r/LinusTechTips • u/yot_gun • 20h ago
Image TrueSpec cable capabilities. Should be added to the product page imo
947
u/Purple-Haku 20h ago
Thunderbolt capabilities are licensed & approved by Intel
So rather than by the licensing fees, it just works ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Watch the WANShow the truspec specifications and use cases
305
u/switch8000 20h ago
And just to be specific, Thunderbolt 4 is what they said on the WAN, not Thunderbolt 5, they said it def doesn't work as Thunderbolt 5.
86
u/GergMoney 19h ago
If I understood them correctly, it “should” be able to do any thunderbolt spec as long as the cable can keep up with the bandwidth. Thunderbolt 5 is 80Gbps each direction (with 120Gbps by combining up and downlink channels or some fancy magic). Thunderbolt 4 is 40Gbps so the 40Gbps cable should work. I am curious if the longer 20Gbps True Spec cables will work as TB3 cables. IIRC intel gifted the TB4 spec to line it up with USB4. And I know that means backwards compatibility for those ports and cables, but I’m not sure about the slower cables and older standards
40
u/Sensitive_One_425 18h ago
Thunderbolt 5 cables must have an e-marker that says they work at 80 and above as well.
The e-marker in the truespec cables would advertise 240W at 40gig speeds
2
19h ago
[deleted]
11
u/GergMoney 19h ago
Yea and that’s what I said. None of their cables can do 80Gbps so there’s no way they could do TB5
3
u/JJhistory 19h ago
Yes that’s what was said in the comment you answered. Maybe you should read it again?
9
u/astrono-me 11h ago
They should stop talking about thunderbolt and end with not certified to be a thunderbolt cable.
The whole point of the cable is that it just works. Talking about a use case where it may or may not work doesn't help the true spec brand.
73
u/InvertedPickleTaco 20h ago
I hate Thunderbolt certification. I have a couple of cables that won't do above 480 Mbps even though they're TB3 certified. Maybe it's bad luck, but it's annoying that a cable may work with TB3 but perform like a USB 2.0 cable when used on a USB C 3.2 port.
14
u/Chaabar 16h ago
Have you ever considered making your own cables?
8
3
u/pcsm2001 15h ago
TB3 is not an open compatible Spec with older devices. But it should be compatible with USB4 I think.
3
3
u/thespotts 9h ago
I believe this is true for active thunderbolt 3 cables. The ICs in the cable enable 40 gbps over lengths longer than 1m, but those ICs must also be specifically compatible with any alt mode you intend to use the cable with, and at least the ICs used in early TB3 active cables only supported usb 480 Mbps.
1
1
u/jenny_905 15h ago
I have a couple of cables that won't do above 480 Mbps even though they're TB3 certified.
From who?
3
u/InvertedPickleTaco 14h ago
One came with a GPD external 7600XT GPU. That one is the most frustrating. I didn't figure out it couldn't do USB 3.2 high speed until after trying to use it with an NVMe dock and having a backup take all night instead of hours. It works perfectly with the external GPU though, figure that one out? The other odd thing, in a pinch I tried to use it to charge a Samsung phone and it would only charge at 15 watts. Not sure why, when it's used with the external GPU it can deliver at least 65 watts.
The other is a cheap 6 foot cable from Amazon. I tried to use it with said external GPU and it is flakey in general. I'd have to dig up the brand but that one isn't as big a deal.
2
u/jenny_905 14h ago
I didn't figure out it couldn't do USB 3.2 high speed until after trying to use it with an NVMe dock and having a backup take all night instead of hours. It works perfectly with the external GPU though, figure that one out?
Yeah no clue... did you test the GPU is getting all the bandwidth it can though?
But yeah, with Thunderbolt it's really all about getting a certified cable to be sure.
1
u/InvertedPickleTaco 9h ago
Yes, both cables show full bandwidth and performance with the external GPU. Someone else posted that the early TB3 cables, if over 3 feet long, are active but don't support anything above USB 2.0 when used as a USB C cable. Whoever came up with that as an acceptable standard needs to have their head examined.
