Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USB4 Version 2.0 to Offer 80Gb/s Transfer Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The USB implementation forum may have the worst branding and marketing department in the history of branding and marketing departments.
The name is a joke. Even worse though is that we now have yet another cable that looks identical to existing cables but has different capabilities. 🤦♂️
The name is a joke. Even worse though is that we now have yet another cable that looks identical to existing cables but has different capabilities. 🤦♂️
I'm guessing that Microsoft sent the same person who decided to come up with Xbox Series X to replace the Xbox One X or whatever it was. Clearly it wasn't the Sony person who had the sense to go PlayStation 1, PlayStation 2 (PS2). PS3, PS4, and PS5!
It's not really a new problem. From the early days you could look at a DB9 port and have no idea what it was - Serial port? Atari joystick? You can't easily see twists in RJ45 connectors, can't tell a null modem cable from a regular cable, can't tell what category an HDMI cable is by looking, etc etc.
The Type-C connector is so superior I'd much rather have the benefits of standardizing everything on that connector. I'll label the few specialty USB cables I actually need.
There would be confusion either way. The issue is existing passive USB4 cables will support 80Gbps. So if they call it USB5, some people might needlessly pay for a more expensive USB5 cable when a USB4 cable would suffice.
Passive Thunderbolt cables were pretty short in length, usually less than 1 meter. There were also slower Thunderbolt cables that were longer (up to 2m) but they only had 20 Gbps speeds, half that of Thunderbolt 3/4's top speed.
Longer full speed Thunderbolt cables (2m or the new 3m Apple one) were always active cables with more expensive signaling circuitry built in. There's also special Thunderbolt optical cables which can be much longer.
USB4 inherited Thunderbolt's capabilities and cables.
That used to work until we got to 10 Gb and the equipment required to make it work was so far past what 1 Gb needed that we had to push out 2.5 and 5 Gb so that the machines wouldn’t melt and cabling could keep up.
We also now have 25 Gb in addition to 100 Gb as going to 100 is stupidly hard but 25 is just modestly expensive. Two 25 Gbps ports on my switch to my main NAS, but no way will I see 25 Gbps on a computer in a decade, never mind the switch, cabling, and 100 Gb.
The many and confusing permutations of USB hubs and cables must constitute a fair proportion of the E-waste mountains that future generations will have to deal with.
These cable standards are a mess - both in the naming conventions and that identical looking cables may have vastly different capabilities (with the average Joe not being able to tell the difference). Also, I never liked the USB-C cables from a mechanical perspective - they're just too flimsy and easy to break. Somebody should make one cable to end all cables e.g. a fiber optic cable with a couple copper wires for power. The optical electronics in the hardware you plug the cable into can change/improve over time to allow for faster serial communications etc. but you can be sure the inherent bandwidth of the fiber optic cable itself will stay plenty high enough through all of these generations of improvements.
To all those who spent years demanding a single-connector standard for data and power interconnect... Stop complaining about variants/exceptions, etc. It was a predictable, expected outgrowth of what I've always considered to be a fool's errand.
Technology continues to evolve. Historically, connectors and cables changed to help differentiate between device/system capabilities. But thanks to the "I want to have only one cable for everything" crowd we have a system where otherwise-identical-looking cables turn out to be incapable of delivering a particular capability, and an identical-looking port may or may not deliver the desired functionality. You asked for it, you got it! All the appearances of simplicity with a totally different reality.
Technology continues to evolve. Historically, connectors and cables changed to help differentiate between device/system capabilities. But thanks to the "I want to have only one cable for everything" crowd we have a system where otherwise-identical-looking cables turn out to be incapable of delivering a particular capability, and an identical-looking port may or may not deliver the desired functionality. You asked for it, you got it! All the appearances of simplicity with a totally different reality.
Yes we can, since that is more than enough bandwidth to support 5K at 120Hz with 10-bit color or 6K at 120Hz with 8-bit color.
USB has probably saved us from mountains of ewaste. Think of serial, parallel, PS/2, ADB, and others that were replaced with one port, and how people usually ditch old devices with outdated ports while you can theoretically still use USB 2.0 devices from 2001 today (USB 1.1 probably not).
USB-C chargers will save us from the ewaste of proprietary chargers that work with one device that you get rid of when you get rid of the device.
So I'd say it's a win on ewaste, yes there's ewaste generated but it could be far worse if we were back to 10 different PC ports and every laptop and phone brand has a different charger.
“Why complain about the naming conventions”…
good god, we have spotted that programmer that likes to name his public variables “a”, “a2”, “_aa”, “a3” haven’t we.
good god, we have spotted that programmer that likes to name his public variables “a”, “a2”, “_aa”, “a3” haven’t we.
So question: what is the relationship between thunderbolt and the latest USB specs? If the USB spec now incorporates Thunderbolt, does that mean the “Thunderbolt” name eventually goes away? It seems these latest USB specs exceed TB4, will the TB spec continue to be updated, or will it all be USB from now on?
Thunderbolt 4 = full featured USB4 (no skimping on features, Intel won't certify if you don't implement the full suite of features)
Thunderbolt is useful as a brand because it tells you you can do most things USB-C can theoretically do. But USB4 has the same capabilities but as options.
What I find annoying is that they keep reusing the USB moniker with enough variations to confuse what specs it has. Then follow it up with unmarked cables that don’t tell you what watt or throughput it’s certified for. So easy to end up with an underperforming cord without even knowing it.
I'm assuming here that your post was a response to mine. So I agree with your point when the identically looking cables (many of which have ICs or other electronics/intelligence at each end) have inherently different capabilities. However, if the universal cable is just "dumb" with effectively infinite bandwidth and a fixed DC power transmission capability then you can use that to connect systems together e.g. a computer to your TV or external hard drive. The electronics driving the cable at each end could conceivably handshake and figure out lowest common denominator protocols etc., but people wouldn't be loading up landfills with obsolete cables anymore. People generally know the capabilities of the hardware they're trying to interconnect and a generic cable would always appear to work well in such cases. A generic looking cable with different capabilities is another (frustrating) story altogether.
I’ve taken to using a dymo label maker and attach the specs to the cable.
Does that mean you have to transfer the files tomorrow to get them today?! 😆