Read more.Quote:
Incremental update defines multi-lane operation for up to 2GBps transfers.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Incremental update defines multi-lane operation for up to 2GBps transfers.
USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Gen 1 is exactly the same thing or protocol, to be precise. Thanks for that confusion, USB IF!
Not confusing, on the other hand is USB Type C, which is a connector and enables fun stuff like the DisplayPort and ThunderBolt alternate modes. AFAIK, when it comes to "goold old" USB data transfer USB Type A, which still the most common connector, can do USB 3.1 Gen 2 just as well.
Oh, and I almost forgot USB PD for power delivery.
As I see it the main boon of USB 3.2 is that it does away with the USB Type A connector. And the added speed, of course.
Oh how we all love .x updates to specifications..... I really wish the people responsible for specs would look a little more to the future of what it might need rather than having to do these tiny incremental updates that should have been there to start with....
That would be the way to make sure that specifications never get released as they are never good enough and the world evolves as fast as the spec can try and track it so the spec can never catch up.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
"The best is the enemy of the good", Voltaire worked out that chasing perfection is seldom worth it, some things are unchanging across the centuries.
Type C only, nice hopefully this will push board manufacturers to add more Type C ports.
I'd personally rather have a delay than have 3 different 3.x specs floating around at the same time.... and it's not like anything they're adding couldn't have been foreseen with a small bit of thinking ahead.... it's not hard to realise that more speed is always useful so 'over spec that' to start with and arguably the same goes for 'multi lane operation' which is kind of way everything is going on the pc at the moment when trying to get more performance etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Agreed here, the point of USB is to have a universal solution for everyone, releasing many variants of the same thing does not equal universal (backwards compatibility ignored for a minute) since people won't all be getting the same thing even when their motherboard maker lists "3.1". Adoption would be much easier if the changes came much less often, with more foresight. I'm sure there's an economies of scale manufacturing argument here too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
To all those complaining about USB being implemented incrementally:
The alternative is to spec out an interface that is ahead of it's time to such an extent that only a small minority will need the speed it provides and everyone else can't afford it. Then the cost to manufacture doesn't come down because it's not made in sufficient quantities... AKA thunderbolt!
I do agree that they could do much better with the naming conventions though.
USB 3.0 was released in 2008. Delaying USB 3 until the 3.2 improvements were ready would have meant everyone running USB 2.0 for 9 years extra.Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG501
ETA: in 2008, the very first i7 processors were launched. Predicting eGPU is just a small bit of thinking ahead, though!
Yay ANOTHER new cable to buy.
How can you ignore that even for a minute? I am typing this on a Gateway early USB keyboard and Gateway went out of business decades ago, yet it is plugged into the USB3 hub of a monitor which is plugged into a USB2 PC port and IT ALL JUST WORKS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
As long as they can keep up the backwards compatibility then it is all good, the alternative to keeping the standard up to date is stagnation not some clean utopia.