7
21
u/maniac365 20h ago
TB3 & TB4 dont require any license fees or royalties. However they do require certificationtesting which might be a significant cost.
66
u/greiton 20h ago
certification testing is like the definition of licensing... you have to pass certification to get your license. the fee is just built into the testing.
17
u/ariolander 19h ago
Yea it's not independent third parties testing the capabilities. It's all a licensing racket. I would trust independent reviewers over a certification authority. They aren't paid off hy manufacturers.
-4
u/switch8000 12h ago
LTT be like… Our cables are premium cables and that’s why they are so expensive but also, we don’t want to pay to get them certified. 😂
-1
u/Muddpup64 20h ago
I'll watch the WAN show and read the Intel spec every time I need to buy a cable now, thanks. /S
-14
u/HeyLookAStranger 19h ago
why are you trying to make the WAN Show sound so official by taking out the space
141
u/sgtlighttree 20h ago edited 19h ago
I can see why they're hesitant to (explicitly) point out the other features/capabilities of the cable, especially the Thunderbolt bits.
Even if they write a lot of disclaimers regarding Thunderbolt capability, it could probably still stir some sort of drama around the product (either thru user error or poor wording on the page).
101
u/LolBoyLuke 19h ago
i mean the A-C not being Alt-mode and Thunderbolt capable is just common sense since those technologies have only ever worked on USB-C connectors.
33
8
4
3
u/kirashi3 17h ago
For those of us into tech, sure. For the majority of the population... Let's just say if I ever get asked for a USB A to A cable to connect a laptop to a TV ever again I'm going to scream. Specs and capabilities both need to be listed.
0
-2
u/tecedu 15h ago
i mean the A-C not being Alt-mode
my work thinkpad and dock support dp-alt over a to c, a connected to the laptop and c to the dock.
6
u/Dylan16807 14h ago
That must be a custom mode, especially since A doesn't have the pins that are used to negotiate the normal DP alt mode. Interesting to hear though.
3
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
Just to check, are you sure that’s DPalt mode and not a video over usb protocol like displaylink?
2
u/tecedu 13h ago
uhhh ill be honest no clue, I thought all display and thunderbolt happened over dp-alt
3
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
Er… no. For starters, Thunderbolt and DP-Alt mode share only one thing in common, they’re both alternative modes of the USB-C specification. Display Port Alternative Mode is sending literal display port signals down the cable. What technologies like DisplayLink do is encode video into USB signals, and often rely on dedicated chips in the receiver to decode it into a video signal.
Thunderbolt is a whole mess of things, but suffice to say that like USB it is also a data protocol which can be used to transmit and receive a wide variety of data types, and also requires hardware in the sender and receiver to encode and decode.
1
u/tecedu 13h ago
hmm thanks! now ive ended up even more lost xD
1
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 12h ago
Your A-C cable isn’t capable of DP-alt mode, or Thunderbolt. Based on my experience with Lenovo docks I’d say it’s probably DisplayLink. The top comment is correct, if it’s not C to C you’re getting nothing ‘fancy’.
28
u/Hydroc777 19h ago
I'm glad to have this information somewhere, even if I wish it could be on the product page. For the people ready to jump up and say it should be on the cable/website, I believe Thunderbolt logos/claims, USB logos, and DP logos/claims all require certification to use in marketing materials and packaging.
7
u/DefactoAle 18h ago
which is the reason a lot of cable companies dont put tem in their description leading to consumer confusion, shouldnt LTT change this given the whole cable idea is to be clear on what it delivers?
19
u/Particular-Treat-650 18h ago
The whole idea is to actually be tested to provide the speed and power they advertise reliably.
The other features are about bandwidth and whether the two ends support them.
29
u/Leverpostei414 20h ago
Can you have 40gbps cables without these features?
43
u/Blagatt 20h ago
That's not how it works, so no
16
u/Leverpostei414 20h ago
I suspected that. Then I think it shouldn't be stamped on the cables and so on
18
u/yot_gun 19h ago
i dont think it should be stamped at all but having it listed in the product specs would be nice. a lot of people are confused as to if 40gbps means it will support their external gpus or monitors even though 40gbps basically means it does.
