Windows 11 now supports USB4 at 80Gbps, also known as USB 4 2.0 | Faster USB4 devices could start appearing in 2024::undefined
“USB 4 2.0”… someone should really do something about the incredibly goofy naming scheme.
With a version number like that they should have throttled the throughput to 69 Gbps.
Oh damn, I didn’t even catch that!
Someone was high.
So universal
I know, it is a never ending source of minor comedy that “Universal” is right there in the name.
I never bothered to check, but are there multiple organizations making different names? Or just one that has no consistency whatsoever
They name by committee. So every corporation that is in the USB standards group will argue for whatever benefits them, with no consideration for consumers.
I fucking hate it. Buy a USB C cable and it’s a crapshoot whether it’s USB 2 with no power delivery, or poor quality with power delivery. Just trying to find a good quality USB 3 cable is difficult, with 3.1 or 3.2, x2 or not, shitty control chips, etc etc.
It is absolutely infuriating. It blows my mind that you can have a USB 3.2 Gen2 cable that does everything you need it to, except for the fact that it doesn’t support Power Delivery and a lot of the time you won’t even know, so if you’re sending high wattage through it there’s a real possibility you’re gonna burn some to kind up.
It’s like they just throw darts and see what hits
These are all equivalent, which is dumb as fuck:
- 3.0 / 3.1 Gen 1 / 3.2 Gen 1
- 3.1 Gen 2 / 3.2 Gen 2 / 3.2 Gen 2x1
I suspect the corporations that influence USB did this specifically to confuse consumers (increase sales) when they could have told them exactly what they were getting e.g:
- USB3 5Gb
- USB3 10Gb
- USB4 500Mb/100w
- USB4 20Gb/100w
- USB4 40Gb/20w
- USB4 80Gb/240w
The jump from 3 to 4 could’ve indicated the change to USB-C ports, which should be the greatest breaking change for USB (otherwise it’s no longer USB). The “/Xw” could’ve been used to indicate PD max watts.
This can also continue indefinitely, like “USB4 10Tb/500w”, “USB5 5Pb/2kw”, etc.
What I’d really like to see are regulations that require manufacturers to specify the actual speeds the specific component(s) model/batch have achieved under real world testing — both best case scenario and averages — as the theoretical limit is completely irrelevant; with wild variation between cables of the same specs.
Actually the naming scheme you propose e.g. USB 4 80Gb is the real naming scheme! It’s officially what the specification demands manufacturers label their products. “USB4 version 2” and so on are explicitly only the names of the internal standards that only concern people writing drivers or designing chips.
I have no idea what tech journalist are smoking. This has been a problems for so many years but they keep using the internal names. I mean nobody is complaining about having to always say “IEEE 802.11bn” instead of WI-FI 8
Undoubtedly the best naming scheme. The
x2suffix should not be dropped tho, because it shows that USB and the alt-DP mode can be used at the same time.
I’ll wait for USB4 2.1x3 Plus
That’s all wrong, it’s going to be USB4.2 2.1x2.1 gen 2 plus
eye twitch
At least thunderbolt cables are somewhat straightforward.
If only thunderbolt wasn’t Intel proprietary BS lmao
Truth
Can’t wait for USB 4 3.2
Can’t wait for USB 4.20 ayyy
But which connector? A, B, C, Micro, Mini?
AC mini
Can we please have some form of colour system or something
If I learned anything then it‘s to trust manufacturers to sleep on this for the coming years until Microsoft stops supporting old USB completely or something.
*rolls usb 4 2.0
If I were Mr Monk, I would be distressed with their choice of writing 80 Gbps, when they could have written 10 GBps. Just a nice round 10.
It’s standard to write speed in bits and space in bytes
