(Unexpected) transfer speeds supported by USB 3.0 cables

[Alex771]

I obtained the ICY BOX IB-180MC-C31 M.2 NVMe enclosure, which is designed by RaidSonic in Germany. The device supports transfer speeds up to 10 Gbps (around 1 GBps in real life). To my surprise, it includes a USB 3.0 cable. To my knowledge, USB 3.0 only supports up to 5 Gbps. I asked RaidSonic to explain. They wrote that the USB 3.0 specification states 5 Gbps but that doesn't mean 5 Gbps is the upper limit. They did not offer any more details.

Isn't this confusing? What's the use of marking USB cables, when those markings are meaningless? Are USB 3.1 cables any different from USB 3.0 cables?

 

[Bigwaff]

Isn't this confusing? What's the use of marking USB cables, when those markings are meaningless? Are USB 3.1 cables any different from USB 3.0 cables?

It is very confusing... you can thank the mind-boggling stupidity of the USB Implementors Forum naming schemes over the years. Here's a great explanation of all things USB including the current standards and their previously "known as" names.

USB charger selector

tripplite.eaton.com

If the included cable is USB-C, more than likely it supports 10Gbps data transfers as long as the cable length isn't over 3m.. but look for the "SS10" label on the cable. If the included cable is USB-A, an adapter color RED or the "SS10" label indicates 10Gbps. The labeling is a recent change so not all cable manufacturers have adopted it yet. There are still tons of USB cables on the market w/out labels even though higher specs are supported. YMMV so test and verify.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"To my surprise, it includes a USB 3.0 cable."

Does the cable have USB "a" connectors, or USB "c" connectors?

Does the enclosure have a USBc port, or something else?

Have you connected the drive and given it a speed test yet?

What kind of speeds did you see?

USB3 will give reads around 430MBps.
USB3.1 gen2 will give reads around 850-900MBps.

 

[Alex771]

It is very confusing... you can thank the mind-boggling stupidity of the USB Implementors Forum naming schemes over the years. Here's a great explanation of all things USB including the current standards and their previously "known as" names.

USB charger selector

tripplite.eaton.com

I am fully aware of the naming differences. The site at tripplite.eaton.com is also a site I go to for all things USB. So, I am glad you mention it.

Referring to chart 1 on the tripplite.eaton.com page, one can see that 3.0 means 5 Gbps at maximum. Emphasis on "maximum".

I am not complaining that the cable is marked "USB3.0". What confuses me is that this 3.0 cable transfers up to 10 Gbps. This shouldn't happen. As a consumer I want to trust that "3.0" means 5 Gbps at max. So why did RaidSoinic not include a 3.1 = USB 3.2 Gen 2 cable?

RaidSonic sent this to prove that 10 Gbps can be achieved through this cable:

So I don't doubt that. But I am annoyed because this should not be supported through a 3.0 cable!

They argue that another cable would just confuse consumers. No, it would not. I want cable markings to reflect the supported USB spec. I would have expected a 3.1 cable for a device that connects to a host's USB 3.2 (Gen 2) port (either of type C or type A).

but look for the "SS10" label on the cable.

The cable is circa 50 cm long and has "USB3.0 E340033 5U AWM 20276 80ºC 30V VW-1 XLY" printed on it. It has USB Type C connectors on both ends.

I did not test the device, I sent it back. I like the open-case design (lids on enclosures are kind-of superfluous, given heatsinks) but I don't feel good about it anymore.

Does the enclosure have a USBc port, or something else?

I don't think the presence of a Type C connector indicates the speed or USB spec build into the connector. See "Connector type quick reference". You can have USB-C connectors on a USB 2.0 cable I believe.

I believe a USB 3.1 cable has different physical properties, doesn't it? The table under Signaling states different encodings and I am not sure if these encodings require different physical properties inside the connectors.

The point is, I want the cable marking to reflect what speeds it transfers and I was just told by a manufacturer that 5 Gbps is not the upper limit of 3.0 = USB 3.2 Gen 1. That's crazy.

 

[Fishrrman]

You are over-thinking things here.

Just connect the drive to the Mac.

Open something like BlackMagic Speedtest, and give it a run-through.

What kind of speeds do you get?

 

[Alex771]

You are over-thinking things here.

Why are you participating in this thread?

 

[Fishrrman]

"Why are you participating in this thread?"

Well, because I'm here.

"Isn't this confusing? What's the use of marking USB cables, when those markings are meaningless? Are USB 3.1 cables any different from USB 3.0 cables?"

Yes, it IS confusing, and has been a problem with USB for a while, particularly USBc.
One tries to buy the right cable (depending on the description), and THEN tries to remember what its capabilities are when using it.

But unless you go so far as to attach a label to every cable describing what it is and what speed it is, you're going to forget and then the only way left is to "swap cables and see which one works".

One thing with USB3 cables that distinguish them from "slower" cables is the "blue tip".
USB2 and slower cables will not have that.

If the IcyBox you bought has USBc, USE THAT PORT. Don't bother with USB3 ("a" connector).
Try whatever cables you have.
If none of them (either "A" cables or "C" cables) give you good speeds (I would consider 920+/-MBps to be "a good speed"), then try another cable.

I'd be looking for a USBc cable that is rated to be "charging, high speed". One has to be careful when shopping. I'm thinking the Apple charging cable (USBc to USBc) would be correct.

 

[Bigwaff]

I'm thinking the Apple charging cable (USBc to USBc) would be correct.

The Apple USB-C charging cables transfer data at USB 2.0 speeds. Those cables have been a source of confusion for years.

 

[loekf]

The Apple USB-C charging cables transfer data at USB 2.0 speeds. Those cables have been a source of confusion for years.

As I found out with a 10 Gbps USB-C HDD enclosure. Funny thing is with a M1 iMac it worked fine and though I never checked the speeds it worked fine. With a M3 I had occasional kernel panics and the speed dropped to 45 Mbps.

Only Apple’s TB4 cables do actually 40 Gbps. I guess TB3 cables do 20 Gbps. Those TB cables with USB-C will actually exceed USB 2.0 speeds.

USB-IF created a huge mess. Looks like they are changing the naming again:

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb_type-c_cable_power_rating_logo_usage_guidelines_020222.pdf

Safest these days buy USB4 40 Gbps cables up 0.8 m or USB4 20 Gbps up to 2m cbles from good suppliers like Anker, Apple or Nedis. The cables should also “feel thicker”, as they have more wires and thicker wires inside.