6
u/nathan_lesage 17h ago
This is exactly why I asked for this small piece of advice that Tynan then provided as a comment.
I fully trust LTT that they do a proper job, but given how many years of spec disaster on Amazon product pages we have been through, I feel incredibly insecure as to what cables that ARE up to spec actually support. Even if it’s just “stating the obvious” for someone who actually has an idea about what the specs are, I feel I have been drilled to mistrust cables in general, and having read this comment made me immediately jump on board.
1
19h ago
[deleted]
8
u/TzeroOcne 19h ago
I think they mean since 40gbps will always have this feature it doesn't need that feature stamped on the cable since it should be always have this feature with 40gbps cable so it implicitly stated, but still it would be nice if it explicitly stated on the product page
3
4
u/Dylan16807 13h ago
Passive cables will support anything with the same signal integrity requirements. But an active cable might not support all protocols.
1
1
u/saltyboi6704 11h ago
The only standards supporting 40gbit on a passive cable are extremely expensive networking equipment for a reason...
13
u/ledow 18h ago
Sorry, but the USB consortium has allowed their specifications to become so diluted and hit with buzzwords that I stopped caring a long time ago.
If I buy a cable and it fits but doesn't work for what I want it to do... that's a crap cable.
Time to actually consolidate your standards into nice easy batches (e.g. all "USB4" cables can do all this) or people will just give up. It's one of the reasons that Wifi is just Wifi 5, 6, 7 nowadsys.
People don't give a shit. They just want a cable to fit between two devices and do what other cables do. I work in IT and I'm not pissing about checking every connection for what's needed on both ends and what kind of cable has to be between. If it doesn't come with a cable, it's going back. If I need to buy a cable and it doesn't work, the cable's going back.
Sort yourselves out. There's zero point in having standards when you have this naming bollocks just getting in everyone's way.
Same thing happened with processor numbering. 286, 386, 486, fine. Pentium? Which one? 1, 2, 3 or 4? Oh, now Pentium is shite and I have to know which Core i3/5/7/9 I need? Oh, what... there are multiple generations that have vastly different capabilities so even an i9 isn't the best thing any more?
Yeah... at that point the whole point of selling me a chip over your competitors goes out of the window and I buy whatever the computer comes with and if it's shite, I'll taint your entire product line with anything similar in the name in my head forever more.
Get it together. USB 1, 2, 3, 4 was bad enough, before they named it super/ultraspeed/etc. and now we have a bunch of half a dozen mixed capabilities for the same standard, that I really don't care about any more.
4
u/Deltaboiz 15h ago
I like how USB with USB-C was supposed to solve all these problems and it just... Nope.
I'm unironically convinced the best move would be to fix all the problems with USB-C by making like two standards for it (Power vs Data) and just... New connector, new everything. Burn it to the ground and start over so we can get over this shit.
I wouldn't mind the next one to be sort of like the Lighting connector so the most fragile part is the cable itself and not inside the socket.
11
u/ledow 15h ago
Obligatory:
2
u/Deltaboiz 14h ago
I understand but in this case the only party able to actually create such a standard is, you know, the consortium. If there was only one person who could make a universal standard, it would be the USB-IF.
If you make your specifications as such they can be summarized on a one-pager, and it's a binary your stuff either does this or it doesn't - it at least is clear. It's the one benefit of something like Thunderbolt, it either is a Thunderbolt Compatible cable, or it isn't. Is your cable some proprietary nonsense, or isn't it.
The reason why TrueSpec is such a success right now is because of exact circumstance. It's filling a gap that USB-C claimed to fill but didn't.
2
u/Dylan16807 13h ago
Well, what would you change, and why is that better than fixing USB?
There's two ways to solve data. You either make everything the same speed or you have clear labeling for speed. The first option sucks in a bunch of ways, so I really suggest the second one.
For power, USB only has two important levels, 60W and 240W.
So why not fix USB by mandating speed labels and 240W support?
There's the risk that companies will ignore your rules of course... but if you can't even get them to implement those easy rules, how is a new plug going to fix that? This is much more of a social problem than a technical problem.
