Thunderbolt has been in Intel's chipsets since Skylake. So the possibility is there, but then you'd be complaining the Thunderbolt port doesn't power your devices anymore. Plus, Thunderbolt isn't yet royalty free for other parties...
It's worse: they are getting retroactively rebranded as USB 3.2 Gen.1, Gen. 2, and Gen 3. They are ALL USB 3.2 now. And now any manufacturer can upgrade their device from USB 3.0 to USB 3.2 simply by changing the specs on a webpage. I mean who will look at what that "Gen." means?
The average consumer shouldn't need to look at USB 2.X or 3.X or Gen # because USB-IF's intended marketing term and product labeling for consumers was always Hi Speed USB, SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, and now SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps. Of course what they intend and what actually happened is quite different.
That sounds right - USB 3.2 can only be do what is compatible with Type A connectors - but oddly USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is only still half the speed of TB3 - I bet a small update to TB3 could make it work USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 devices if they ever come out.
There is absolutely no advantage of USB 3.2 over the TB3 - my predication for TB4 is 2x speed of TB4 or 80Gbs and also 100% USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 compatible
TB3 was never really interesting. Proprietary and locked to Intel until recently and no backwards compatibility with previous standards really made TB3 more or less useless by the vast majority of users. Add to that a severe lack of bandwidth available, in the form of free directly connected PCIe3.0 lanes needed for sustained full speed on the only platform that could really use it, and you have the perfect recipe for a failed standard.
Lack of bandwidth and backwards compatibility? You've got that wrong. USB can't handle hub duties like tb3 can. Look for a usb c to usb c hub. All you will find is pass through.
Nope. TB3 is not backwards compatible with TB1 and TB1. It's different plugs for one thing, and there are specifically issues when using TB3 to TB1 with a needed converter that some protocols in TB1 are not resolved the same way.
And yes, there are huge bandwidth issues on Intel platforms. 40Gbit/s is the full bandwidth of x5 PCIe 3.0 lanes. However, no solutions thus far can even communicate with the CPU with more than the x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes than are the shared connection between the CPU and the PCH on Intel platforms for all PCH to CPU communication. So the theoretical bandwidth can only ever happen between the TB3 controller and another device connected to the PCH with x5 PCIe 3.0 lanes or more.
Um no. TB3 never uses 5 PCIe lanes. It is 4 PCIe lanes. It is 40 Gbps TOTAL (pcie, displayport, usb) muxed together as needed. Not sure where people get this asinine stuff from. Still you are saying 40 Gbps isn't good because 20 Gbps is better. Try using a usb dock vs a TB3 dock and you will suddenly realize you having been talking giberish.
What are you talking about. The total bandwidth equates x5 PCIe 3.0. It doesn't matter how it achieved. A PCIe 3.0 lane has a maximum bandwidth of 1GB/s or 8Gb/s. 40Gbit/s therefore takes the same bandwidth as x5 PCIe 3.0 lanes but there's only x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes between the CPU and PCH in total for all traffic between the CPU and the PCH so it's not really useful for anything other than to other devices connected to the PCH that has more than x5 PCIe lanes available. Are you just trying to be obtuse?
The bottleneck isn't just at the PCH, it's at the Thunderbolt controller itself. Current TB3 controllers only have a x4 PCIe3.0 system interface, so the maximum PCIe bandwidth is limited to ~31.5 Gb/s.
But yes, given a different controller implementation, TB3 should theoretically be able to carry 40 Gb/s of PCIe, which would exceed an x4 PCIe3.0 interface.
More info here, but without access to the spec, it still left me with as many questions as answers: thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf
Backward compatibility with TB1 and TB2 is not that important - it only use in small Apple related systems but important it 100% compatibility with USB3.x on Host but USB 3.x is not compatible with TB3 devices.
The big thing about TB3 is mostly in mobile platforms - it seems to be slower on desktops which is honestly more similar to 90's computers than todays
Such controller would require 4x PCIe3 for every port able to operate at full speed in parallel. Which are limited in regular CPUs and chipsets. Time for PCIe4.
>So while all future products will be 3.2, they won't necessarily support the higher 10Gbps and 20Gbps data rates.
Maybe those ports should still be called USB 3.1, then?
USB-IF should be shown the door for all consumer (aka "marketing") decisions. Only such an incompetent organization could bungle this kind of a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
This is what happens when an organization of engineers and marketers is so disconnected from their consumers.
