TheLostSwedeOne other thing worth pointing out is that USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 supposedly only supports USB-C type connectors.

Because USB-C has more physical links between host and device.

USB A/B = 1 link
USB A/B SS = 3 links (1 legacy, 2 SS)
USB C = 5 links (1 legacy, 4 SS)

AquinusThe idea behind USB-C for the connector itself made sense. The fact that there isn't a good consistent way for a Type-C's port to describe what it can and can not do with what cables is freaking insane. Things ranging from just USB 2.0 connectivity all the way up to Thunderbolt. Honestly, my experience with trying to get a Type C (not Thunderbolt,) display to work properly at work as been a freaking nightmare... with a HP laptop using a HP display. :kookoo:

Simply put, what people have been doing with the USB-C standard is just insane (not in a good way.)

Yeah...DisplayPort, sadly, is getting the same way. It's like everyone wants to be that one connector everyone else uses but in the process, they're making controllers complicated and doing a terrible job at informing consumers of what the installed controller can do. DisplayPort I think is keeping it under control better than USB is but still... Even though a DisplayPort cable could theoretically have a USB signal on it, we don't know that the DisplayPort controller in the host device actually has a USB host, we don't know if the monitor we're plugging in that has USB ports understands that it can use the DisplayPort cable to carry the USB signal, and if the USB ports on the monitor fails, it's not clear where the failure was at.

USB video has the same problem. The assumption should be that USB video is handled by basically a USB powered video card inside the cable itself. It shouldn't be pulling a video stream from a video card because now you're making the how that message routes through PCIE and the like convoluted.

I can understand why DisplayPort would want to carry USB because that means only one cable between monitor and computer. I don't understand why USB-IF thought it was a good idea to put video/thunderbolt streams in USB. USB-IF should focus on one thing and that is connecting peripherals to computers as it always did. Yes, increase bandwidth, no, don't expand beyond the scope of doing exclusively what it needs to do. If other interfaces want to carry USB, so be it, but it shouldn't be the other way around because USB isn't supposed to be one connector to rule them all. It doesn't have enough pins to and usually isn't connected to a high enough speed bus internally to either. Now GPUs are having to fight USB controllers for PCIE lanes. It makes no sense for something that's predominantly used to drive mice and keyboards.

For being standards, they aren't very standard.

Maycloredoes anyone even WANT type-C plugs?

Actually, Type-C is amazing.

There was that joke that an USB (type A) port needs to be inserted 3 times EVERY TIME:
- first you get it right but you don't know that you got it right because you just bump into the "tongue"
- 2nd attempt is reversed and obviously won't work
- finally 3rd time you pay more attention and it finally goes in (That's what she said!)

Type C resolves this annoyance by being reversible, while ALSO allowing for channel doubling due to it's inherent nature.

I certainly love it on my Samsung phone, or on the laptop...

... buuuut, it's a bit not Ok on the big-ass PC case, that Type-C is so tiny and it feels out of place.

Well, maybe not in the back of the case, but on the front panel it shouldn't be much of a problem. If Type C really is that small, though, I wonder how well Type C thumb drives would work. I'd be worried about the integrity of the connector/port with the weight hanging on it. Type A would be sturdier.

I'd think USB 3.1 on Type A, at 10Gb/s, would be plenty fast enough. It's faster than SATA 3. It's faster than most wired Ethernet connections. It's also got a connector sturdier than a wet noodle. What kind of device today needs a connection faster than 10Gb/s?

hatWell, maybe not in the back of the case, but on the front panel it shouldn't be much of a problem. If Type C really is that small, though, I wonder how well Type C thumb drives would work. I'd be worried about the integrity of the connector/port with the weight hanging on it. Type A would be sturdier.

I'd think USB 3.1 on Type A, at 10Gb/s, would be plenty fast enough. It's faster than SATA 3. It's faster than most wired Ethernet connections. It's also got a connector sturdier than a wet noodle. What kind of device today needs a connection faster than 10Gb/s?

Actually, USB 3.x in Type A connectors is a terrible design if you take a close look. The 3.x pins are tiny and only just touch. They're also far easier to damage than the 2.0 pins in the connector. It's an afterthought of a design that kind of works, but which can be very problematic, especially if you get some oxidation on the pins.