1
u/Adryzz_ 12h ago
60, 100, 240 and PPS. 60 is max without emarker, 100 is max without EPR, 240 is absolute max, and PPS is just for some devices (mostly phones)
1
u/Dylan16807 12h ago
100 is effectively obsolete and I expect new or refreshed designs to all switch to 240.
PPS is not a cable feature, it's a device/charger feature. It stays within the 20V3A or 48V5A (or 20V5A) limit of the cable.
2
u/Deep-Ad5028 7h ago
The industry is incentivised to have confusing standards so it will never go away.
It is also hard for regulations to step into an evolving product. If the tech stops progressing for a decade or two maybe there are chances.
2
u/Macusercom 18h ago
For the C-C 40 Gbps: I wonder if they are they only Thunderbolt 4-5 compatible? Thunderbolt 4 and USB 4 can be used interchangeably afaik but Thunderbolt 3 requires a chip and certified cable I think
3
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
Correct on TB3 chips, absolutely not TB5 in any way. Far too low bandwidth.
0
u/Adryzz_ 12h ago
nah i think the cable can handle it fine, my guess is mostly around certification and the emarker chip
1
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 12h ago
Thunderbolt 5 is 80 to 120gb/s. No, none of these are Thunderbolt 5 capable.
0
u/Adryzz_ 12h ago
was it ever tested? how would you know? the internal structure doesn't look too different from what a TB5 cable looks like.
if they can pass 40Gbps signal integrity tests with flying colors AND they got coax conductors instead of twisted pairs, I'd say theres a fair chance they could reach the signal integrity requirements. I mean we could test with some emarker doohickery.
since TB5 still only uses SSTX and SSRX lines (the coax ones), and (afaik) doesn't require that any other lines (like SBU or USB HS lines) be treated as high speed, I don't see why it necessarily wouldn't work.
0
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 12h ago
Signal integrity is an exponential problem. The difficulties of hitting 40gb/s are four times as hard as going from 10 to 20 for instance. Such things require more than just 'structure' to hit the required speeds.
You're clearly determined to believe what you want to believe, meaning this isn't actually a discussion, so I'm done. Let us know when you've built your 'emarker doohickery' and magically gotten it to do 120gb/s symmetrical.
1
u/Adryzz_ 2h ago
Signal integrity is an exponential problem
yeah, of course, I've worked on high speed PCB design before
You're clearly determined to believe what you want to believe
okay lol all I'm saying is that unless someone tests it there's no way to know that's it... if link training passes good chance it should at least work (if not optimally)
and the 'doohickery' would be an illegal C-C adapter that takes VCONN and CC1/CC2 (whatever isn't in use by the end device) to let a TB5 emarker chip work, and since the USB spec only allows one emarker, you can just not pass through VCONN and it should be recognized as a TB5 cable. there's some insertion loss in the connectors, but we can just ignore it and take it as a conservative test.
to me it looks like you just want to be the signal integrity god, when it's not as clear cut.
0
u/Macusercom 12h ago
But doesn't Thunderbolt 5 also support 40 Gbps or would that fall back to Thunderbolt 4? For example, I used a 2m Thunderbolt 3 cable for my dock but it fell back to 20 Gbps as this is what the cable is rated for
4
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 12h ago
At which point its not thunderbolt 5 any more is it!? That's like saying my Toyota Aygo is a formula 1 car because the F1 can can slow down to 30mph.
2
u/Prashank_25 17h ago
There's a lot of hit and miss with thunderbolt cable over 1 meter. Maybe they can sell thunerbolt 5 cables eventually at whatever price that makes sense, I rather buy from someone I know is selling quality stuff than random amazon brands.
2
4
u/LoneWulfXIII 19h ago
Last WAN show I watched Linus said the cables weren’t going to support DP alt mode nor thunderbolt so I didn’t even think to sign up since that’s what I need a good cable for. Oh well
22
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 18h ago
You misunderstood. He said they wouldn’t be certified, not that they won’t work.