Why is USB-IF even allowed to pick the marketing name? Most people who can't do a job well....give up.
Let's remind everyone of all the possible USB ports that will be in *shipping products* this year:
USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB 3.1 Gen 2 USB 3.2 Gen 1 USB 3.2 Gen 2 USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
And not a single one of those ports will be labeled as such on any device.
Stop bloody calling them 'generations' because they're released all at once. Maybe they should've used:
USB 3 = 5 Gbps USB 3.1 = 10 Gbps USB 3.2 = 20 Gbps
This sort of needless renaming of older products serves only one purpose: confusing consumers enough that they get suckered into thinking their USB is now outdated and any company who sells the "newer" version is actually offering them more value.
Talk about the corporate version of regulatory capture...only a greedy, pathetic OEM could've said, "Hey. I don't like my ports being labelled USB 3 on this $400 laptop. That feels old, ya know? Can you just rename it USB 3.2 so my consumers overpay versus an older laptop that 'only' has USB 3.1?"
"The USB 3's naming scheme is simply baffling. Is there any technical reason behind it or, as you stated, it is simply to satisfy the OEMs?"
There actually is a technical reason. The overarching USB 3.x feature specification and the underlying protocol specifications are evolving separately. Features like authentication, Power Delivery 3.x, simultaneous audio + charging, etc, have all been added to USB 3.x at various points in time, and none of them require changing the low-level protocol. Which is to say, they can be made available on newer 5Gbps ports.
This is why the version number is being revved. You'll now have devices that support the latest USB features, and can operate at 5, 10, or 20Gbps depending on how much bandwidth the device has been designed to utilize.
"So all those media reports back then about renaming USB 3.0 to 3.1 gen 1 were actually wrong then."
Basically, yeah. USB 3.0 equipment is still USB 3.0 equipment. However if you submit any new SuperSpeed (5Gbps) devices for testing, it needs to adhere to the USB 3.2 spec.
1 Average Joe wants to know the bit rate. 2 USB-IF wants to "communicate the feature specification". 3 Manufacturers want to make the labelling as confusing as possible so they can legally label low-performance ports in a manner suggesting they are high-performance ports.
I think it's safe to say that the current moronic concoction isn't achieving #1 or #2. #1 is a failure because you can't tell if the port is 5, 10 or 20 Gb/s(and sometimes even Thunderbolt) from the port type or port label. #2 is a failure because 95% of the time the ports are unlabelled or labelled with a generic USB symbol. So if you're failing at both, why not just award the version naming scheme to the bit rate and the suffixes to the feature specification? At least you'd be able to infer ONE of them from the name then, instead of neither as it is now.
#3 however seems to be a resounding success, I wonder why that is? It's almost as if the companies who make up the USB-IF are the same as those manufacturers I mentioned earlier...
That is why since 2017 I have been advocating a new Standard, Call it USB 4.0 and requires Type-C Connector, no more SuperSpeed+ Cable, all USB 4.0 Cable should be SuperSpeed+ capable. Only differentiate them when it is necessary such as 100W charging vs normal Sub 50W charging. ( Which requires changes to thickness of cable )
The only change I can see in 3.2 to come close to justifying all of this is that 3.2 adds a new mode for 10Gb using 2 channels with 8b/10b encoding (USB3.2 Gen1x2). 3.1 does 10Gb with 1 channel on 128b/132b encoding(USB3.1 Gen2 OR USB3.2 Gen2x1). But I can't really say that's a good reason to add another point release and yet more confusion.
Can Type A adapters even do 10 Gbps - surely can't do 20Gbps or 40Gbps (TB3) so I think they need to keep support Ledgecy Type A adapters and that is why they have Gen 1/2/3 specs
Just get TB3 and forget this older stuff. And use adapters for old connections.
the naming sceam of USB isn't made by marketing people, but engineers. small speed steps are 0.X, big speed steps are X.0. The "2.0", "3.0", "3.1" are revision levels, the marketing terms is SuperSpeed USB (5Gbps), SuperSpeed USB 10, SuperSpeed USB 20
USB branding is already a mess, yet USB-IF instead of simplifying it wants to screw it up even further and expand the "retroactive rebranding" they started with USB 3.0 (which was retroactively rebranded to USB 3.1 Gen 1). Are these guys completely detached from reality or do some of their member companies push for crap like this?
