However, a few motherboards didn't much care which PS/2 port you used. There were also laptops that had just a single PS/2 port, and those could be used by either a keyboard or a mouse. Why they only had just the one, remains a mystery. I kinda doubt it was a matter of space, laptops were bigger than some of today's desktops. And, of course, we liked it.
Common connectors are a great thing (Score:3)
the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction.
Could not disagree more. There are HUGE advantages to having common connectors. These advantages vastly outweigh the drawbacks. Connectors should be commonized as much as possible. The fewer number of cables types I have to deal with the better. I basically want to be able to hook up nearly everything with 1 or at most 2 types of cables.
having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.
Except you don't and you never did in a great many cases. Having to carry around and deal with 20 different types of cables is wasteful and unnecessary.
So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort? What voltages/amps can it provide?
All good qualit
Re: (Score:3)
If you buy a crap cable from a crap vendor be prepared to get crap results.
Of course at the amperage of typical usb connection before, the 'crap results' were 'the damn cable didn't work, what a waste'. With USB power delivery, the 'crap results' are 'my thousand dollar laptop fried'. We have the unfortunate circumstance of 'cheap power cable' vendors, 'high current', and 'small form factor that mfg can screw up'.
Same *could* happen with C13 power cabling in theory, but those are so gigantic it's hard to screw up, or at least screwing up is not a natural consequence of trying to
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that difficult. You pay more for the cable intended to be used as the power line cable, and you buy said cable from a respected vendor. Every USB C to USB C cable is at least USB 3.1.
Google even sells one, it's a little expensive at $20, but they also sell an universal USB-C charger [google.com] for $60 that can be used for everything from a Mac, PC, or Chromebook all the way down to a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Every USB C to USB C cable is at least USB 3.1.
No, they are not.
Exhibit A:
https://www.apple.com/shop/pro... [apple.com]
Exhibit B:
https://griffintechnology.com/... [griffintechnology.com]
Some might argue that these are not "USB" cables because they violate some specification as defined by the people that own the USB logo. These are cables, with USB-C connectors on both ends, and that cannot be argued.
These are not unknown small time manufacturers either. Apple is a huge company and Griffin has been making computer cables for 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is while personally I can be confident in my choices, I can easily see not being confident in *other* people's choices, particularly if I find myself having to borrow a cable.
I'd say about 10% of the time when I have to borrow a micro-usb cable, someone hands me something that's a dud that they bought cheap and stuffed in a drawer. If there's a 10% chance of a dud damaging my device, then I would have lost an expensive device by now.
On the face of it, a single cable for things under 100W is a nice
Re: (Score:2)
Being that most devices will read binary data and write binary data. It makes sense to have one port for this.
Back in the old days.
We had Serial Ports primarily used for Mice and Modems these came in 9 and 24 pin. Very few devices actually fully utilized the 24 pin. So we needed converters so we can have mode devices plugged into our PC. Then we had to fight for the Ports and IRQ so there was still a limitation on how many devices we can use. I had an early Graphical BBS. And often users will have problem
This is a solved problem (Score:3)
Cable-markers [google.co.uk] my good fellow.
If you have enough cables to worry about what goes where, then cable-markers will very likely be part of your inventory.
Or at the very least you'll have cables of different colours.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, for the simple fact that most times it's better if something works in a degraded mode than not at all. Like if I charge a device or transfer a file it's better that it works and that I get a software warning that things aren't working optimally. Sometimes there's a hard minimum, like I depend on USB power to operate and you can't supply it or that it doesn't support what you want it to do but that's the exception. We could color code all ports and cables with a ring of capabilities, like if yo
Re: (Score:2)
having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does
You're trying to make a virtue of a problem. The right solution is that the cable and port should do everything. There's no need to figure out what it does or doesn't do, because anything the devices in question are capable of doing can be done via that port and plug.
So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort?
Yes, it's all of the above, assuming it makes sense that the device can be a source/sink of the relevant data.
What voltages/amps can it provide?
