USB4 is Coming - Everything You Need to Know

[TheLostSwede]

It's about vendors hiding the information about FRL speeds of HDMI ports on any device. They tell us "HDMI 2.1" or "4K/120", but they really do not tell us anything about FRL. Apart from several TVs and monitors, new consoles, Ampere and RDNA2 GPUs and several AVRs, none of devices on the market support FRL over HDMI. And those that can do FRL speeds have vastly different implementations, anything from 24 Gbps (Gigabyte monitor), 32 Gbps (PS5), 40 Gbps (XboxSX, AMD RDNA2, AVRs, TVs) and 48 Gbps (Ampere, LG 9 and 2, etc.). It's a mess out there...

For this HyperMobile USB4 dock to transmit FRL signal over HDMI port, there needs to be a separate converter chip DP-HDMI between the main SoC and HDMI port. There is no such chip in this device. The only currently available DP-HDMI FRL converter chip on the market is from Parade Tech PS196. This chip can output up to 12 Gbps per lane, meaning up to 48 Gbps on HDMI port.

The simple fact is, if there is no explicit information about FRL in any spec, that HDMI port is 2.0.

Considering the VL830 is limited to DP 1.4, no it won't do what you're asking for.

 

[Bomby569]

A key thing to note is that the standard is called "USB4"... not "USB 4"

i'm happy the minds behing USB don't want to create any confusions. /s

 

[Tek-Check]

Considering the VL830 is limited to DP 1.4, no it won't do what you're asking for.

DP 1.4 signal is fine for the converter chip PS196. The chip actually doesn't support native DP 2.0 UHRB10 or higher but it uses HBR3 signal from CPU or SoC and level shifts it to FRL speeds of 32 Gbps or higher for the output over HDMI port.

The same principle is used in XboxSX console. AMD APU also outputs DP 1.4 signal with 32 Gbps and a level shifter chip converts it into FRL 40 Gbps. On a picture of the console's main board, this chip is visible between HDMI port and APU. Four lanes in and four lanes out.

It's about investing money to install a chip. Vendors often think that FRL speedy signal is only for gamers who connect source and sink directly and therefore do not provide this chip, cutting costs.

 

[trsttte]

No, it's just an upgrade from USB 3.0 with some new features. This is the kind of thing they need to do with SATA. SATA needs an update to 4.0 as much as USB did.

I don't see that ever happening. The best thing for SATA is to die gracefully as it is now and be replaced by generic PCIe links (a single 5.0 lane does close to 4gbit vs the 6 from sata3.0)

Given how they decided to gimp USB4 to prevent it from threatening Thunderbolt it can also fuck right of, anything that will require the bandwith upgrade seems to already be easily served by the more capable Thunderbolt standard.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The best thing for SATA is to die gracefully

To each their own. I'm a fan of NVMe for boot drives, not a fan of NVMe for mass storage...

Given how they decided to gimp USB4 to prevent it from threatening Thunderbolt it can also fuck right of

That's kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face..

 

[trsttte]

To each their own. I'm a fan of NVMe for boot drives, not a fan of NVMe for mass storage...

Me too, that's why I'd like for u.2/u.3/whatever variation off SFF-type connector to become standard and common place.

That's kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face..

How so? USB4 is missing several important features that thunderbolt already has and that would be appreciated when using higher bandwith devices (daisy chaining for example, or eth passthrough or just mandatory certification so we can know what we're getting). If thunderbolt will clearly remain the better standard why should I bother with USB4?

 

[R0H1T]

A key thing to note is that the standard is called "USB4"... not "USB 4"

i'm happy the minds behing USB don't want to create any confusions. /s

You just wait till they meet in person next time, just wait till then

 

[lexluthermiester]

How so? USB4 is missing several important features that thunderbolt already has and that would be appreciated when using higher bandwith devices

But it's not TB. USB4 is a speed/bandwidth upgrade from USB3. There are a few feature upgrades as well, but it is NOT designed to be a replacement for TB and is unlikely to be.

If thunderbolt will clearly remain the better standard why should I bother with USB4?