This article make it as if USB 3.2 is just announced while stating the spec was released in 2017.
In reality all there is new is that they decide to depreciate all USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 into USB 3.2
The good thing is now we can all just use USB 3.2 label, and it will always be a Type-C connector since USB 3.2 does not support any other connector. The bad things is that you have to be aware of what variant of USB 3.2 you are getting at, and we may very likely end up having USB 3.2 cable that does not support 20Gbps.
I'm going to stop buying sh1t until our great orange leader declares we are ready for USB7 and 6G... wTH people, get your act together... I already have 3 different cables I have to keep around the house today.... geez
I'm trying to wrap my head around the way these lanes work.
Is it correct that this Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) only works with no video out? And then with 2 lanes for DP you're kicked back to 10Gbps, and if you need 4 lanes for DP (like if you're using 4k with DP 1.2) you're kicked all the way back down to 480Mbps?
Or are these different lanes that it's using (is it maybe taking over the USB 2.0 lanes and making them highspeed?) and this is still compatible with DP Alt mode?
That is exactly correct. There are 4 high-speed differential signaling pairs as well as a USB 2.0 data pair in a USB Type-C cable. SuperSpeed USB lanes require 2 high-speed pairs (1 Tx + 1 Rx). DisplayPort Alternate mode can use either 2 or 4 of the high-speed pairs to create a 2 or 4 lane main link (all one direction). So you can have USB 3.2 Gen X x 2, USB 3.2 Gen X x 1 + 2-lane DP main link, or USB 2.0 + 4-lane DP main link.
Your first example is correct. To be clear usb-c has 4 high speed lanes (10 Gbps ea). It also has usb 2.0 lanes, power and data pins, and sideband configuraiton channels but lets ignore those. You have 4 lanes. The 4 lanes have always been there since usb-c was released. So you can have 4 lanes of displayport + usb 2.0, 2 lanes of displayport + 10 Gbps USB (1 lane each way), or 20 Gbps USB (2 lanes each way).
@Anton: I am a bit late to this party, but maybe you or somebody here has the answer to this: how quickly does USB 3.2 transmission speed degrade with increased cable length? For me, one of the biggest letdowns of previous USB generations was/is that you only get really fast transmission with really short cables (50 cm or less). So, what happens to transmission speed with USB 3.2 certified cables if I have to use a 1.5 m, 2 m or 3 m cable? Would be a real advance if they (USB standards group) finally addressed that performance degradation in their specs.
Most commentators are utterly overreacting to this, claiming consumers will be confused. If the cables fit most consumers don't care. USB use: charging phones and stuff: 90%. Wireless keyboards and mice: 8%. Geeks running benchmarks on their external SSDs: 2% More speed is good, and multiple updated standards is the way of the world now. As long as they stick to the USB C connector for the next 20 years or so, 99.9% of people will be happy because stuff will just work, and in most cases work perfectly well enough.
The comments on this page are very amusing, in an elitest jerk sort of way. Suffice to say reference 31 on the Wikipedia page for USB makes it clear that USB4 is now defined and *drumroll* is based on TB3.
It seems the key to uptake of TB3 was to give it to the USB community all along, connector included, perhaps TB is soon-to-be-dead and has simply been eaten by USB in a sort of carrion eater way, poor dead rotting corpse surrounded by flies? As opposed to the "USB luddites" finally seeing the light and converting to the cult of TB, tbh most of them have never heard of it and arguably never will, it has simply never been relevant to the majority of computer users and yes this is a defensible position, why else would it become royalty free?
On a related note I take issue with one of the commonly repeated concepts in this discussion, the majority of people do not want or need to know the data throughput of a cable when picking it up. Sure its nice and sure plenty of tech minded people like the idea (including myself and no I am not an engineer, I have a PhD in Physics, am quite happy and rarely get accused of being an elitist jerk), however, consumer tech is designed for the 99% not the 1% and you will never succeed in business if you don't do what people want, you will die a poor elitist jerk, rather than a wealthy one, just saying.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
Back to Article
gmskking - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
What a joke.WJMazepas - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Isnt easier to put TB3 instead of this?bug77 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Thunderbolt has been in Intel's chipsets since Skylake. So the possibility is there, but then you'd be complaining the Thunderbolt port doesn't power your devices anymore.Plus, Thunderbolt isn't yet royalty free for other parties...