USB-C is far more robust in that sense, albeit a bit on the tiny side.

type C will get better with time as we get more of the ports easier to access

Right now with them predominantly on the back of our cases, they kinda suck - but soon enough type C hubs in monitors and keyboards will be all over the place, and we'll care less

Hell i have a type C case, and i cant connect it to my mobo cause the same geniuses that came up with the screwy names, forgot to make an adaptor between the two types

MusselsHow stupid are these people?

Just call it USB 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and stop confusing the tech illiterate

That would be the sensible thing to do.

Musselstype C will get better with time as we get more of the ports easier to access

Right now with them predominantly on the back of our cases, they kinda suck - but soon enough type C hubs in monitors and keyboards will be all over the place, and we'll care less

Hell i have a type C case, and i cant connect it to my mobo cause the same geniuses that came up with the screwy names, forgot to make an adaptor between the two types

Because each adapter introduces a ~2dB loss at each side. As a result of long traces, shoddy quality case connector, USB3 uses a budget timing method for the jitter. It is a 5GHz connection, If the port is farther than 5cm form the IC + interference from WIFI other devices near on the motherboard emitting EMI, it will throttle down to maintain signal quality SNR to even distinct the logical zero and one. And it it will throttle really bad or fallback to 2.4Ghz mode.

Have you ever wondered why USB speeds differ in between motherboards? Why do reviewers even bother to test it? That's the reason why, how shoddy the PCB design is and how far everything is located.

But the naming... yea... as usual... no connection to reality.

How about simple USB 3.05 USB 3.10 USB 3.20 ( USB 3.05c USB 3.10c USB 3.20c etc for C type ). Is it that hard?

They could have simply continued the previous numbering scheme

USB (1) - SLOW
USB 2.0 - 480Mbps
USB 3.0 - 5Gbps
USB 4.0 - 10Gbbs
USB 5.0 - 20Gbps

Would have so much simpler instead of all this renaming cr*p.

AquinusSomeone at the USB-IF needs to get punched in the face because clearly they didn't get the memo that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I vote for paving that road with those marketroids, whose only intentions are clearly frauding and scamming consumers by misleading names.
This planet is overpopulated enough without need to waste resources for feeding them.

WavetrexActually, Type-C is amazing.

There was that joke that an USB (type A) port needs to be inserted 3 times EVERY TIME:
- first you get it right but you don't know that you got it right because you just bump into the "tongue"
- 2nd attempt is reversed and obviously won't work
- finally 3rd time you pay more attention and it finally goes in (That's what she said!)

At least then you knew that thing you were trying to connect was going to work.
Now you can't be anymore sure.
At this rate soon only thing missing from USB-C is holes for cooling water...

And can't exactly keep tiny connector with miniscule very tightly spaced contacts as good idea for durability.

Who TF is actually going to use these names? It's USB 3.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.2. That's what I've been calling it and will continue to call it, and anyone who tells me otherwise can get screwed.

AssimilatorMaybe it's Intel trying to torpedo USB in order to promote Thunderbolt? XD

Yeah either intel, or nvidia. Maybe the lobbyists, or the illuminati, can't really decide :confused:

Lol. I just HAD to check who the hell are running USB-IF. While the board of directors are from various companies like Apple, Intel, HP, Texus Instruments etc most of the C-level guys are from Intel.

www.usb.org/about

We should definitely have a petition against this stupid naming, the 3.1 naming was awful and yet they're doing it again ?

Prima.VeraCompletelly agree with those.
Seems like those marketing guys out there are retarded to say the least....

I thought about it for a while, for good reason too as I’m working with spreadsheet databases and i think I will just go with USB 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 (3.0C, 3.1C, and 3.2C for type c) cus it follows the naming scheme of USB 1.1 and 2.0

KhonjelLol. I just HAD to check who the hell are running USB-IF. While the board of directors are from various companies like Apple, Intel, HP, Texus Instruments etc most of the C-level guys are from Intel.

www.usb.org/about

Makes sense, the 2x2 part sounded like an Intel-type name...

I haven't seen anything more stupid in my life. Why do they bother to change the names if they're not going to be enforcing branding labels and statements. This is totally ridicolous.

Naming, Branding should all be standard enforced and unified if you're making a standard after all.