USB Cheat Sheet (2022)
- DHowett - 47991 sekunder sedanExcellent article.
If I could offer one correction, it would be that SBU (as specified by the USB 3.0 Promoter Group[1]) means "Sideband Use" rather than "Secondary Bus".
On some devices, it is used to carry UART; on others, audio.
[1]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%... (pdf)
- 1a527dd5 - 46813 sekunder sedanTangent: Author has this fabulous post I'd highly recommend: https://fabiensanglard.net/mjolnir/index.html
I read it once years ago and I come back to it every now and then wishing my current PC (10+ years and going) would gently die so I could finally build something small and tiny.
- Neywiny - 48882 sekunder sedanI actually like the 3.2 naming. Gen is speed, "by" is width. It puts it very roughly on par with PCIe's naming which nobody complains about. I just don't like that USB 3, USB 3.1, and USB 3.2 are the same things. And that sales people don't seem to understand that saying a chip supports 3.1 or 3.2 tells me it's anywhere from 5-20gbps which isn't ideal.
- floxy - 42972 sekunder sedanI don't know what short-distance data communications will be like in 2050, but we know it will be called USB.
- 15155 - 49150 sekunder sedanGood sheet. Worth adding:
- Female vs male crossover naming and pinouts for Type-C connectors
- Actual voltage, modulation and signaling schemes (USB4v2 uses PAM3 11b/7t encoding)
- PD generations and profiles
- maxloh - 47977 sekunder sedanI once heard that the USB naming is misleading by design so that vendors could still sell older generations accessories they had in stock. The USB-IF just rebrands the old ones to make them sound current.
Imagine the following naming:
Isn't that much clearer? I think USB 4 is finally going to the right direction.USB 3.0 / USB 3.1 Gen 1 / USB 3.2 Gen 1 -> USB 3 5Gbps USB 3.1 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 / USB 3.2 Gen 2 -> USB 3 10Gbps USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 -> USB 3 20Gbps - gblargg - 8609 sekunder sedanThe wires count is suspect. USB 1.0-2.0 only use two wires for data (the other two are ground and power). USB 3.0 uses 4 for data (plus extra shield, 2 for USB 2.0 and 2 for power). I don't know well enough the others.
- pxeboot - 45639 sekunder sedanI still don't understand why MacBooks support USB4/Thunderbolt 4/5, but NOT USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. So you can get 20-40Gb/s speeds with more expensive external disks, but only 10Gb/s with the cheaper, more commonly available ones that advertise 20Gb/s.
- retired - 46474 sekunder sedanThe simplicity of Thunderbolt. Versions 1 and 2 used mini DisplayPort, 3 and upwards USB-C. Version 1 was 10Gbps, 2 was 20Gbps, 3 was 40Gbps, 4 was 40Gbps, 5 is 80 or 120Gbps with boosting.
A Thunderbolt 5 cable will always support 80Gbps, DisplayPort 2.1, PCIe, USB4 and power of up to 240 watt.
- conception - 46414 sekunder sedanThis article is why I replaced all the usb dock cables in the office to make sure the usb cable connected to the laptops was transferring enough power so the laptop wouldn't silently lower its frequency for the lower power draw. 10-30% speed bump just because.
- dang - 44171 sekunder sedanRelated. Others?
USB Cheat Sheet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31271038 - May 2022 (168 comments)
- SyncOnGreen - 15478 sekunder sedan> SBU1 and SBU2 are secondary bus wires, for the DisplayPort AUX channel and hot plug detection (HPD).
Correction - HPD signal is translated into vendor message and carried over CC lines - same ones that are used for PD and AltMode negotiation.
In DP-Alt mode SBU1/2 basically becomes AUX+/-.
- drob518 - 46383 sekunder sedanI’ve been a tech guy for 45 years and I still can’t figure out USB and Thunderbolt and what goes with what and how fast it’s supposed to run.
- userbinator - 44487 sekunder sedanIMHO USB 3.0 was the last sanely-named version. Then again, if you're familiar with Ethernet, the proliferation of variants isn't unexpected.
- offbyone42 - 44377 sekunder sedanI just wish product listings were clear and actually followed the specs.
- esskay - 14876 sekunder sedanI'd love for someone who's part of the USB-IF to try and explain what the heck they were thinking with their naming conventions. They're indefensibly awful in every way.
- AdamH12113 - 41546 sekunder sedanThis is generally good but it’s missing low speed (1.5 megabits/second), which is also under USB 1.1.
- mahirsaid - 30836 sekunder sedanGreat way of identifying the difference in types of USB
- brcmthrowaway - 49347 sekunder sedanWhere does TB5 come into all of this?
- Traubenfuchs - 22539 sekunder sedanWhy do we constantly change this?
What technological advance was not available x years ago to dream up usb 4?
We already know we will use the bandwith, why not dream up what will be the usb 8 spec in 20 years now and have everything working without change for 20 years?
- naveed125 - 47649 sekunder sedannice work, thanks
- aleksi1578 - 44661 sekunder sedan[flagged]
Nördnytt! 🤓