ikjadoon - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Thunderbolt 3 is not included in any shipping Intel chipset as of today. It still requires an additional DSL/JHLxxxx chip on the motherboard.https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
bug77 - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
You're right, of course. There's support in there, but it's not complete.Alistair - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
I agree, what a joke. Because 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 couldn't be sold to confuse the consumer...close - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
It's worse: they are getting retroactively rebranded as USB 3.2 Gen.1, Gen. 2, and Gen 3. They are ALL USB 3.2 now. And now any manufacturer can upgrade their device from USB 3.0 to USB 3.2 simply by changing the specs on a webpage. I mean who will look at what that "Gen." means?i-know-not - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
The average consumer shouldn't need to look at USB 2.X or 3.X or Gen # because USB-IF's intended marketing term and product labeling for consumers was always Hi Speed USB, SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, and now SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps. Of course what they intend and what actually happened is quite different.Chaitanya - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
USB-IF deserves stupidity award of the decade. It wasn't confusing enough for consumers with 3.1 mess now this.HollyDOL - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
The very first time I've read about 'IF' I thought it's either internal name, 1st of April or practical joke (st like IF it happens at all).WJMazepas - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Isnt easier to put TB3 instead of this?fred666 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
TB3 is still going to be expensive and unused, while USB3.2 will end up being adopted eventuallyikjadoon - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Not "adopted eventually", to be fair.Once USB 3.2 launches, USB 3.1 is a dead, EOL marketing term. All USB ports (type-A, type-C, 5 Gbps only, etc.) will be labeled as USB 3.2 ports.
But most ports will still be USB 3, I mean USB 3.1 Gen 1, I mean USB 3.2 Gen 1, so TB3 & USB 3.2 Gen2x2 will be premium choices.
I wonder whether TB3 will simply absorb USB 3.2 Gen2x2 since Intel is now integrating TB3 onto the chipset.
peevee - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
"But most ports will still be USB 3, I mean USB 3.1 Gen 1, I mean USB 3.2 Gen 1"Marketoids must die, painfully.
The Benjamins - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
USB 3.2 can't work on Type A or B connectors only Type C has enough pins.phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
USB 3.2 Gen 1 will work with Type-A or MicroUSB connectors/cables just fine.USB 3.2 Gen 2 will work with Type-A or MicroUSB connectors/cables just fine.
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 will require a Type-C connector/cable.
Which makes the rebranding even more brain-dead. Should have just left it with 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2.
HStewart - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
That sounds right - USB 3.2 can only be do what is compatible with Type A connectors - but oddly USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is only still half the speed of TB3 - I bet a small update to TB3 could make it work USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 devices if they ever come out.There is absolutely no advantage of USB 3.2 over the TB3 - my predication for TB4 is 2x speed of TB4 or 80Gbs and also 100% USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 compatible
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
TB3 was never really interesting. Proprietary and locked to Intel until recently and no backwards compatibility with previous standards really made TB3 more or less useless by the vast majority of users. Add to that a severe lack of bandwidth available, in the form of free directly connected PCIe3.0 lanes needed for sustained full speed on the only platform that could really use it, and you have the perfect recipe for a failed standard.jeremyshaw - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
eh? TB3 is absolutely backwards compatible with TB2. People have been banging on about failed standard since TB1 and nothing has come of the griping.Dug - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Lack of bandwidth and backwards compatibility? You've got that wrong.USB can't handle hub duties like tb3 can. Look for a usb c to usb c hub. All you will find is pass through.
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Nope. TB3 is not backwards compatible with TB1 and TB1. It's different plugs for one thing, and there are specifically issues when using TB3 to TB1 with a needed converter that some protocols in TB1 are not resolved the same way.And yes, there are huge bandwidth issues on Intel platforms. 40Gbit/s is the full bandwidth of x5 PCIe 3.0 lanes. However, no solutions thus far can even communicate with the CPU with more than the x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes than are the shared connection between the CPU and the PCH on Intel platforms for all PCH to CPU communication. So the theoretical bandwidth can only ever happen between the TB3 controller and another device connected to the PCH with x5 PCIe 3.0 lanes or more.
