3 ms·

We need to fix the version naming first. USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is such a silly name.

lxgr 3y ago
The USB-IF already recommends a branding scheme other than that. For the mode you mention it would be “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps“, for example.
- usrusr 3y ago
  It's certainly much less bad now than it used to be, but the existence of "x1" connections (half lane count and bandwidth as its contemporary "x2" sibling) does undermine trust. Is a cable advertised with the number "20" really an x2 cable accurately described according to "Gen 2" metrics, or is it really just an x1 cable, daringly called "20" because that's what a gen 3x1 connection could achieve? Looking at the Wikipedia page I get the impression that the new naming simply ignores the x1 links. That's like an invitation for misleading product descriptions. Maybe it would have been helpful to assign slightly off but clearly confusion-resistent numbers to the x1 siblings? Perhaps taking a page from supermarket pricing, "4.99Gbps", "9.99Gbps", "19.99Gbps"?
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > Looking at the Wikipedia page I get the impression that the new naming simply ignores the x1 links. Yes, and that probably makes some sense: All compliant USB-C cables (other than USB 2 only) need to have two high-speed lane pairs, i.e. four high-speed lanes in total. (I'm not sure why that's the case, i.e. whether the aim was to avoid further confusion or if it's required for orientation-reversible operation in some ports). Whether the host/device actually support lane bonding or not is arguably not really the cable's choice, so it makes some sense to specify whatever the cable would support in an optimal configuration (i.e. maximum number of lanes used at the maximum supported modulation rate).
    - archagon 3y ago
      But you also need to know how fast your USB will be if you’re using DP alt mode in 2 lane mode.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Yes, but "USB 10Gbps (except if using 1-2 lanes of DP alt mode; then USB 5Gbps)" is probably a bit too much text for a USB-C plug. And with USB 4 and dynamic bandwidth sharing between USB and DisplayPort on the same physical bus this would get even more complicated.
        archagon 3y ago
        In that sense, I think the Gen1x1/1x2 terminology was a bit more informative. Though still completely terrible.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    You're a bit mixed up. All USB-C cables have 4 high speed wire pairs (or 0). There's no such thing as a USB-C cable that limits you to x1. x1 or x2 is entirely up to the devices attached. So if a USB-C cable is advertising "20Gbps", you want them to be talking about x1, because that means it's a better cable. (And if it's not USB-C on both ends, then it's always x1. It's never ambiguous.)
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Agreed on most points, but > So if a USB-C cable is advertising "20Gbps", you want them to be talking about x1, because that means it's a better cable. is not what the USB-IF recommends – to them, a 20 Gbps cable is one capable of 2x2.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Right, I mean "want" in the pleasant surprise way, not in the being correct way.
InsomniacL 3y ago
The names are ridiculous: - Low-Speed & Full-Speed - High-Speed - SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps (renamed), original: SuperSpeed (Gen 1) - SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps (renamed), original: SuperSpeed+ (Gen 2) - SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps (USB 3.2 Gen 2×2) - USB4 40Gbps (USB4 Gen 3×2) - USB4 80Gbps (USB4 Gen 4) Not to mention - USB 1.0 - USB 2.0 - USB 3.0 then it changes: - USB 3.1 Gen 1 - USB 3.1 Gen 2 Then it changes again: - USB4 Then it changes again: - USB4 Gen 2 - USB4 Gen 2×2 - USB4 Gen 3 - USB4 Gen 3×2
- lxgr 3y ago
  I don't know, is this really much more ridiculous than e.g. the various Ethernet standards (I can never remember which one the "normal" Gigabit Ethernet is), mobile data protocols (remember HSDPA, CDMA, 1xRTT and all that?) etc.? And to the USB-IFs credit, they did eventually come around with the much saner bandwidth-focused names. As far as I know, even "SuperSpeed" and "USB 4" are now gone as speed designators; now it's just "USB xGbps", e.g. USB 5GBps for the case of what used to be "USB 3.2 Gen 1x1".
  - inputError 3y ago
    [dead]
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  The good thing here is that they seem to be converging on names that contain the speed itself in plain text. "USB4 40Gbps" is as helpful as a name can get.