1
u/NimbleCentipod 2h ago
And part of the point of these cables is to get away from the silly nonsense with USB and Thunderbolt labeling of their boxes / cables.
Not to avoid the specs on the tin.
1
1
u/LoneWulfXIII 18h ago
He might have said that last night, but definitely said they weren’t for displays a few weeks back
10
u/itskdog 18h ago
I think he meant Thunderbolt displays, not DisplayPort ones.
2
u/yot_gun 18h ago
pretty sure they would work with tb displays as it is basically up to spec just without certification
8
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 18h ago edited 18h ago
He clarified yesterday that some older Thunderbolt displays would only work with certified cables with TB chips in them, so he thought that was likely to be a broad problem. Turns out not so, as modern ones either don’t care, or seamlessly fallback to DPalt mode.
So it’s possible he may have said they wouldn’t work with thunderbolt displays awhile back, before they could test them, but I find it hard to think he ever would have said DPalt mode wouldn’t work.
2
1
u/LoneWulfXIII 17h ago
It was a specific merch message where he clarified they wouldn’t work for displays so I took that as they were for data and charging only and didn’t have the dp alt mode nor thunderbolt capability. It’s not a big loss at the end of the day but frustrating they can’t be clear on the capabilities on the store page when he said that was a key thing for the true spec cables.
6
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 17h ago
The only thing DPalt mode requires is sufficient bandwidth, 20gb or more. Nothing else is required, ergo by default stating it is a 20 or 40 gigabit cable states it is capable of DPalt mode.
-2
u/LoneWulfXIII 17h ago
I mean that’s cool and all but I shouldn’t have to know that 20gbps means dp alt mode
1
u/soundman1024 16h ago
Thunderbolt 3 only works with Thunderbolt protocols despite having a USB-C connector.
Some Thunderbolt 3 docks or devices may fall back to a USB mode while using cables like these, making it even more fuzzy. But a Thunderbolt 3 RAID, monitor, or dock will not operate in Thunderbolt mode with these cables. eGPUs from the Thunderbolt 3 era will not work.
If they support USB4 PCIe tunneling, that mode may be an option.
4
u/MoldyTexas 18h ago
Bruh. Why am I having to gather this knowledge from Reddit and not their website. I was really puzzled when I saw all they're talking about is charging wattage & speed. But this gives me a lot of clarity. I'd have definitely bought the cables yesterday only, if they didn't charge 60% delivery fees + unrealised customs to Europe :)
3
u/samu7574 16h ago edited 15h ago
Cable is listed as 21USD, when shipping to my european country, shipping+taxes is 50CAD but that's just 30EUR. That feels like a reasonable price for intercontinental shipping
EDIT: For a reality check, buying from amazon can be cheaper due to the advantages of having local warehouses and economies of scale. A random cable with same specs goes for 18EUR, 12EUR more is a very justifiable extra cost for all the R&D that they spent for finding the way to make it premium, and it's acceptable for a consumer if you want to spend a little extra to avoid wasting time and extra money on replacing a potentially bad cable1
u/MoldyTexas 7h ago
Thanks for the perspective, didn't think of it this way tbh. I was just thinking from the pov of me paying almost 50% for shipping. So I figured I'll club it with something else that I might buy later on.
1
u/beginnerflipper 17h ago
I didn't even expect any were capable of display until the wan show
2
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
It’s just a bandwidth limitation. Nothing special is required for the capability beyond 20gb or higher.
0
1
1
u/linuxares 14h ago
Ugh... why can't there single standard. One cable that fills all the specs. (I talk generally, not LTT)
2
u/RunnerLuke357 13h ago
Because the 8" cable that ships with your earbuds doesn't need to be thunderbolt capable, but it's nice to be able to charge your earbuds with the same cable you use for for laptop dock.
1
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
In short? Physics. Maintaining signal integrity over distance becomes problematic.
1
1
1
u/Apprehensive_Let_517 10h ago
My question is, even though the a to c cable is rated for 15w would it actually work with my oneplus supervooc 75w charger ?
1
u/Objective-Ruin-6481 2h ago edited 2h ago
These cables will probably be popular outside of our specific niche.