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Obviously meant TB1 and TB2.TheUnhandledException - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Um no. TB3 never uses 5 PCIe lanes. It is 4 PCIe lanes. It is 40 Gbps TOTAL (pcie, displayport, usb) muxed together as needed. Not sure where people get this asinine stuff from. Still you are saying 40 Gbps isn't good because 20 Gbps is better. Try using a usb dock vs a TB3 dock and you will suddenly realize you having been talking giberish.SaturnusDK - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
What are you talking about. The total bandwidth equates x5 PCIe 3.0. It doesn't matter how it achieved. A PCIe 3.0 lane has a maximum bandwidth of 1GB/s or 8Gb/s. 40Gbit/s therefore takes the same bandwidth as x5 PCIe 3.0 lanes but there's only x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes between the CPU and PCH in total for all traffic between the CPU and the PCH so it's not really useful for anything other than to other devices connected to the PCH that has more than x5 PCIe lanes available. Are you just trying to be obtuse?voicequal - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
The bottleneck isn't just at the PCH, it's at the Thunderbolt controller itself. Current TB3 controllers only have a x4 PCIe3.0 system interface, so the maximum PCIe bandwidth is limited to ~31.5 Gb/s.But yes, given a different controller implementation, TB3 should theoretically be able to carry 40 Gb/s of PCIe, which would exceed an x4 PCIe3.0 interface.
More info here, but without access to the spec, it still left me with as many questions as answers: thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf
HStewart - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
Backward compatibility with TB1 and TB2 is not that important - it only use in small Apple related systems but important it 100% compatibility with USB3.x on Host but USB 3.x is not compatible with TB3 devices.The big thing about TB3 is mostly in mobile platforms - it seems to be slower on desktops which is honestly more similar to 90's computers than todays
peevee - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Such controller would require 4x PCIe3 for every port able to operate at full speed in parallel.Which are limited in regular CPUs and chipsets.
Time for PCIe4.
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Well. Fortunately PCIe4.0 is coming to Ryzen 3000 series, sooo...shabby - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Don't worry, intel is right on it....ikjadoon - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
>So while all future products will be 3.2, they won't necessarily support the higher 10Gbps and 20Gbps data rates.Maybe those ports should still be called USB 3.1, then?
USB-IF should be shown the door for all consumer (aka "marketing") decisions. Only such an incompetent organization could bungle this kind of a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
This is what happens when an organization of engineers and marketers is so disconnected from their consumers.
Why is USB-IF even allowed to pick the marketing name? Most people who can't do a job well....give up.
ikjadoon - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Let's remind everyone of all the possible USB ports that will be in *shipping products* this year:USB 3.1 Gen 1
USB 3.1 Gen 2
USB 3.2 Gen 1
USB 3.2 Gen 2
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2
And not a single one of those ports will be labeled as such on any device.
Stop bloody calling them 'generations' because they're released all at once. Maybe they should've used:
USB 3 = 5 Gbps
USB 3.1 = 10 Gbps
USB 3.2 = 20 Gbps
This sort of needless renaming of older products serves only one purpose: confusing consumers enough that they get suckered into thinking their USB is now outdated and any company who sells the "newer" version is actually offering them more value.
Talk about the corporate version of regulatory capture...only a greedy, pathetic OEM could've said, "Hey. I don't like my ports being labelled USB 3 on this $400 laptop. That feels old, ya know? Can you just rename it USB 3.2 so my consumers overpay versus an older laptop that 'only' has USB 3.1?"
eddman - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
The USB 3's naming scheme is simply baffling. Is there any technical reason behind it or, as you stated, it is simply to satisfy the OEMs?@Anandtech's writers
Perhaps an interview with USB-IF is in order?
twelvebore - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
They should take a leaf out of the book of the HDMI consortium. Their naming scheme isn't confusing at all.Oh, wait... the other thing.
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
I would have zero problems with HDMI if they didn't make most of the features optional.DigitalFreak - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
USB 3.1 Gen1 = USB 3.0USB 3.2 Gen1 = USB 3.0
USB 3.2 Gen2 = USB 3.1 Gen2
All it is is a rename.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
"The USB 3's naming scheme is simply baffling. Is there any technical reason behind it or, as you stated, it is simply to satisfy the OEMs?"There actually is a technical reason. The overarching USB 3.x feature specification and the underlying protocol specifications are evolving separately. Features like authentication, Power Delivery 3.x, simultaneous audio + charging, etc, have all been added to USB 3.x at various points in time, and none of them require changing the low-level protocol. Which is to say, they can be made available on newer 5Gbps ports.