The cable (unless it's non-compliant crap; don't buy non-compliant crap) can handle the full range of voltages and amperages in the sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I need to point out something here - there's a distinction between "nice to have" and "practically unfeasible".
there is a functional issue I think you're overlooking - you're complaining about things not fitting together with all sorts of different plug types (microUSB, mini-USB etc.) - things "should" be electrically and functionality/feature-compatible, but which you cannot connect together, therefore you're unhappy about it.
You're actually looking at a subset of the entire space, because remember: in the real world, not everything is supposed to plug into everything else.
It's not like if I can plug my handphone into my lawnmower it will automagically allow me to remotely mow my lawn from the office (actually, wait... somebody kickstarter this, quick). Making them plug-compatible achieves... what?
Not everything can work together with everything else. that's the point of having different plug types
having a "universal" plug type is something that would be VERY nice, just as it would be nice for unicorns to show up and make it rain cake (hey, they're my conception of unicorns so their powers are what I want it to be), but as a real world issue, you cannot build in sufficient forwards compatibility to make up for whatever may come up in the future, so even a "do everything" cable today will become "insufficient" in the future, and you're back to square one. Perhaps you can guarantee that every cable ever made now will always be useful in the future for at least plugging in your mouse and keyboard, but I really doubt there will be a shortage of mouse and keyboard cables in the future - the problem with Type C isn't at the "lowest common denominator" side of the market
again, not everything is supposed to plug into everything else, at least not at today's technology level (and arguably this will never be appropriate).
Let's say that in the future all lawnmowers use USB Type C plugs for power (so you could use the same cable to power your lawnmower as you use to charge your laptop). It then becomes physically possible to plug anything with a USB Type C port into your lawnmower.
Does that achieve anything if they simply don't do the same things?
Does plugging in your video projector into your lawnmower mean that you can have video recordings of you mowing the grass projected out onto a screen? Maybe, maybe not - let's say there's a niche demand for this, well, if video output was something your super duper special lawnmower is supposed to do, then having a VGA port, say, on your lawnmower makes sense, and you can tell video output is something it can do. However, your neighbour's lawnmower, which doesn't do video output, won't need that. But if they have a Type C port... is everything in the future to have stencilled/printed on the underside a full list of capabilities? Is that what we're supposed to do? I don't understand why it's such a problem that, if two things aren't supposed to work together, their ports physically don't match.
The problem now with a Type C port is, what it REALLY says, is that it MAY OR MAY NOT work with something else that has a Type C port. That's NOT an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
So apart from some asshat behavior (like some datacenter equipment that uses a micro-usb form factor, but RS-232 signaling), the point is anything with a usb type c connector *should* begin life by negotiating parameters and deciding if it can do what has been cabled, or if it doesn't make sense and provide some useful info to the user that what they are trying to do is crazy/unsupported.
So in your lawnmower case, if it truly took usb-type c for power only (unlikely, the power requirements require much thic
Re: (Score:2)
If you plug a display into it, it should say 'the other device does not support video' or something, and conversely the charge indicator on the mower should stay off or blink error or something.
But that's exactly my point!
think about it.
It's not mandated that all lawnmowers be able to produce video output. But if all lawnmowers have the same port type, you can't tell without additional effort that would've been unnecessary if not for every port being the same.
How is finding out it doesn't work AFTER you've plugged the thing in first better - than immediately knowing the two things don't work together because they don't fit together?
in fact, you now have TWO failure modes - either the device you p
Re: (Score:2)
It used to make sense, because things were too dumb to not screw up something if miscabled, sometimes catastrophically, at best without any recourse for helping the user tell why it seemed broken. USB host and USB target were different roles, and providing the ability to be fancy about being dynamic was not an affordable thing, hence the type b connector. So a USB hub particularly necessarily had directionality, and if you had 5 identical ports, but only *one* of them could be plugged to a USB host device
Re: (Score:2)
"Type B isn't used anymore and was hardly used even back then"
Pretty much every single printer/scanner combo I've ever owned had Type-B socket. My old 3Com webcamera, same thing.