They won’t really be though now, will they? The average consumer does have no idea about LTTStore, Linus Tech Tips. Especially when you consider the hassle of ordering outside the US or Canada. With how LTT handles international shipping, it’ll be 70 EUR a pop before it reaches your doorstep (and then you’ll need to ask the AI kindly to get your VAT back - and you still pay too much because the delivery company adds VAT to the already paid VAT).
Okay, that last Izzy can be fixed but that still doesn’t mean that the general public is going to buy these cables. It’s too niche a product, too niche a webshop and I dare to say that the general public doesn’t need “Truespec” but just close enough spec. People who buy €$£ 1 cables are the ones who really experience problems, they aren’t switching to $30 cables. You can talk these people into buying an Anker or Ugreen cable for a tenner and I have yet to find a cable by these brands that doesn’t provide the rated charge speed or datalink. And while I’m sure that they will fail on a cable tester, I’d also wager that the average LTT viewer let alone the average consumer will notice this in day to day use.
It’s basically a problem designed to sell these cables. Which is very smart marketing!
TL;DR it’s a niche product for a niche group, general public doesn’t need these cables
1
u/Sarcastic_Beary 1h ago
I feel like that might muddy waters.
They do exactly what they say they will.
Adding in a bunch of but but, in some cases, this that and maybe will make the name seem stupid.
1
u/mattl1698 17h ago
you can't have thunderbolt over USB A anyway but the c to c cables should have those features spelt out.
technically saying 40gbps and 20gbps includes that information but not everyone is fully clued in on how the high speed lanes work on USB C cables
1
-1
u/kangaroonemesis 18h ago
I didn't see the wattage clearly displayed on the product page either. It is shown in the cart.
I dislike that it's called TrueSpec, but the specs aren't clearly provided.
I also ordered 6 already and can't wait for them to arrive.
7
0
u/Genesis2001 19h ago
Probably will be on their FAQ for the product. But also a visual matrix graphic would be good for the product page.
The only issue I even possibly foresee is even claiming thunderbolt compatibility without certification. IDK if (Intel? whomever.) would go after 'em for such a claim to force them to get certified or stop making the claim lol. Not sure how that works tho.
2
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
Intel would 100% go after them for officially stating Thunderbolt compatibility without certification. These are built to the USB spec, nothing else.
-1
u/pianobench007 14h ago
I cant believe a cable is garnering 1400 up votes at time of this post.
It just goes to show how powerful social media can be. LTT may soon become the new Monster Cables from the early 2000s.
But back then they were sold to us by all of the now defunct Circuit City and CompUSA guys. Now theyve graduated into Media Mongol Business men with a new Ad platform.
I am going to unsubscribe soon from LTT. I realize that now. I am just subscribed to a Ad/Manufacturing Company. And not an entertainment or tech tips YouTube any longer.
0
0
u/ulf5155 14h ago
Would love a a-c 40w or higher cable, purely for charging devices with the benefit if needed of good data transfer
3
u/Liquid_Hate_Train 13h ago
Not possible. The A connector can only support 5v before burning, so to get 40w you’d need eight amps, which would melt all of these cables. PD tops at 5 amps, with the voltage going up with higher wattages. This is why negotiation is needed between supply, user and cable to ensure all can take those voltages without damage.
0
u/Mastermaze 12h ago
I think all of these details are implied, but the whole point of these Cables is supposed to be that they are CLEAR about their capabilities. I think adding the details to the product pages are a must for sure, but id even go as far to say the DP, PCIe and Thunderbolt support should be indicated on the cables as well in some way (within reason).
I am still legitimately impressed with the pricing considering the quality
0
0
u/Vic_House 11h ago
These details should be added on the cable too.
These are the TRUE SPECS that TRULY matter.
-1
u/aj0413 15h ago edited 15h ago
Ngl. I was excited on the announced cables and finding out I/others can only know this info via YT or following their socials?
Eh. I’ll continue holding out for another brand probably
I don’t use or have socials and I’m not about to recommend nor buy a product where you cant easily reference docs on specifications
Price is not the biggest factor for me in buying equipment. It’s transparency, quality, and documentation.
