3 ms·
But then you wouldn't be able to label-engineer your old chips into "the latest version" (of the old feature subset). Isn't "USB 3.1 Gen 2" the usb 2 performan
by usrusr 5y ago
But then you wouldn't be able to label-engineer your old chips into "the latest version" (of the old feature subset).
Isn't "USB 3.1 Gen 2" the usb 2 performance level as (re)specified in the USB 3.1 document set?
I'm deliberately writing without involving a search engine, to make my reply an authentic sample of the resulting confusion. My memory is probably wrong - and if it isn't, the lack of confidence still serves the purpose of illustrating the confusion.
- Dylan16807 5y agoThe generations start with USB 3.0. But for bonus confusion they don't refer to connection speed. They refer to single lane speed, and a connection can have 1 or 2 lanes. Gen 1 is 5Gbps, gen 2 is 10Gbps. Gen 2x2, sigh, is 20Gbps total. If they weren't trying to obfuscate things, those would simply be 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2. There's also Gen 1x2 in theory, but I've never seen mention of anything using it. And then after USB 3.2 you have USB4[sic] which adds Gen 3 and 3x2.
- floatboth 5y agoSo it's basically like PCIe now.
- Dylan16807 5y agoLike that, but also they keep renaming things. And when it's only two lanes max and any faster device will support two lanes, there's no reason to put lanes in the name.
- infinityio 5y agoAs far as I know - 3.1 Gen 2 is what 3.1 would have been called if they named it properly, 3.1 Gen 1 is equivalent to 3.0. (the 3.0 line is 3.2g1/3.1g1/3.0, the 3.1 line is 3.2g2/3.1g2, and 3.2 is 3.2g2x2?) At this point I'm certain the confusion is intentional