AMD baby upto 128 pci-e but no server will go usb (Score:2)
AMD baby upto 128 pci-e but no server will go usb only.
10G E-net on board. Some systems even have SFP+ on board now.
also a storage system can have lots of pci-e storage 24 bays at 4 each is 96. So you have some left over for network / boot ssd / and other io.
That's easy enough to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's easy enough to do (Score:5, Funny)
It depends. If the cable is angled downwards then the 1s, being heavier, fall more quickly than 0s. If the cable is angled upwards then the 0s are lighter and move more quickly.
So whether you encode your data in to 0s or 1s will depend on how the cable is angled.
I think we're wasted here. We could be working for these guys: http://www.audioquest.com/ethe... [audioquest.com]
To quote their 'tech blurb' for what is an 8m Ethernet cable, ordinarily retailing for less than $10, being sold for $1,158.75:
Re: (Score:2)
But you need bigger cables for 0s, because they are wider. Sure the 1s can sometimes go sideways and get stuck in bad cables, but good cables funnel the data so that the 1s can't really do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this why the Manchester code was developed?
Removing the DC bias meant that an equal number of 1s and 0s were sent so that the angle of the cable would not change the speed of data transfer. The ability to keep connections electrically isolated was a nice bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a real bargain compared to their 16m HDMI cable that's retailing for $14,000
http://amzn.to/2uxALeW [amzn.to]
AudioQuest Diamond 16m (52.49 feet) Braided HDMI Cable
3.4 out of 5 stars 149 customer reviews | 21 answered questions
Price: $13,499.75 + $3.99 shipping
Only 10 left in stock - order soon.
Ships from and sold by Electronics Expo.
Solid Perfect-Surface Silver (PSS) Conductors
Low Jitter, Low Distortion Audio
Signal Conductors Controlled for Digital Audio Direction
Dielectric-Bias System (DBS US Pat #
Re: That's easy enough to do (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Typo? (Score:2)
That's not double the rate of 3.1, it's one fifth the rate.
Re: (Score:3)
No, 2 GB/sec is 16 Gb/sec, and this typically refers to effective transfer values (discounting overheads) so the speed is roughly double (ermm, sort of).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
USB-C certainly cannot do 10GB/s, it is definitely 10Gb/s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of the difference between a bit and byte? Or do you think it's coincidence that the B is capitalized in one measurement but not the other?
Re: (Score:2)
2GB/s != 2*10Gb/s
Mixing bits and bytes like that in what's supposed to be a direct "apples to apples" comparison makes no sense.
There was already one typo.
It's an easy typo to make, you just don't take a finger off the shift key fast enough. SOmething I do rather often.
It's a very common mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
And this: " Put simply: it’s faster than regular USB 3.0, allowing up to two lanes of 5Gbps or two lanes of 10G
Cables vs wires (Score:3)
The post is quite confusing, since the headline says Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables but the summary specifies double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires.
The explanation is that USB-C connectors [wikipedia.org] (type-C connectors) have two different sets of transmission/reception pairs, two pairs for transmission and two pairs for reception. This differs from previous type-A and type-B [wikipedia.org] connectors, which only have one pair of pins for (bidirectional) data transmission.
All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs, one for transmission and one for reception (as clearly explained in the Wikipedia link provided). Given the simmetry of the connector, I bet this was designed to support the reversible connection, in a manner in which only one of the pairs works at a time. For this reason, the new USB 3.2 might double the speed, but it would require cables that implement the complete set of wires for such speed. So, in the general case, double speed would actually require new cables with the complete set of wires.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. If a cable only implements 2 pairs, it's not a USB cable regardless of what the seller calls it. The spec requires cables to implement all 4 pairs.
More correctly: There are Type-C to other type cables which only have 2 pair, simply because it's not possible to have a 2nd pair on the other end (e.g. Type-C to USB 3.1 Standard-A). There's also an uncommon USB 2.0 Type C cable, which does
Re: (Score:2)
There's also an uncommon USB 2.0 Type C cable, which doesn't have any of the high speed pairs.
