Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
48,664
10,093



The USB 3.0 Promoter Group, comprising Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, and other companies, today introduced an upcoming USB 3.2 specification, which will eventually replace the existing USB 3.1 specification upon release.

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.
"When we introduced USB Type-C to the market, we intended to assure that USB Type-C cables and connectors certified for SuperSpeed USB or SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps would, as produced, support higher performance USB as newer generations of USB 3.0 were developed," said Brad Saunders, USB 3.0 Promoter Group Chairman. "The USB 3.2 update delivers the next level of performance."
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.

More information about USB 3.2 will be unveiled at USB Developer Days 2017 later this year.

Article Link: Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
8,696
4,304
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,
I think there's a typo in here, because as written 3.2 is only 20% as fast as 3.1. Either 3.2 should be 20 Gb/sec or 3.1 should be 1 Gb/s.

Edit: Okay, someone else pointed out that I misread and the article is correct - they gave the 3.2 speed in GB vs the 3.1 speed if Gb. Capitalization of the B matters - changes whether you're talking about bits or Bytes (8 bits).

This seems crazy. I remember it used to take ~an hour to transfer that kind of data to my iPod and later my iPhone. Someday soon it'll take seconds.
 
Last edited:

Appleaker

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2016
2,197
4,190
This is exciting, especially in The World of Dongles. Although no Thunderbolt licence fees is equally exciting. It’ll be more exciting to hear about Thunderbolt 4 for eGPUs and displays.
 

duervo

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2011
2,318
1,042
I think there's a typo in here, because as written 3.2 is only 20% as fast as 3.1. Either 3.2 should be 20 Gb/sec or 3.1 should be 1 Gb/s.

This seems crazy. I remember it used to take ~an hour to transfer that kind of data to my iPod and later my iPhone. Someday soon it'll take seconds.
I think you missed the GB vs Gb. (2GB being compared to 10Gb). I fault the article though. It should have used standardized units to avoid confusion like this.
 

dogslobber

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2014
3,809
5,655
Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
I think there's a typo in here, because as written 3.2 is only 20% as fast as 3.1. Either 3.2 should be 20 Gb/sec or 3.1 should be 1 Gb/s.

This seems crazy. I remember it used to take ~an hour to transfer that kind of data to my iPod and later my iPhone. Someday soon it'll take seconds.
I remember seeing a punchcard reader hit 49cpm in 1976.
 

macintoshmac

macrumors 68040
May 13, 2010
3,820
3,370
Please feel free to correct me, albeit politely, if I am wrong to understand that while the cables per se support the new 3.2 standard on their own, we would possibly not have this 3.2 standard on 2016 and 2017 MBPs and only the new MBPs might come with 3.2 support? The cables support the standard, but does the chipset in the current MBPs support it?

Like I said, please correct me/ enlighten me if I am wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
8,696
4,304
I think you missed the GB vs Gb. (2GB being compared to 10Gb). I fault the article though. It should have used standardized units to avoid confusion like this.
Oh, that's weird. But isn't 10Gb doubled and converted to GB closer to 2.4GB, not just 2GB?
 

CerebralX

macrumors 6502
I find it stupid that a brand new 2017 MacBook Pro and iPhone 7 can't even be connected out of the box...
The iPhone 8 will be able to. This is a very small problem. Lightning was developed before USB-C and was a good standard at the time in terms of abilities. It's just unfortunate the timing of the introduction of the USB-C standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avieshek
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.