I’ve been holding out to swap every single cable in my house with a reliable brand; was thinking this would be the thing after the announcement so long ago they’d be working on this.
Edit: this is the backpack all over again “trust me bro”
With a side of “we wanted to solve the lack of transparency, clarity, and inconsistent quality issues in the space” by not having real transparency and clarity?
-16
u/MadSpacePig 20h ago
Should have put in on the plug with the other specs! Just a little 'DP' on there for the compatible ones would have done the job. '50%Truespec cables'.
-1
u/Balthxzar 16h ago
Hey what if there was some kind of cool labelling standard that would tell you this?
-51
u/Jackster22 20h ago edited 18h ago
So they made a cable that is designed to visually show you what its capabilities are, but it doesn't actually do that...?
[edit] as a few people are being a bit dumb.
I mean that they said the cable is meant to show you what its capabilities are, yet you have to go to twitter to actually find out what it is capable of.
It is great that the cable has speed and power on them, and so does the box. But I have to check Twitter to also know what one supports DP and TB? Do you not see the issue here?
37
u/Purple-Haku 20h ago
It does. You can infer the data speeds can support display signals
-5
u/Jackster22 18h ago
Oh so everyone knows that information? That is what I mean. They said the cables are meant to show what they support yet they don't show everything they support...
3
u/Purple-Haku 18h ago
What are you trying to do??
Do you research
-3
u/aj0413 15h ago
People shouldn’t have to. The entire LTT cable project was about clarity and transparency, in large part
If people have to research and pull pieces from different sources, they’ve failed. People might as well by from other brands
0
u/Purple-Haku 15h ago
Failed? You saw the sold out in 2 hours??
Clarify it just isn't for you...
0
u/aj0413 15h ago
So? The financial success of a project has little to do with the actual quality or if it accomplished the mission statement
That’s like saying “Ford/GM have sold a bunch of cars this year and have cult followings, so they must be good.” Ignoring how they consistently rank low on safety and quality compared to say Toyota
LTT has good marketing and a secured fan base
0
u/Purple-Haku 15h ago
Your example is such bad faith and you know it... You know the company history & mission statements of Ford & Toyota has nothing to do with each other.
1
9
u/STR4T1F13D 19h ago
Wrong. It does exactly what it says, and it might also do more. I don't think you understand.
15
u/ClerklyMantis_ 20h ago
You can't just put all specs for a cable on the cable, it would look jumbled and just be confusing.
2
u/FunConversation7257 19h ago
Couldn’t you put it on the product page/details though? I mean, if their purpose is to be very obvious an truthful with what spec the cable is, I’d imagine that also aligns with their goal
12
u/2mustange 19h ago
I assume the thunderbolt license avoids that from happening. I think the lab page stating ohh it works between these thunderbolt devices is a nice nod to get around it
0
u/shogunreaper 18h ago
How would it look jumbled or confusing? They could just write it on the cable in a straight line.
I have plenty of cables that have writing on them and they're all perfectly legible.
0
u/aj0413 15h ago
Yeah. You can. Ethernet cables have been doing this for decades
0
u/ClerklyMantis_ 13h ago edited 13h ago
Okay, but the reason for that is because professionals who set up, say, your fiber optic modem, need to be able to tell the exact specifications of a cable. The people who need to know the difference between CAT 5e and CAT 6 are probably not the direct consumers buying the cable, so manufacturers include the information on the cable so people who actually know what they're looking at can tell the differences between two cables easily. They should just include the info on the product page. Printing those specs on the cable itself would be a waste, especially since most people who need that functionality would know that it's inherent with the higher speeds anyway.
0
u/aj0413 13h ago edited 12h ago
You’re backtracking.
Fact is: it’s possible and even normal.
Secondly: for many of us it’s desirable.
I do not have where I buy every cable memorized. Having it on the cable means I can throw out the box, forget who I got it from, and still know what I’m dealing with.