These are actually quite common. They are usually sold as "charge only" cables but the USB2 sets of wires are there to provide a data path to let the charging device know something is connected and to negotiate a charging rate.
One thing that I thought was true was that if a cable or device had a USB-C port or connector that it would have the pins for USB 2 data. This seemed true even for all the alternate modes, the USB 2 pins would still be there and could transmit data at USB 2 speeds. That data might
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have little doubt that Griffin is playing games with the USB spec, and the USB people charged with enforcing the spec is letting them get away with it.
I can just imagine what would happen when a blue shirted "geek" that gets paid on commission is faced with a blue haired grandma and a shelf with the $40 Griffin cable, a $30 Thunderbolt cable, and a $20 USB 2 cable. Grandma might say she wants to get photos off her new camera onto her laptop so she can e-mail them off to the girls in her sewing circle, bu
Re: (Score:2)
All type-C connectors implement the pins for the four pairs, but many cables only populate the wires for two pairs
If the cable is not a Chinese import and it has the USB logo on it, then this is not true.
Don't blame the spec for the people who refuse to implement it as required.
I look forward too... (Score:2)
I look forward to USB 3.0 and 3.1 becoming "USB 3.2 Gen 1", "USB 3.2 Gen 2" and actual USB 3.2 being "USB 3.2 Gen 3".
Seriously these marketing idiots need to be shot.
Umm.. (Score:2)
" two lanes of 5Gb/s or two lanes of 10Gb/s operation "
Too confusing (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder what the USB people are thinking. They have a good idea going here, why are they trying to ruin it?
It used to be that USB-C was USB but faster. It made the "On-The-Go" bi-directional features from USB2 required so people didn't have to worry about the host/device relationship too much. The Micro-AB connector was switched to a "flippable" version, they called "Type C", which is great. The new connector is just as small but handles more power, and I don't have to worry if I got the "right" end or which way is "up".
Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes. You have Thunderbolt (which is just DisplayPort mixed with PCIe data), DisplayPort (which may or may not be backward compatible with the Thunderbolt mode), HDMI, and MHL (which may or may not be backward compatible with HDMI). They should have told the HDMI people to piss off and stopped at three. Maybe even tell the MHL people to piss off too but they already had an agreement with MHL on the micro-USB connector.
Now you have four video modes, two data modes (ThunderBolt and "SuperSpeed" USB), and with this new "Ludicrous Speed" mode they added a third data mode. It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need. Even buying a simple data cable is confusing. There's the USB2 cable, the USB3 cable, and the ThunderBolt cable, they all look identical at a glance with USB-C connectors on both ends. Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely? Or will it crap out and support only USB2 speed?
They created this "SuperSpeed" naming to differentiate the USB2 speed devices from the faster USB3 ones. Then when USB-C came along with two "SuperSpeed" lanes they had to figure out how to make that clear to the user. They came up with "SuperSpeed+". (Notice the addition of the plus sign? It's easy to miss.) What is this new one going to be called?
I have to wonder if this is going to die before it even gets started. The people that want a faster USB got ThunderBolt already.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you don't remember the audio format wars, in which the BIOS vendors just decided to support everything and you could tell the BIOS which standard to make the hardware do.
Give it a few years and all the device firmwares will support everything and auto-switch based on detected traffic. In nicer devices you might even get automatic device bus isolation with programmable switches for things like main monitor connections, to give fixed gear its own dedicated bus bandwidth.
Re: (Score:3)
Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes.
Not really. Thunderbolt is external PCIe with DisplayPort as an alternate video mode, it's an alternative to USB data signaling not video. MHL is essentially HDMI squished to use fewer connectors + power supply, if you got USB-C out you have enough connectors for full HDMI and all MHL receptors are also HDMI ports. The problem is that if you use HDMI mode you don't get the power supply, the only way to get that from a USB-C device connected to a MHL-enabled TV is to fake MHL. That problem goes away if you g
Re: (Score:2)
In fact PCIe, DP and HDMI are now bundled in TB3 so in practice you have only two ports:
TB3: All of the above
USB3: USB data + power
Oh, how I wish it were that simple.
