AIUI, "USB 4" encompasses USB 3.1 Gen II + Thunderbolt 3 under one standard, with supporting both being the superset and supporting USB 3.1 Gen II being the minimum support. Similar solution to USB 3.1 Gen II's Alt Mode handling, but with more stringent enforcement to avoid the current 'confusion' in Type C support due to companies half-arseing their implementations (at best).
Sadly, no. Vendors can still pick and choose. TB3 integration is not guaranteed. It's why Intel is using TB4 (yes, 4) as a way of identifying which USB4 ports have TB3 support (more importantly, PCIe passthrough).
USB-IF rolled over to the manufacturers marketing divisions. USB 4 is as meaningless as USB 3.1. You need to look at the actual spec sheet to find out of it actually supports all the feature or only part of them.
Yeah, this sounds like those meaningless GPU "refreshes" that are just the same part with a new name as laptop OEMs want a new name to put on their stickers. Seems like this has been the way of things since after 3.0, given how dumb naming has been since then.
Although USB4 is derived from Thunderbolt 3 and builds on USB 3.2, it really is its own thing.
USB4 is a tunneling architecture designed to combine multiple protocols onto a single physical interface, so that the total bandwidth can be dynamically shared. USB4 host interfaces must support USB3 tunneling and provide muxes allowing native USB3 signaling (10 Gbps, Gen 2 x 1 minimum) as well as a USB 2.0 bus in parallel. DisplayPort tunneling and signaling via DisplayPort Alt Mode are required for USB4 hosts, however, PCIe tunneling and interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 systems via Thunderbolt Alt Mode are both optional. USB4 supports 20 Gbps (Gen 2 x 2) and 40 Gbps (Gen 3 x 2) operation, but the PHY differs materially from those implemented by either USB 3.2 or Thunderbolt 3.
It's quite possible that TBT3-Compatible USB4 devices prove to be the exception, rather than the rule. However, the requirements for USB4 hubs and docks to support interoperability may help to tip the scale. Unless sites like Anandtech get on top of the situation, the current confusion is only bound to intensify as USB4 products reach the market.
Hardware, costs and feasibility. It is unlikely a mobile phone can encompass the hardware for 100W PD and it'll add unnecessary additional costs to a mobile phone to design bandwidth for 40Gbps.
I think the main issue is logo design, being unable to differential between the different threshold between each cables and ports is annoying.
I interpreted the question more as "why do they insist on rebranding the older speeds under the new name?" so a phone would be called USB 2.0, 3.0, or 3.1 rather than 4.0 if it didn't have the full speed capabilities. Obviously this question is sort of rhetorical, because we know it's purely so marketing idiots can put a bigger number on the box without any cost (other than consumer confusion, which marketing/sales people generally consider a positive). Anyone who doesn't know what's going on shopping for an new USB card/hub/external drive/whatever is going to look at USB 3.2 Gen1 as being better than USB 3.0, and might even pick it over 3.1 Gen2.
I've posted it here before, but I really wish tech journalists would stand up to the USB-IF and refuse to play this game.
If it's 5 gigabits per second it's not USB 3.1/3.2 Gen1 or whatever nonsense name is probably coming along with 4.0, it's USB 3.0. 10 gigabits single lane is USB 3.1, and the 2x5/2x10 gigabit modes are 3.2. Call it by the name it's best compared by and call out the companies that are aiming to confuse.
1. The version number of a particular release of the USB specification isn't a brand. It's entirely normal to increment version numbers for new releases of things while deprecating older versions.
2. The version number of a specification cannot determine the exact capabilities of any particular device or product implementing it if there are any optional features included in the specification.
3. The USB-IF has consistently advised manufacturers, marketers, and the media not to use USB specification version numbers to indicate device capabilities and to clearly state supported link rates wherever there is possibility for confusion.
4. The USB-IF freely publishes USB specifications and does not require certification or logo compliance for products. The result is one of the most successful and widespread I/O interfaces in history, with thousands of manufacturers worldwide producing billions of USB devices annually.
5. Even if the USB-IF possessed the resources required to globally police the usage of USB version numbers on product packaging or in marketing materials, they have no legal mechanism for doing so.