This is why the version number is being revved. You'll now have devices that support the latest USB features, and can operate at 5, 10, or 20Gbps depending on how much bandwidth the device has been designed to utilize.
eddman - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
I see. So all those media reports back then about renaming USB 3.0 to 3.1 gen 1 were actually wrong then.IMO they could have used a better branding scheme, say USB 3.2 G5, G10, G20 (or something similar) instead of a vauge gen number.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
"So all those media reports back then about renaming USB 3.0 to 3.1 gen 1 were actually wrong then."Basically, yeah. USB 3.0 equipment is still USB 3.0 equipment. However if you submit any new SuperSpeed (5Gbps) devices for testing, it needs to adhere to the USB 3.2 spec.
0siris - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
1 Average Joe wants to know the bit rate.2 USB-IF wants to "communicate the feature specification".
3 Manufacturers want to make the labelling as confusing as possible so they can legally label low-performance ports in a manner suggesting they are high-performance ports.
I think it's safe to say that the current moronic concoction isn't achieving #1 or #2. #1 is a failure because you can't tell if the port is 5, 10 or 20 Gb/s(and sometimes even Thunderbolt) from the port type or port label. #2 is a failure because 95% of the time the ports are unlabelled or labelled with a generic USB symbol. So if you're failing at both, why not just award the version naming scheme to the bit rate and the suffixes to the feature specification? At least you'd be able to infer ONE of them from the name then, instead of neither as it is now.
#3 however seems to be a resounding success, I wonder why that is? It's almost as if the companies who make up the USB-IF are the same as those manufacturers I mentioned earlier...
vincentyu1130 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
The bureaucracy is going to kill the organization.ksec - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
That is why since 2017 I have been advocating a new Standard, Call it USB 4.0 and requires Type-C Connector, no more SuperSpeed+ Cable, all USB 4.0 Cable should be SuperSpeed+ capable. Only differentiate them when it is necessary such as 100W charging vs normal Sub 50W charging. ( Which requires changes to thickness of cable )jordanclock - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
The only change I can see in 3.2 to come close to justifying all of this is that 3.2 adds a new mode for 10Gb using 2 channels with 8b/10b encoding (USB3.2 Gen1x2). 3.1 does 10Gb with 1 channel on 128b/132b encoding(USB3.1 Gen2 OR USB3.2 Gen2x1). But I can't really say that's a good reason to add another point release and yet more confusion.name99 - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
Even that is dumb.USB5
USB5C
USB10C
USB20C
HStewart - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
Can Type A adapters even do 10 Gbps - surely can't do 20Gbps or 40Gbps (TB3) so I think they need to keep support Ledgecy Type A adapters and that is why they have Gen 1/2/3 specsJust get TB3 and forget this older stuff. And use adapters for old connections.
peevee - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
3.1 Gen2 should have been USB4.3.2 Gen 2x2 should have been USB5.
But marketoids... why people who fail primitive school-level math and science are allowed to make ANY decisions is a WTF.
The Benjamins - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
the naming sceam of USB isn't made by marketing people, but engineers. small speed steps are 0.X, big speed steps are X.0.The "2.0", "3.0", "3.1" are revision levels, the marketing terms is SuperSpeed USB (5Gbps), SuperSpeed USB 10, SuperSpeed USB 20
Santoval - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
USB branding is already a mess, yet USB-IF instead of simplifying it wants to screw it up even further and expand the "retroactive rebranding" they started with USB 3.0 (which was retroactively rebranded to USB 3.1 Gen 1). Are these guys completely detached from reality or do some of their member companies push for crap like this?A5 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
USB-IF is an industry group run by and for its members, not general consumers.It is safe to say that this decision is driven by the marketing groups at the member companies, and not anyone with common sense.
ksec - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
This article make it as if USB 3.2 is just announced while stating the spec was released in 2017.In reality all there is new is that they decide to depreciate all USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 into USB 3.2
The good thing is now we can all just use USB 3.2 label, and it will always be a Type-C connector since USB 3.2 does not support any other connector. The bad things is that you have to be aware of what variant of USB 3.2 you are getting at, and we may very likely end up having USB 3.2 cable that does not support 20Gbps.
What a bloody mess.
ksec - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
OK turns out you can still have USB-A Port with USB 3.2, so technically only USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 requires USB-C Port.Yeah, and people are crying over iPhone should switch to USB-C port.
peevee - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
It should, regardless. And charge at 20V 5A at least for the first 50%.Ashinjuka - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
USB-IF should be ASHAMED of themselves for this unabashed marketing fuck-everyone-on-earth-except-us bullshit naming scheme.Dug - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
Takes a long time to make the specification.A bunch of guys sitting around a table and they say, hey lets double the bandwidth!