There are still lots of cell phones and tablets, even high priced ones, that have USB-C ports but only support USB 2 features. They might support MHL output like their older micro-USB versions but usually not. If they support some charge rate greater than the USB 2 10 watts this does not mean they are following the USB spec, but instead doing some vendor specific voltage and current that can mean setting something on fire if that charger is used with anything other than
Re: (Score:2)
It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need.
Calm down. This specifically is compatible with the existing cables.
Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely?
Well the answer there is yes and yes, but only if the devices can't negotiate 3.2.
You're over complicating things. Use the cable that came with the device and you'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have infinite video modes as all the video modes do it dictate which pairs of wires are dedicated to that task and it's a signaling and driver issue on the computer at that point, in other words what the cable supports doesn't at all change the physical nature of the cable, the connector or anything else.
It's almost like you don't even know how USB works and you're posting a comment on it like an expert, what is this slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a FIFTH display mode, since you can use (and might need) an actual USB to display out adapter which consists in a chip made by a vendor called Displaylink.
USB is not a display protocol. That would be like saying I have a PCIe monitor because the video card I'm using is in a PCIe slot.
You do bring up a good point though. While many devices with a USB-C port will support one or more alternate video modes one might still need an actual graphics controller to connect to their display. LG and Dell will sell displays with USB-C and HDMI ports, and you can find phones that will have a USB-C port, and there are cables with USB-C on one end and USB-C or HDMI on the
The new keyboards (Score:3)
The new keyboards that will have USB can now be equipped with cigarette lighters.
Re: (Score:2)
My case already has a cigarette lighter built-in.
Those tiny shitty connector contacts of USB-C couldn't even handle 5A, let alone the 10A the cig lighter needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the connectors are capable of supporting 5A, though not all cables can. Not only that with USB-PD they can support 5A @20V meaning after connecting to a device with a small DC-DC converter you most definitely could power a cigarette lighter.
Re: (Score:2)
The cables themselves cannot if they're longer than 2 meters and that's AT ROOM TEMPERATURE (Remember ampacity drops as the cable gets warmer.) That's utter crap and a physical limitation EXPLICITLY due to the connector design. The pinout contacts aren't even equivalent to 20AWG.
You're going to hear a LOT of stories about equipment and cables frying soon. Someone utterly forgot to do their basic wire gauge/ampacity calculations (I just had to redo 400 calculations because the idiot someone hired to re-wire
Re: (Score:2)
Make up your mind, cables or connectors. You talk of cables and list cable dimensions and length then you say the connectors are the limit despite the connectors specifically being designed for 5A at 20V. If they don't, they breach the USB spec, it's as easy as that.
The pinout contacts aren't even equivalent to 20AWG
They don't need to be. Kirchhoff's current law to the rescue.
You're going to hear a LOT of stories about equipment and cables frying soon.
We already are. Stuff that doesn't meet the USB spec, doesn't meet the USB spec. Stuff that does, doesn't fry. The spec won't let the cable fry as the cable needs to signal the host ac
Re: (Score:2)
"Make up your mind, cables or connectors."
Both are pretty much one and the same. It's like you've never done any basic electronics work in your life, son. Given your high UID, you've probably never touched an iron in your life let alone have to do basic fucking goddamned calculations for appropriate wire or connector size [powerelectronics.com] on a daily basis wiring things to STRICT CALIFORNIA CODE.
Please come back when you are a licensed electrician. Or even a two-year journeyman with at least one year of working experience.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
Both are pretty much one and the same.
Wow. just wow. And you accuse me of not knowing cables (licensed electrician turned engineer here)
that's how I determined that the fucking pins on the USB-C connector alone can't handle fucking 5 amps safely over a distance greater than two meters
Good, thanks for your input. Fortunately the pins are only 1mm long so there's a good factor of 2000x in there.
But your idiocy about not knowing the difference between the current carrying capacity of pins vs a cable aside, the IEC disagrees with you when they published 62680-3-1. Which incidentally has all the required numbers in it.