lxgr 3y ago

The USB-IF already recommends a branding scheme other than that. For the mode you mention it would be “SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps“, for example.

usrusr 3y ago
It's certainly much less bad now than it used to be, but the existence of "x1" connections (half lane count and bandwidth as its contemporary "x2" sibling) does undermine trust. Is a cable advertised with the number "20" really an x2 cable accurately described according to "Gen 2" metrics, or is it really just an x1 cable, daringly called "20" because that's what a gen 3x1 connection could achieve? Looking at the Wikipedia page I get the impression that the new naming simply ignores the x1 links. That's like an invitation for misleading product descriptions. Maybe it would have been helpful to assign slightly off but clearly confusion-resistent numbers to the x1 siblings? Perhaps taking a page from supermarket pricing, "4.99Gbps", "9.99Gbps", "19.99Gbps"?
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Looking at the Wikipedia page I get the impression that the new naming simply ignores the x1 links. Yes, and that probably makes some sense: All compliant USB-C cables (other than USB 2 only) need to have two high-speed lane pairs, i.e. four high-speed lanes in total. (I'm not sure why that's the case, i.e. whether the aim was to avoid further confusion or if it's required for orientation-reversible operation in some ports). Whether the host/device actually support lane bonding or not is arguably not really the cable's choice, so it makes some sense to specify whatever the cable would support in an optimal configuration (i.e. maximum number of lanes used at the maximum supported modulation rate).
  - archagon 3y ago
    But you also need to know how fast your USB will be if you’re using DP alt mode in 2 lane mode.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Yes, but "USB 10Gbps (except if using 1-2 lanes of DP alt mode; then USB 5Gbps)" is probably a bit too much text for a USB-C plug. And with USB 4 and dynamic bandwidth sharing between USB and DisplayPort on the same physical bus this would get even more complicated.
      - archagon 3y ago
        In that sense, I think the Gen1x1/1x2 terminology was a bit more informative. Though still completely terrible.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  You're a bit mixed up. All USB-C cables have 4 high speed wire pairs (or 0). There's no such thing as a USB-C cable that limits you to x1. x1 or x2 is entirely up to the devices attached. So if a USB-C cable is advertising "20Gbps", you want them to be talking about x1, because that means it's a better cable. (And if it's not USB-C on both ends, then it's always x1. It's never ambiguous.)
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Agreed on most points, but > So if a USB-C cable is advertising "20Gbps", you want them to be talking about x1, because that means it's a better cable. is not what the USB-IF recommends – to them, a 20 Gbps cable is one capable of 2x2.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Right, I mean "want" in the pleasant surprise way, not in the being correct way.

InsomniacL 3y ago

The names are ridiculous: - Low-Speed & Full-Speed - High-Speed - SuperSpeed USB 5Gbps (renamed), original: SuperSpeed (Gen 1) - SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps (renamed), original: SuperSpeed+ (Gen 2) - SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps (USB 3.2 Gen 2×2) - USB4 40Gbps (USB4 Gen 3×2) - USB4 80Gbps (USB4 Gen 4) Not to mention - USB 1.0 - USB 2.0 - USB 3.0 then it changes: - USB 3.1 Gen 1 - USB 3.1 Gen 2 Then it changes again: - USB4 Then it changes again: - USB4 Gen 2 - USB4 Gen 2×2 - USB4 Gen 3 - USB4 Gen 3×2

lxgr 3y ago
I don't know, is this really much more ridiculous than e.g. the various Ethernet standards (I can never remember which one the "normal" Gigabit Ethernet is), mobile data protocols (remember HSDPA, CDMA, 1xRTT and all that?) etc.? And to the USB-IFs credit, they did eventually come around with the much saner bandwidth-focused names. As far as I know, even "SuperSpeed" and "USB 4" are now gone as speed designators; now it's just "USB xGbps", e.g. USB 5GBps for the case of what used to be "USB 3.2 Gen 1x1".
- inputError 3y ago
  [dead]
thomastjeffery 3y ago
The good thing here is that they seem to be converging on names that contain the speed itself in plain text. "USB4 40Gbps" is as helpful as a name can get.