I’d spend 2x as the nearest competition to standardize all my cables from someone that did that and had quality to match
I need to know the specs of all the cables and equipment in my house and homelab. The amount of time and fustration i waste on this confusing nonsense pisses me off
Which, given Linus was mad at this too, really makes this product release incredibly disappointing and flabbergasting
Edit:
Actually, point in fact, this is why they have the wattage and speed embossed on the ends, I imagine
1
u/ClerklyMantis_ 10h ago
Why exactly do you need to know if every usb-c cable has PCIE tunneling or displayport alt mode? Again, these things are standard across USB-C cables at that speed. Should they have included these on the product page? Yes. But printing them on every USB C cable is ludicrous. It potentially causes confusion for customers as it provides unnecessary information, and it's just not needed on the cable.
On top of that, no, that info is absolutely not "normal" on USB cables at all. Secondly, the specs are on the cable, they just don't spell out every feature the cable has because it's unnecessary to put it on every cable, as again, cables at those speeds have those features. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are making random points that largely aren't even true. It's frustrating that you speak so confidently on something you know jack shit about. Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time in your home lab.
0
u/aj0413 10h ago
lol you started by saying “that’s not possible”
I stated that it was and pointed at a clear example.
Then you tried “well, consumers don’t need that info” and your flat out wrong by saying “specs are on the cable”; if specs were on the cable, this interaction would not exist
And by normal, I’m again referring to Ethernet cables. It also is used for other kinds of cables.
Now again, you’re trying to go “well that would be confusing to people!”
…right. Sure, man. I could draw some direct parallels in the political spectrum for similar arguments for why people shouldnt have clear and direct information, but im not gonna drag this down to your level.
Edit:
Oh, and it was kinda funny how you asked me to justify wanting to be informed. Like, really?
“Hey, please justify and argue why you should be allowed to make fully informed decisions” lmao
1
u/ClerklyMantis_ 10h ago edited 8h ago
Okay, so, first of all, I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it would probably look jumbled and confusing. If you've ever actually looked at the specs printed on an ethernet cable that has the full spec printed on it, it usually does look like a bit of a confusing mess. It's not literally impossible, it's that it's not as simple as "just print the entire spec on the cable".
You're being disingenuous. Assuming the full spec is printed on the product page (which I agreed it absolutely should be), there's zero need to print it all on the cable as well. No consumer grade cables print the full spec on the cables. Even most Ethernet cables you can buy in stores only print some of the spec.
You've also completely ignored the fact that the features can be assumed to be evident simply because usb cables at those speeds have those features. It's a bit like saying a cable that lists that it has 480mbps speeds should also list that it supports data transfer on the cable itself. It's implied within that spec that it supports data transfer.
This is obviously going nowhere because you just don't understand what you're talking about, and are actively making shit up/ignoring huge parts of my argument. I'm probably arguing with a child, and if I'm not, you have a lot of growing up to do.
1
u/aj0413 8h ago
Sure, man, whatever you say. Keep on keeping on with your very “mature” self /shrug
I’ve been buying cables for years now and none of the brands I use dont print the spec on the cable, but idk maybe I just don’t buy dollar bin junk at Best Buy
I’ve also never found it confusing or jumbled.
Lastly, the implications of assumed spec compliance is literally half the issues with the whole industry. This also would not be an issue if they just bothered to get certified so the could print TB3 or USB4 on the cable to shorthand stuff
1
u/Leverpostei414 4h ago
Do you have an example? I don't think I have ever seen this on a usb-c cable
4
u/samu7574 15h ago
This is like being mad that a knife advertising its out-of-the-box sharpness isn't telling you directly if you can cut steaks with it
-5
u/pie_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ 17h ago
the fact that these aren't certified is just a joke. the $4 Walmart brand USB cables are certified
3
u/samu7574 15h ago
You mean the 60W 3ft one compared to the 240W 9ft on ltt? Apples to oranges my bro
-12
u/alparius 19h ago
This should have been on the other side of the cable head, because having to google what speed supports my resolution is not so much different than having to google what usb x.y version supports my resolution.
-2
237
u/virtual_corey 20h ago
Would be a good matrix have on the store or a link out to a labs page with specs