No, Apple is changing the macOS APIs in a way that Unified Memory is the only way to implement them, so there is no way back without another API overhaul which I don't see them making.
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
Yes, I do expect it that way, too.
But that would lose compatibility with existing passive cables and they are clearly motivated to keep that!
So doubling the signal levels from 2 to 4 would be the only way of sticking to the same frequencies and thus to the same passive cables and still doubling the data rate.
It is not implausible that driver and adaptive receiver technology has advanced enough by now to make that feasible.
And since Thunderbolt of course must use the same drivers and receivers as USB it must be a common physical-level specification anyway.
About checking the cables: When you hold [option] you can open System Information... from the apple menu and there you can select USB to see the active USB ports and devices.
It will show you the interface speed each particular device is connected with, so for instance my older iPad is connected to a 10Gbps USB-C port but only through a lightning cable, so it only says:
Speed: Up to 480 Mb/s
It also says:
Current Available (mA): 500
Current Required (mA): 500
Extra Operating Current (mA): 1600
Sleep current (mA): 2100
I have no USB power delivery device at hand right now but I would expect the available power to be indicated properly then, too.
So in System Information you should be able to check what a particular combination of cable and device are actually capable of if you are in doubt.
It will show you the interface speed each particular device is connected with, so for instance my older iPad is connected to a 10Gbps USB-C port but only through a lightning cable, so it only says:
Speed: Up to 480 Mb/s
It also says:
Current Available (mA): 500
Current Required (mA): 500
Extra Operating Current (mA): 1600
Sleep current (mA): 2100
I have no USB power delivery device at hand right now but I would expect the available power to be indicated properly then, too.
So in System Information you should be able to check what a particular combination of cable and device are actually capable of if you are in doubt.
But the slideshow clearly says PAM-3. How are they going to double the data rate without increasing the frequency with PAM-3? More lanes?
Wait, with the user names deconstruct and constructor, shouldn't you two be diametrically opposed on all subjects?
I'd certainly feel that way if I ever encountered a user named "practice".
I would not take a leaked internal presentation as gospel there – quite possible that that proposal was not the one that was ultimately adopted.
Upping the frequencies would make it dicey to keep the same cables around – even with improved signal conditioning cables might become more critical than they would have to be.
No, USB-C already has four lanes and the pins just wouldn't be there.
Oh, right! 😁
But as I see it, constructors and destructors are perfect complements to each other and should work together! 😉
Brain dead to you. Everyone else with a wee bit of motivation will simply take the tiny bit of time and effort to read and understand before purchasing a cable to meet their needs. Sadly, many people don't want to do that anymore.
Last edited:
Look, to everyone complaining about the numbering system, we should really thank USB IF. Naming it usb 5? Is that what you really want? It’s almost like you think there’s an unlimited supply of numbers, especially with all the supply chain issues. What happens after usb 6, if y’all are so smart?
If we’d kept FireWire, I think we’d be on FireWire 80000000.
If we’d kept FireWire, I think we’d be on FireWire 80000000.
I gave up and just bought a couple of thunderbolt cables for when I know that I'll need faster than USB 2.0 speeds. It was a bit expensive to have to do that, but it's impossible to predict which standards some of these random unlabeled cables will actually support. In many cases, they don't even support USB3 (the Apple-included cable with the Macs is literally a USB 2.0 cable).That is fast
For non-technical people this will be hell - as they will always be using the wrong type of USB-C cable
(As today - it will just be worse)
“FireWire Eighty Million” sounds cool.
That has nothing to do with what I asked.
The naming scheme doesn’t make any sense and makes everything more confusing compared to how it was named originally.
What logic made USB 3 renamed to 3.1 and later 3.2 gen 1?
USB 3.1 already existed and is renamed the same fashion.
And all the time we have usb 3.2.
What logic and information do we get by going to:
USB 3.0 -> USB 3.1 gen 1-> USB 3.2 gen 1
USB 3.1 -> USB 3.1 gen 2-> USB 3.2 gen 2
USB 3.2 -> USB 3.2 gen 2x2
Mixing existing cables with new cables being rebranded with zero differences.
What did we gain as consumers compared to if it stayed exactly the same before 2013?
Attachments
No, physically it's still the same USB-C socket and according to the presentation you can still use the same cables and peripherals.
Well said. It also creates a situation where vendors can market their products "USB 3.1" or "USB 3.2" while actually only implementing the gen 1 standard that is 5gbps.
I get it. You're OUTRAGED on USB naming conventions. How nice for you.
I could not care less. Again, to be extra clear: I just don't care.
The next time I need a special USB cable I'll simply refresh my memory with a tiny bit of research and purchase the proper cable. But then I don't mind taking a bit of personal responsibility and reading when necessary. It's what I always do.