Because TB is an Intel only connector. USB4 is for EVERYONE, universally. ThunderBolt has some nice features, but it's Intel only and many will never support it. I personally couldn't care less. If it's there, ok that's cool, but I'm not going to seek it out. USB is THE universal standard, by design. That's what I look for.

 

[TheLostSwede]

But it's not TB. USB4 is a speed/bandwidth upgrade from USB3. There are a few feature upgrades as well, but it is NOT designed to be a replacement for TB and is unlikely to be.

Because TB is an Intel only connector. USB4 is for EVERYONE, universally. ThunderBolt has some nice features, but it's Intel only and many will never support it. I personally couldn't care less. If it's there, ok that's cool, but I'm not going to seek it out. USB is THE universal standard, by design. That's what I look for.

But USB4 supports all Thunderbolt 3 features, if fully implemented, such in all currently known host controllers.
Also, Apple has native Thunderbolt 4 support now in their M2 processors.

If you read the article you just commented on, you would've noticed it's not really all that universal any more, somewhat thanks to Intel.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Also, Apple has native Thunderbolt 4 support now in their M2 processors.

Licensed from Intel. And seriously, Apple? Keep Macs out of this, it's niche for the context of this discussion.

If you read the article you just commented on, you would've noticed it's not really all that universal any more, somewhat thanks to Intel.

Moose muffins. It's open to everyone to use, thus universal.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Licensed from Intel. And seriously, Apple? Keep Macs out of this, it's niche for the context of this discussion.

Co-developed more likely. Why should I? They're a legit product.

Moose muffins.

It's open to everyone to use, thus universal.

Open to anyone to implement in several different ways, which means it's not really as universal as USB once was.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Co-developed more likely.

Very doubtful. Thunderbolt has been an Intel thing since it's inception.

They're a legit product.

I didn't say they weren't. Context is important. Few people here in these forums buy them. This is a PC technology forum. Apple products aren't relevant to the vast majority of readers here. There are Apple focused sites and forums for that.

Open to anyone to implement in several different ways, which means it's not really as universal as USB once was.

More moose muffins. The basic interconnection functionality is and will always be present. The extra functions are optional fluff and are not critical to the functionality of the connection.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Very doubtful. Thunderbolt has been an Intel thing since it's inception.

Why is it doubtful? Apple has co-developed it with Intel.

It has been developed by Intel, in collaboration with Apple.

Thunderbolt (interface) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I didn't say they weren't. Context is important. Few people here in these forums buy them. This is a PC technology forum. Apple products aren't relevant to the vast majority of readers here. There are Apple focused sites and forums for that.

TPU covers Apple products too, in case you missed it, so please, this is just a stupid argument from your side, so stop it.

More moose muffins. The basic interconnection functionality is and will always be present. The extra functions are optional fluff and are not critical to the functionality of the connection.

Uhm, really? So you'd be happy to get gimped devices that are limited to 20 Gbps for data that can't do any of the other feature that makes USB4 useful beyond just pushing USB data down the cables? I think you're the one single person that would want that if that's the case.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Why is it doubtful? Apple has co-developed it with Intel.

Thunderbolt (interface) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fair enough, was not aware of that.

TPU covers Apple products too, in case you missed it, so please, this is just a stupid argument from your side, so stop it.

Do you REALLY want to start the name calling game with ME? Think carefully before you answer. Additionally, the level of coverage of Apple products is a very small fraction of what is discussed on TPU and is usually just filler when news about the PC industry is a bit dry. This website is visited by and serves the PC arena of users by a VAST majority.

Uhm, really? So you'd be happy to get gimped devices that are limited to 20 Gbps for data that can't do any of the other feature that makes USB4 useful beyond just pushing USB data down the cables? I think you're the one single person that would want that if that's the case.

Gonna throw Wiki back at you.

USB - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[chrcoluk]

To each their own. I'm a fan of NVMe for boot drives, not a fan of NVMe for mass storage...


That's kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face..

