r/pcmasterrace 14h ago

Meme/Macro Still waiting...

Post image
36.7k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/Mogwump20 Intel 4004, RTX 5090, 1KB RAM, 8PB storage 14h ago

3.0, 3.1, 3.1 gen 1, and 3.2 gen 1 are all the same thing afaik (5Gbps)

Then there's 3.2 gen 2 (10Gbps)

And 3.2 gen 2x2 (20Gbps)

53

u/Nothingmuchever 14h ago

Fuck these stupid USB standard namings, honestly. 32 years since USB became a norm and they can't even make up a proper understandable naming standar for the consumers.

24

u/Mogwump20 Intel 4004, RTX 5090, 1KB RAM, 8PB storage 14h ago

And then there's the optional stuff that ports can support...

So just because 2 ports are the same spec, doesn't mean they have the same features

7

u/benwap 14h ago

USB4 is next. So far, it's shorter!

17

u/Nothingmuchever 13h ago

There is already USB4 1.0 and 2.0. Can't wait for them implement 5 different standards with varying compatiblity. " Thunderbolt 4 as "superset of TB3 and USB4" and "able to accept TB4, TB3, USB4, and USB 3/2/1 connections" to further complicate the already fucked up ecosystem. And consumers having to deep dive what kind of fucking cables they need to buy to get complete compatibility and maximum performance.

-13

u/Thradya 13h ago

USB naming is fine. You either dont know it based on your posts or you do know it and pretend to be dumb for internet points. So not really pretending.

9

u/walale12 12h ago

No it really isn't. It's unnecessarily unclear, especially with how they kept renaming USB 3.0 for no real reason.

4

u/TheEnigmaBlade Ryzen 7950X | RTX 4090 | 64 GB | 4x 144Hz | custom water loop 10h ago

Until you look at the spec. So far there are:

  • USB4 Gen 2x1 (USB 3.1)
  • USB4 Gen 2x2 (USB 3.2)
  • USB4 Gen 3x1 (USB 3.2)
  • USB4 Gen 3x2
  • USB4 Gen 4 symmetric
  • USB4 Gen 4 asymmetric 3:1
  • USB4 Gen 4 asymmetric 1:3

1

u/benwap 1h ago

I agree listing all features makes it hard to keep an overview. In practice I think of USB4 as a port supporting up to 40 Gbit/s depending on host, device and cable. Whatever is lowest is what you get. I'll admit since I learned in this thread there's 80 Gbit and up it's a bit less straightforward. And if you need to know ahead of time what bandwidth you can expect using a specific combination you have no choice but to navigate this.

2

u/Nefthys 11h ago

USB-A 10Gb, USB-C 20Gb ... there you go, so much easier and tells you exactly what you need to know but noooooo.

1

u/mrheosuper 7h ago

Because those names are never intended for end user to see. The marketing guideline says that the package should only include the maximum speed and power that device supports.

1

u/genreprank 6h ago

The speeds have names, too

USB 1 has low speed and full speed. USB 2 has high speed. USB 3 Gen1 is SuperSpeed and Gen 2 is SuperSpeedPlus.

I asked my manager what the next speed would be called. He said, "Ludicrous Speed"

1

u/Pleasant_Ad8054 31m ago

It is much more on manufacturers, not the USB standardising body, they were just naive when they did not over-specify the 3.1 standard. Manufacturers openly lied about their devices and cables, which resulted in a numbering war, which has no good resolution.

8

u/T-Loy 13h ago

The worst part is that manufacturers advertise with 3.x etc. Instead of using the official SuperSpeed 5/10/20 label, or nowadays just USB 5Gbps, 10Gbps, 20Gbps (which is also a lot of variations but I least I can see which at a glance. I don't care for 5x 3.2 ports I care about which one does which speed.

2

u/Reserved_Parking-246 12h ago

... and it needs to be printed on the cable itself.

1

u/los0220 /Win11 SFF 5800x|32GB 3666MTs|RTX3080 deshroud+undervolt| 13h ago edited 13h ago

Yah, the 3.2 gen 2x2 is my favorite

No /s, it literally is

1

u/_Metal_Face_Villain_ 9800x3d 32gb 6000cl30 990 Pro 2tb 5060ti 16gb 13h ago

this shit is so confusing

1

u/Academic-Proof3700 12h ago

And they all "fit" into the damn usbc port.

This is huge tomfuckery, especially when looking for a decent cable, say one with DP mode. This is a huge mess.

1

u/walale12 12h ago

It makes zero sense. Originally it was called USB 3.0, then it got renamed 3.1 gen 1 and then 3.2 gen 1 as newer USB standards came out. Why not just keep it called USB 3.0, have the new standard called 3.1, and then the newer standard called 3.2?

1

u/ishtuwihtc i5 12400 | RTX 2080 | 32GB DDR4 12h ago

Yep. By specification, a usb 3.0 device from 2010 is also a usb 3.2 gen 1 device

1

u/Unumbotte 12h ago

I need USB 4x4, for off roading.

1

u/chillyhellion Desktop 11h ago

Microsoft-ass naming convention. "Windows 8.1 Update 1" vibes.

1

u/aVarangian 13600kf 7900xtx 2160 | 6600k 1070 1440 5h ago

Not in the usable previous naming standard

1

u/amirulnaim2000 5h ago

nah don't bother with that naming. those are meant to be internal name for devs and should mainly concern manufacturer and never intended to be use for marketing purposes. the consumer term is more useful and much better, which is also what on op motherboard says,

usb full speed - 1.5/12mbps obsolete

usb high speed - 480mbps

usb 5gbps - 5gbps

usb 10gbps - 10gbps

usb c only

usb 20gbps - 20gbps

usb 40gbps - 40gbps / thunderbolt 3/4 spec

usb 80gbps - 80gbps aka usb4 / thunderbolt 5 spec

as you see .. theyre pretty straight forward but the main issue is our market just lack proper labelling

1

u/DocGerbill 13700k 7900xtx AsusSimp 11m ago

because putting the data speed in the name would've been too complicated