You didn't need to do your own calculations. You didn't need to show everyone
Re: (Score:2)
" Fortunately the pins are only 1mm long so there's a good factor of 2000x in there."
Unless those are pure gold or silver, and NOT PLATED, they won't carry a goddamned thing over 1 amp. You just literally ignored basic physics and NESC regulations. You aren't licensed for shit - reveal your state license number or be considered a lying fuck.
Too many chnages in too short of a time... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it starting to lose it's usefulness? If it makes you feel any better just call it "USB" and ignore the number. After all the article specifically mentions complete compatibility with existing systems and existing cables, so why would the version number matter.
Just use it and let the devices themselves figure out the best connection speed. This is the opposite of losing it's usefulness, quite literally it is becoming even more useful with no downsides.
Will we see Linux networking with this? (Score:2)
Going all the way back to USB 2.0, there is a host-to-host mode in the specification, but it's not implemented in any operating system. The best we can get now is USB3.0 to gigabit dongles, which don't take full advantage of the available speed at all.
USB 3.0 is great for storage, the speed is really nice. Then you find that your bottleneck is gigabit ethernet.
Thunderbolt supports network bridging on the mac, but it's not really useable on linux.
What are the roadblocks to IP over full-speed USB 3.0 or 3.1 d
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, USB 3.1 @ 10 Gbit/sec is already fast enough to do a lot of useful work that now "requires" more expensive interfaces. I honestly don't see why even LTO-6 tape drives or array shelves couldn't be connected via USB, at least from a pure performance perspective provided that you were willing to live with 10 Gbit/second as your throughput limit, which, honestly, shouldn't be that big of a limitation considering that it bests low-end SAS and gigabit Ethernet connectivity in many cases.
I think the biggest
Meh (Score:2)
I still have yet to see any Type C connectors in person, so using "existing cables" isn't much of a selling point, personally.
Ethernet? (Score:2)
And still I can't get more than 1 Gbps from my network without spending tens of thousands of dollars...
Re: (Score:2)
As the blurb says USB C cables* already support the extra data lane. It is however new for the USB specification to use that lane (wires) for _USB_data_.
(* not to be confused with a cable with a USB C connector at one end designed for power delivery only or USB 2/3 data only - if they exist at all, haven't seen one)
Re: (Score:2)
Existing cables...with new wires.
How exactly is this supposed to work?
Think of it like adding RAM. Just pop open your existing cables & add new conductors.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm also fully aware I've never seen a a "480 Mbps" USB 2 device operate faster than ~50 Mbps"
Any shitty Chinese PC Webcamera can saturate a USB 2.0 port pretty damned easily.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used flash drives on USB 2.0 that would cap around 35MBps, so 280Mbps. Only just over half of the theoretical limit, but much higher than your observation.
Re: (Score:2)
The output on ONE of my webcams will saturate the USB 2.0 bus and leave no overhead for even a USB keyboard at 1024x768.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this all direct connections to your motherboard's USB ports or is there possibly a USB 1.1 hub in the middle. All ports on a motherboard are not created equal either. Boards will have a mixure of USB 2.0 and 1.1 ports on older hardware, just like a mix of 3.0 and 2.0 ports on current hardware.
There's no way a 1024x768 camera is saturating a USB 2.0 bus, unless it's a high speed camera running at 10,000fps. Something is wrong in your setup.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm fully aware of the difference between bits and bytes" ......
"I've never seen a a "480 Mbps" USB 2 device operate faster than ~50 Mbps"
My old OCZ Rally 2 16GB flash drive writes at 10-13 MBps if the files are larger than 1 megabyte.
I used to have a 4GB Turbo version that was twice as quick but it stopped working a couple years ago.
Re: Past experience (Score:2)
Also, am I misreading the summary? The headline states this will work with existing cables. However, according to my reading of the summary, it will actually require new cables - which will be backwards compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
And here you have probably completely confused bits and bytes, because most drives these days (including USB sticks) will transfer around 40-43MB/s over USB 2, which is about 8-9 times faster than you've never seen.