Job done.
Next 2 years will be same guys saying, hey lets double the bandwidth!
They still have to wait to see if someone is capable and willing to make it.
SteelRing - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
I'm going to stop buying sh1t until our great orange leader declares we are ready for USB7 and 6G... wTH people, get your act together... I already have 3 different cables I have to keep around the house today.... geezjhoff80 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
I'm trying to wrap my head around the way these lanes work.Is it correct that this Gen 2x2 (20Gbps) only works with no video out? And then with 2 lanes for DP you're kicked back to 10Gbps, and if you need 4 lanes for DP (like if you're using 4k with DP 1.2) you're kicked all the way back down to 480Mbps?
Or are these different lanes that it's using (is it maybe taking over the USB 2.0 lanes and making them highspeed?) and this is still compatible with DP Alt mode?
repoman27 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
That is exactly correct. There are 4 high-speed differential signaling pairs as well as a USB 2.0 data pair in a USB Type-C cable. SuperSpeed USB lanes require 2 high-speed pairs (1 Tx + 1 Rx). DisplayPort Alternate mode can use either 2 or 4 of the high-speed pairs to create a 2 or 4 lane main link (all one direction). So you can have USB 3.2 Gen X x 2, USB 3.2 Gen X x 1 + 2-lane DP main link, or USB 2.0 + 4-lane DP main link.namechamps - Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - link
Your first example is correct. To be clear usb-c has 4 high speed lanes (10 Gbps ea). It also has usb 2.0 lanes, power and data pins, and sideband configuraiton channels but lets ignore those. You have 4 lanes. The 4 lanes have always been there since usb-c was released. So you can have 4 lanes of displayport + usb 2.0, 2 lanes of displayport + 10 Gbps USB (1 lane each way), or 20 Gbps USB (2 lanes each way).ceisserer - Friday, March 1, 2019 - link
I simply can't believe this naming scheme wasn't deliberately chosen to confuse customers.eastcoast_pete - Sunday, March 3, 2019 - link
@Anton: I am a bit late to this party, but maybe you or somebody here has the answer to this: how quickly does USB 3.2 transmission speed degrade with increased cable length?For me, one of the biggest letdowns of previous USB generations was/is that you only get really fast transmission with really short cables (50 cm or less). So, what happens to transmission speed with USB 3.2 certified cables if I have to use a 1.5 m, 2 m or 3 m cable? Would be a real advance if they (USB standards group) finally addressed that performance degradation in their specs.
dontlistentome - Monday, March 4, 2019 - link
Most commentators are utterly overreacting to this, claiming consumers will be confused. If the cables fit most consumers don't care.USB use: charging phones and stuff: 90%. Wireless keyboards and mice: 8%. Geeks running benchmarks on their external SSDs: 2%
More speed is good, and multiple updated standards is the way of the world now. As long as they stick to the USB C connector for the next 20 years or so, 99.9% of people will be happy because stuff will just work, and in most cases work perfectly well enough.
Gastec - Sunday, June 2, 2019 - link
It looks to me like you are the non-techie non-engineer among us.nathanmnm - Monday, June 3, 2019 - link
The comments on this page are very amusing, in an elitest jerk sort of way. Suffice to say reference 31 on the Wikipedia page for USB makes it clear that USB4 is now defined and *drumroll* is based on TB3.It seems the key to uptake of TB3 was to give it to the USB community all along, connector included, perhaps TB is soon-to-be-dead and has simply been eaten by USB in a sort of carrion eater way, poor dead rotting corpse surrounded by flies? As opposed to the "USB luddites" finally seeing the light and converting to the cult of TB, tbh most of them have never heard of it and arguably never will, it has simply never been relevant to the majority of computer users and yes this is a defensible position, why else would it become royalty free?
On a related note I take issue with one of the commonly repeated concepts in this discussion, the majority of people do not want or need to know the data throughput of a cable when picking it up. Sure its nice and sure plenty of tech minded people like the idea (including myself and no I am not an engineer, I have a PhD in Physics, am quite happy and rarely get accused of being an elitist jerk), however, consumer tech is designed for the 99% not the 1% and you will never succeed in business if you don't do what people want, you will die a poor elitist jerk, rather than a wealthy one, just saying.