6. The USB-IF has registered trademarks for "USB4" and "USB Type-C" with the USPTO as standard character marks, so they may be learning their lesson. In other words, those actually are legally protected brands now, rather than just version numbers of a freely available document.
7. The media has largely focused their efforts on exacerbating the problem in order to increase "engagement", rather than attempting to clarify the situation or adopting sensible conventions as part of their style guides.
8. Very few customers care about the specific capabilities of USB3 devices as long as they function as intended. If support for dual-lane operation or the difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 physical layer signaling is actually important to you or your workflow, then it's not that hard figure these things out.
These are not USB or Thunderbolt host controllers, they are USB Type-C port controllers. Big difference.
The high-speed differential signaling pairs (SuperSpeed USB, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort) never touch these chips. Instead, they perform USB Power Delivery communication over the CC pins, negotiate power contracts, control the VBUS, provide pass-through for the SBU channel, and muxes for the USB 2.0 D+/D- pins. This is why they are capable of supporting USB 3.2, Thunderbolt 3, DisplayPort, or USB4 applications with the right firmware.
A fairly comprehensive datasheet is available from Cypress on the page linked to in the article.
To be clear, many of you are confusing the new name standards that USB-IF has changed..
Officially : USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gbps) is the same thing as new name : USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5Gbps). Same thing for USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10gbps) new name: USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10gbps).
The upcoming releases for speeds will also be.. USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 = (20Gbps)
Everyone should start referencing properly instead of spreading more confusion. Direct screenshot from USB-IF documents. https://imgur.com/ytDRYOq
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
17 Comments
Back to Article
edzieba - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
AIUI, "USB 4" encompasses USB 3.1 Gen II + Thunderbolt 3 under one standard, with supporting both being the superset and supporting USB 3.1 Gen II being the minimum support. Similar solution to USB 3.1 Gen II's Alt Mode handling, but with more stringent enforcement to avoid the current 'confusion' in Type C support due to companies half-arseing their implementations (at best).jeremyshaw - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
Sadly, no. Vendors can still pick and choose. TB3 integration is not guaranteed. It's why Intel is using TB4 (yes, 4) as a way of identifying which USB4 ports have TB3 support (more importantly, PCIe passthrough).ksec - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
Has this been confirmed? That is what I thought they would do but it has never been officially confirmed by Intel.rahvin - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
USB-IF rolled over to the manufacturers marketing divisions. USB 4 is as meaningless as USB 3.1. You need to look at the actual spec sheet to find out of it actually supports all the feature or only part of them.Valantar - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
Yeah, this sounds like those meaningless GPU "refreshes" that are just the same part with a new name as laptop OEMs want a new name to put on their stickers. Seems like this has been the way of things since after 3.0, given how dumb naming has been since then.repoman27 - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
Although USB4 is derived from Thunderbolt 3 and builds on USB 3.2, it really is its own thing.USB4 is a tunneling architecture designed to combine multiple protocols onto a single physical interface, so that the total bandwidth can be dynamically shared. USB4 host interfaces must support USB3 tunneling and provide muxes allowing native USB3 signaling (10 Gbps, Gen 2 x 1 minimum) as well as a USB 2.0 bus in parallel. DisplayPort tunneling and signaling via DisplayPort Alt Mode are required for USB4 hosts, however, PCIe tunneling and interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 systems via Thunderbolt Alt Mode are both optional. USB4 supports 20 Gbps (Gen 2 x 2) and 40 Gbps (Gen 3 x 2) operation, but the PHY differs materially from those implemented by either USB 3.2 or Thunderbolt 3.
It's quite possible that TBT3-Compatible USB4 devices prove to be the exception, rather than the rule. However, the requirements for USB4 hubs and docks to support interoperability may help to tip the scale. Unless sites like Anandtech get on top of the situation, the current confusion is only bound to intensify as USB4 products reach the market.
quiksilvr - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
Why can't USB4 just be forced to have four lanes 40Gbps, 100W power delivery and all the specs of Thunderbolt 3? Why can't it be 100% required?name99 - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
So you want your phone to have USB4?AND be able to deliver 100W to a plugged in device?
Good luck with that!
Some of the compromises are just dumb. But the power delivery compromises are physics!