Wow I am no longer alone on here in thinking how stupid it is for the million M.2 ports per board as if its an attempt to take over mass storage lol.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Here's a perspective from PCWorld;

 

[TheLostSwede]

Do you REALLY want to start the name calling game with ME? Think carefully before you answer. Additionally, the level of coverage of Apple products is a very small fraction of what is discussed on TPU and is usually just filler when news about the PC industry is a bit dry. This website is visited by and serves the PC arena of users by a VAST majority.

Name calling? I didn't call anyone names, if you re-read what I wrote, I said it was a stupid argument...

Gonna throw Wiki back at you.

USB - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See how many things aren't mandatory for devices or even hosts?

Here's a perspective from PCWorld;

Except they didn't test USB4, they tested Thunderbolt 3 tunneling over USB4, a feature you seemingly think is useless.

 

[Tek-Check]

Open to anyone to implement in several different ways, which means it's not really as universal as USB once was.

I agree that USB4 is not as universal anymore as it used to be before. USB4 now reminds me of HDMI 2.1. It is something rather meaningless, full of optional features that average customer would probably never ask about, but might discover it's missing once he or she starts using it.

Only Rembrandt APUs have been undergoing USB4 certification process, in addition to DP 2.0 certificate that they already have. No new chipset or upcoming CPUs this year natively support USB4, which is a bit disappointing.

Still, the article was great and let's hope more of non-minimal USB4 devices hit the market this and next year.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Name calling? I didn't call anyone names, if you re-read what I wrote, I said it was a stupid argument...

Look in a mirror when you say that. See PM..

 

[hat]

Wow I am no longer alone on here in thinking how stupid it is for the million M.2 ports per board as if its an attempt to take over mass storage lol.

It seems to be the way internal storage connectivity is heading. SATA III only goes up to 6Gbps. USB4 now does at least 20Gbps. Think about that for a moment. That means that external devices such as thumb drives and cell phones now have a much faster interconnect than our hard drives and SSDs of yesteryear. Even USB3 got close at 5Gbps. Still, a single PCI-E 3.0 lane is much faster than that 5Gbps, and 4 lanes (your typical NVMe connection) is much faster than USB4... the 20Gbps variant, anyway.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It seems to be the way internal storage connectivity is heading. SATA III only goes up to 6Gbps. USB4 now does at least 20Gbps. Think about that for a moment. That means that external devices such as thumb drives and cell phones now have a much faster interconnect than our hard drives and SSDs of yesteryear. Even USB3 got close at 5Gbps. Still, a single PCI-E 3.0 lane is much faster than that 5Gbps, and 4 lanes (your typical NVMe connection) is much faster than USB4... the 20Gbps variant, anyway.

Thank you for illustrating an excellent point. We need a SATA4 upgrade to match the USB4 upgrade. It would be a trivial effort for the industry.

 

[trsttte]

Thank you for illustrating an excellent point. We need a SATA4 upgrade to match the USB4 upgrade. It would be a trivial effort for the industry.

We already have it, it's called U.2

They tried to bring an upgrade to SATA way back in the day and the best they could come with was SATAexpress but in the end there's no advantages in specializing pcie lanes into a specific storage standard when you can simply use the pcie lanes directly for whatever you need (be it storage or something else)

 

[lexluthermiester]

We already have it, it's called U.2

No one wants that. It too big.

They tried to bring an upgrade to SATA way back in the day and the best they could come with was SATAexpress but in the end there's no advantages in specializing pcie lanes into a specific storage standard when you can simply use the pcie lanes directly for whatever you need (be it storage or something else)

That was a poor attempt that went in the wrong direction.

What we need is a direct upgrade using the exactly same connector.

 

[hat]

Thank you for illustrating an excellent point. We need a SATA4 upgrade to match the USB4 upgrade. It would be a trivial effort for the industry.

It would be nice for mass storage. I don't see myself packing a bunch of M.2 cards in a file server... not unless I had expansion cards or something.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I don't see myself packing a bunch of M.2 cards in a file server...

Me neither. Never gonna happen.

Although, an Idea just hit me. Why not just mount a bunch of USB-C ports on a motherboard and make HDDs/SSDs with USB-C connectors? That would work. It wouldn't be backward compatible with existing SATA but converters are a thing. That would be a great idea going forward!