USB 3.2 standard to absorb USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 specifications

[HEXUS]

So you will get USB 3.2 Gen 1, USB 3.2 Gen 2, and USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 ports and interfaces.

Read more.

[ETR316]

"The USB Implementers Forum outlined the USB 3.2 spec back in July 2017. too slow to release. someone please replace these engineers. Keep in mind they worked for years on the 3.2 spec before 2017. GET RID of SLOW workers. The world needs FASTER creation, KEEP UP.

[will19565]

Why not go for.
USB 3.2 5Gbps
USB 3.2 10Gbps
USB 3.2 20Gbps

Simple, clear and easy to interpret.

[DevDrake]

Why not go for.
USB 3.2 5Gbps
USB 3.2 10Gbps
USB 3.2 20Gbps

Simple, clear and easy to interpret.

Too easy, hard to confuse customers.

[ik9000]

Why not go for.
USB 3@5Gbps
USB 3@10Gbps
USB 3@20Gbps

Simple, clear and easy to interpret.

You can simplify that further as above. I agree, that really is all it needed.

[Iota]

Unfortunately such branding will remain on kit you might already own, of course, serving to confuse…

I'm confused. No seriously, I really am. What's the point in this exactly aside from to confuse consumers further? I consider myself fairly tech savvy, however even I'm starting to have trouble keeping up with 3.0, 3.1 gen 1, 3.1 gen 2, usb-c etc etc.

Can't they just keep things simple? You know, USB 3. USB 4. USB 5. USB 6. Otherwise we'll end up with tons of differentiation that becomes meaningless, much like Intel naming schemes....

[philehidiot]

I'm confused. No seriously, I really am. What's the point in this exactly aside from to confuse consumers further? I consider myself fairly tech savvy, however even I'm starting to have trouble keeping up with 3.0, 3.1 gen 1, 3.1 gen 2, usb-c etc etc.

Can't they just keep things simple? You know, USB 3. USB 4. USB 5. USB 6. Otherwise we'll end up with tons of differentiation that becomes meaningless, much like Intel naming schemes....

This is going the same way as Wifi but at a faster rate. The simplest way to do this is to rate all computer stuff using a CF (Chooch Factor) rating all the way from 0-9 but the best of the best being rated at MC[date]. MC = MAX CHOOCH! and the date gives the customer an idea of how relevant that is. USB MC 2007 is obviously going to be different to USB MC 2019 and the customer is then prompted to look at the throughput figures. So if I got WiFi CF 5 2015 I would know that this was mid range tech in 2015 and is likely to have been well surpassed by now and this prompts me to to the Sherlock Holmes routine on the more technical specifications to see how tech has changed and to ensure enough enginerding has been done for backwards compatibility and that what you are buying is indeed the cockford 'olly.

All creativity and inventiveness stolen from AvE.

[Iota]

MC = MAX CHOOCH!

Even your naming scheme works better than what they're coming up with, offer your services to them please!

[OilSheikh]

So, what's USB-C then ?

[peterb]

So, what's USB-C then ?

A physical connector that is capable of implementing the USB 3.2 protocol, as well as supporting power delivery/charging etc.

[HollyDOL]

Tbh it starts to look like they should remove 'Universal' out of the name.

[philehidiot]

USB-C under my naming scheme would be USB-[Chinesium] which would indicate that this part is of the finest Chinesium quality and should be considered as such.

[DanceswithUnix]

Tbh it starts to look like they should remove 'Universal' out of the name.

Why? Just plug stuff in and don't worry about the naming.



But 20Gb/s, once again making my 1gb Ethernet port look laughable.

[raygdunn]

Am I right in thinking that the throughput of one software connection is still the same at 10Gbps, but you can have two of them operating on different USB cable wires simultaneously (the "dual lane")? I get the feeling you might not be immediately be obtaining a speed increase.

[LSG501]

Why not go for.
USB 3.2 5Gbps
USB 3.2 10Gbps
USB 3.2 20Gbps

Simple, clear and easy to interpret.

To be fair they could have just mandated ONE single spec for USB 3.2 rather than having multiple levels...called it USB 3.2 and made sure all cables can support the 20GBPS.. then to be called 3.2 on the desktop/laptop it needs to support the 20Gbps, seeing as iirc 3.1 supports 10Gbps.

What we get (as usual) is 3 different specs, which on the packaging will just be called 3.2 and we'll likely need to hunt the small print to find which one it is...

[Kumagoro]

I just skim read this but is it that they are just renaming USB 3.0 and 3.1 to 3.2 + something.

I feel like I must be missing something because why not just keep it 3.0 3.1 and 3.2. Is there something more to this and there is something technically different??? Or is USB 3.2 Gen 1 exactly the same as USB 3.0 in that if a product states USB 3.2 support it is actually just using some USB 3.0 chipset?