What cracks me up are people making a huge Earth-is-tilting-out-of-control fuss over names. Rather than being stoked on the meat of the story, which is the introduction of USB 4 v2.0 and 80 Gb/sec transfer rates.
For technical users, that's all fine and good. For everyday folks just trying to get an external SSD to play games on, they're gonna start blaming the device when their SSD performs like a USB-2.0 device because of how convoluted the naming schemes (and the cable markets) have become.
For those of us who understand the specs, it's just a matter of doing research. But in my opinion, we absolutely have made it far more complex than it needs to be, and it is unnecessarily confusing to the consumer. Plenty of companies take advantage and the sheer quantity of USB 2.0 USB-C cables is evidence of that (even Apple is guilty of this, the included USB-C cable with the MacBooks isn't even a USB 3.0 cable.)
Somewhere in all the quoting of previous posts, my definition of "dumb" cable was omitted. To recap, I was talking about a fiber optic cable with a couple copper wires for power. The fiber optic cable will definitely have enough bandwidth for many years to come, certainly exceeding the specs of the electronics that can drive it. it'll be a more expensive cable than just a collection of copper wires, but it should be universal. That puts the compatibility (speeds, protocols etc.) into the hardware that the cable connects to - some standard handshaking can assist in figuring out the appropriate lowest common denominator protocol. BTW, I also have a long history (40 years) in the electronics field - specifically designing ICs.
Nope.
As the Windows PC world is transitioning to PCIe5, SSD controller manufacturers are on board. We are seeing M.2 SSDs with transfer rates exceeding 80Gbs introduced.
So - once USB4 v2 sockets are available, there will be external drives that push that transfer rate to the limit. The question is when the industry will make the transition. USB4 is still notably absent in the Windows hardware world, in spite of it being around for a couple of years. Unfortunately.
There were protocol differences from 3.0 to 3.1 to 3.2. They aren't really only renames, there are some backend differences. Similar to how there's Windows 10 version 2H20, 2H21, etc, and then there's a longer Windows build name. And MacOS is the same way, it has build versions that change as improvements are made to the code.
USB's dirty little secret was that 3.1 to 3.2 made no difference to the end user, unless the port supported gen 2x2 which was the most material difference, but the vast majority of machines do not support 2x2, you have to add it with a PCIe card in a desktop machine, or it's possible to add it to Thunderbolt to PCIe then the add in card.
The whole reason different cables are allowed is that we have many things that we just use the USB port to charge with, so it would be USB-C suicide to force Superspeed USB on all cables, the build cost would balloon and it wouldn't help the user charge a device at all. Most of the use of SS USB is for hard drives/SSDs, docks, even flash drives. The vast majority of those will include the cable you need.
The big disappointment for me has been that you can't get all the features without spending a bundle or you sacrifice cable length. It appears that Apple's Thunderbolt 3 and now 4 cables are the only ones with 2m length or greater and support SS USB as well as Thunderbolt 40 Gbps. So you have to spend $130 on the 2m and $160 on the 3m to get all the features. It is a quality cable though.
The companies that make cheap cables are a part of the group that does the naming. They want to keep it as complicated as possible so that it’s not extremely clear that the cable they’re selling for cheap is NOT what most people want.
Why does it have to be iso-frequency? What PAM-3 gives a path were they don't have to double the frequency. The number of lanes is a non starter. The Type-C socket is fixed ( and still has to transmit the ancient USB 2.0 stuff on a separate bus. Effectively soaking up lane space. This would be easier if could chuck USB 2.0 into retirement but they won't. ). Type-A was so overly huge so could get the USB 3.0 lane expansion.
There is a cap on how high can crank the frequency of the Type-C socket. Don't want to use it all up to get to 80Gb/s, but can use some of it. There are also issues with copper cable length at higher frequencies. ( more affordable fiber cable would help covering longer distances ). However, PAM-4 is likely going to be more sensitive to noise. Need an encoding that is going to travel a decent amount of distance over "affordable" cables. Part to of the design trade-offs they have to balance more bandwidth without driving up the cost too high. USB-IF has a large voting segments that are not fans of higher costs. Too high a cost to implement and the standard update won't 'pass' the vote.
Putting 80Gb/s on the 1m passive cables built to USB 3.2 like standards is a dual edge sword. I suspect PAM-4 doesn't work as well on generic quality cables at that distance. If need to go 'far', then PAM-4 is not a huge benefit. ( things like PCI-e v6 and other chip connecting connectivity solutions are going to PAM-4, but the max distances are shrinking at the same time. )
The 'race to the bottom' pricing cables may not work so well. Much of the USB ecosystem is price anchored on USB 2.0 (or maybe the mature 3.0) prices.