Valantar - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
... A phone doesn't have room for a TB3-class USB4 controller anyhow, so that point is moot.lmcd - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
I'm just going to point you toward the Librem 5Yes it's niche but regardless, a future niche phone could support the bandwidth but not the power usage.
Kaggy - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
Hardware, costs and feasibility.It is unlikely a mobile phone can encompass the hardware for 100W PD and it'll add unnecessary additional costs to a mobile phone to design bandwidth for 40Gbps.
I think the main issue is logo design, being unable to differential between the different threshold between each cables and ports is annoying.
wolrah - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
I interpreted the question more as "why do they insist on rebranding the older speeds under the new name?" so a phone would be called USB 2.0, 3.0, or 3.1 rather than 4.0 if it didn't have the full speed capabilities. Obviously this question is sort of rhetorical, because we know it's purely so marketing idiots can put a bigger number on the box without any cost (other than consumer confusion, which marketing/sales people generally consider a positive). Anyone who doesn't know what's going on shopping for an new USB card/hub/external drive/whatever is going to look at USB 3.2 Gen1 as being better than USB 3.0, and might even pick it over 3.1 Gen2.I've posted it here before, but I really wish tech journalists would stand up to the USB-IF and refuse to play this game.
If it's 5 gigabits per second it's not USB 3.1/3.2 Gen1 or whatever nonsense name is probably coming along with 4.0, it's USB 3.0. 10 gigabits single lane is USB 3.1, and the 2x5/2x10 gigabit modes are 3.2. Call it by the name it's best compared by and call out the companies that are aiming to confuse.
repoman27 - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
1. The version number of a particular release of the USB specification isn't a brand. It's entirely normal to increment version numbers for new releases of things while deprecating older versions.2. The version number of a specification cannot determine the exact capabilities of any particular device or product implementing it if there are any optional features included in the specification.
3. The USB-IF has consistently advised manufacturers, marketers, and the media not to use USB specification version numbers to indicate device capabilities and to clearly state supported link rates wherever there is possibility for confusion.
4. The USB-IF freely publishes USB specifications and does not require certification or logo compliance for products. The result is one of the most successful and widespread I/O interfaces in history, with thousands of manufacturers worldwide producing billions of USB devices annually.
5. Even if the USB-IF possessed the resources required to globally police the usage of USB version numbers on product packaging or in marketing materials, they have no legal mechanism for doing so.
6. The USB-IF has registered trademarks for "USB4" and "USB Type-C" with the USPTO as standard character marks, so they may be learning their lesson. In other words, those actually are legally protected brands now, rather than just version numbers of a freely available document.
7. The media has largely focused their efforts on exacerbating the problem in order to increase "engagement", rather than attempting to clarify the situation or adopting sensible conventions as part of their style guides.
8. Very few customers care about the specific capabilities of USB3 devices as long as they function as intended. If support for dual-lane operation or the difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 physical layer signaling is actually important to you or your workflow, then it's not that hard figure these things out.
repoman27 - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 - link
These are not USB or Thunderbolt host controllers, they are USB Type-C port controllers. Big difference.The high-speed differential signaling pairs (SuperSpeed USB, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort) never touch these chips. Instead, they perform USB Power Delivery communication over the CC pins, negotiate power contracts, control the VBUS, provide pass-through for the SBU channel, and muxes for the USB 2.0 D+/D- pins. This is why they are capable of supporting USB 3.2, Thunderbolt 3, DisplayPort, or USB4 applications with the right firmware.
A fairly comprehensive datasheet is available from Cypress on the page linked to in the article.
ksec - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
Am I the only one with broken image in the middle.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, March 4, 2020 - link
It would seem that way.https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15567/CCG6DF_CCG...
Is that not loading for you?
crumplez - Thursday, March 5, 2020 - link
To be clear, many of you are confusing the new name standards that USB-IF has changed..Officially :
USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gbps) is the same thing as new name : USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5Gbps).
Same thing for USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10gbps) new name: USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10gbps).
The upcoming releases for speeds will also be.. USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 = (20Gbps)
Everyone should start referencing properly instead of spreading more confusion. Direct screenshot from USB-IF documents. https://imgur.com/ytDRYOq