USB group announces USB 3.2

[NumLock21]

The people over at the USB office have just came up with another update to the existing USB protocol. Called USB 3.2, where now it supports multi-lane operation. What that mean is, with the supported host and device, 5GB/s or 10Gb/s can now get double the bandwidth to 10Gb/s or 20Gb/s, over existing Superspeed or Superspeed+ certified type C cable. The new USB 3.2 specs, should be finalized at the end of this year. Devices that supports it, might start to appear in 2018.

 

Quote

• Two-lane operation using existing USB Type-C™ cables
• Continued use of existing SuperSpeed USB physical layer data rates and encoding techniques
• Minor update to hub specification to address increased performance and assure seamless transitions between single and two-lane operation

 

 

PDF

http://www.usb.org/press/USB-IF_Press_Releases/USB_3.2_specification_published_USB-IF_PR_FINAL.pdf

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/usb-3-2-specification-published-and-announced.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/usb-3.2-2gbps-speeds-usb-type-c,35567.html

 

 

[Bananasplit_00]

nice, doubbeling the speed is a pretty freaking nice improcement

[Mooshi]

I want to get hype at the on paper numbers, but all the usb stuff is either peripherals which don't benefit. The odd time I use a flash drive and the even less used hard drive dock.

 

What is the real benefit for typical user over 3.0 and 3.1? Data transfer makes me think external drives, but slow platter drives and I would just connect SSDs internally. Super fast transfer between smart phones maybe?

[WMGroomAK]

So they are achieving the data speed doubling by adding a second SuperSpeed pin set?  Does that mean it will be sending data over in parallel or serial to achieve that data rate?  Appreciate the improved data rates, however, I'm wondering how long before they achieve parity with the latest iteration of Thunderbolt...  Also appreciate that they are keeping the number of connector types down to Type A, B-Micro & C.  Finally do away with that blasted B-Mini connector...

[luckydog32]

This just reminds how far SATA has fallen behind.

[NumLock21]

5 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

So they are achieving the data speed doubling by adding a second SuperSpeed pin set?  Does that mean it will be sending data over in parallel or serial to achieve that data rate?  Appreciate the improved data rates, however, I'm wondering how long before they achieve parity with the latest iteration of Thunderbolt...  Also appreciate that they are keeping the number of connector types down to Type A, B-Micro & C.  Finally do away with that blasted B-Mini connector...

I think the pins is already there, but not used it. So now with USB 3.2, it uses that extra pin.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

What is the real benefit for typical user over 3.0 and 3.1? Data transfer makes me think external drives, but slow platter drives and I would just connect SSDs internally. Super fast transfer between smart phones maybe?

At the port, none really. At the controller, it more bandwidth for your devices, in case there is a bottleneck.

 

3 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

So they are achieving the data speed doubling by adding a second SuperSpeed pin set?  Does that mean it will be sending data over in parallel or serial to achieve that data rate?  Appreciate the improved data rates, however, I'm wondering how long before they achieve parity with the latest iteration of Thunderbolt...  Also appreciate that they are keeping the number of connector types down to Type A, B-Micro & C.  Finally do away with that blasted B-Mini connector...

Data will be sent in parallel on devices that support it.

 

And I think we'll see USB hit 40Gbps in no less than 10 years and we'll be beyond TB3 by then.

[Guest]

Type-C will be more wonderful once iPhones and budget android phones move over to Type-C. At least the 2nd one has seen the more progress. Lets not forget the several new flagship phones that are still utilizing the 2.0 specification.

[WMGroomAK]

14 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Data will be sent in parallel on devices that support it.

 

And I think we'll see USB hit 40Gbps in no less than 10 years and we'll be beyond TB3 by then.

Maybe it's just me, but if it is sending data parallel or in a parallel-serial combo then I get a bit of a chuckle over the whole Universal 'Serial' Bus...  I also seriously hope it doesn't take them that long to catch up to TB3 considering that a Type-C connector can handle the 40 Gbps data rates...  

[Drak3]

Just now, WMGroomAK said:

Maybe it's just me, but if it is sending data parallel or in a parallel-serial combo then I get a bit of a chuckle over the whole Universal 'Serial' Bus...  I also seriously hope it doesn't take them that long to catch up to TB3 considering that a Type-C connector can handle the 40 Gbps data rates...  

It's not really different from the concept PCIe uses. Multiple serial lanes that can be operated at a minimum single lane capacity.

 

I doubt that there will be many USB 3.2 ports on devices that have 3.2 controllers at first. I think it's more likely to just see more ports or less bottlenecking with users that use a shit ton of USB devices.

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, tjcater said:

Type-C will be more wonderful once iPhones and budget android phones move over to Type-C. At least the 2nd one has seen the more progress. Lets not forget the several new flagship phones that are still utilizing the 2.0 specification.

Problem is that type-C is a connector which is a completely separate entity from the USB protocol itself. That means further adoption will not lead to any change in speed. That's why flagships still run USB 2.0 as you say. It's up to the device maker to put a better USB controller inside. Best case scenario a potential iPhone with type-C (I don't think Apple will switch though) and a 5/10/20 Gb/s controller would push others to adopt faster USB controllers but I doubt it. Seems like an afterthought and that the connector is the important part to device makers.

[Guest]

Just now, Trixanity said:

Problem is that type-C is a connector which is a completely separate entity from the USB protocol itself. That means further adoption will not lead to any change in speed. That's why flagships still run USB 2.0 as you say. It's up to the device maker to put a better USB controller inside. Best case scenario a potential iPhone with type-C (I don't think Apple will switch though) and a 5/10/20 Gb/s controller would push others to adopt faster USB controllers but I doubt it. Seems like an afterthought and that the connector is the important part to device makers.

True, though a few manufacturers have already started using 3.0 controllers from the start (Of using type-c). Doubt the other manufactures will care much beyond another spec checkbox to fill .

[GoodBytes]

3 hours ago, luckydog32 said:

This just reminds how far SATA has fallen behind.

SATA is still faster than USB. SATA doesn't need contently your CPU to manage the USB data transfer, which the CPU need to request status like a maniac to know when a file transfer to send the next one. SATA has its own processor to deal with this, and has less overhead than USB. Hence why SATA will always be faster than USB. USB was designed to be dirt cheap. SATA was designed to be fast, low overhead, and doesn't need the CPU to handle tasks, beside requesting the main instructions. SATA is relatively expensive compared to USB, especially back in the early days, due to that extra processor needed., This is also one of the reasons why eSATA never took off, same for Firewire.

 

SATA issue is reaching the same max speeds as USB. And this is probably because SATA 3 reached the max of what the SATA cable and connector can reach. So, perhaps a new technology is needed. And this is where PCIe drives with NVMe comes in. I won't be surprised if a location for PCIe NVMe drives on the motherboard becomes standard. Like behind the motherboard, and cases have a cut out for accessing the drives.

[Misanthrope]

Hey, dipshits: More numbers fucking exist. There's literally and endless supply of them: why do you keep this retarded fucking scheme? 3.0, 3.1 3.1 gen 2, 3.2.

 

Here try this:

 

Spoiler

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc.

 

[Jade]

31 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Hey, dipshits: More numbers fucking exist. There's literally and endless supply of them: why do you keep this retarded fucking scheme? 3.0, 3.1 3.1 gen 2, 3.2.

 

Here try this:

 

  Hide contents

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc.

 

I can't wait for USB three billion, two hundred and forty-seven million, six hundred and eighty-seven thousand, three hundred and twenty-four.

[Misanthrope]

59 minutes ago, Jade said:

I can't wait for USB three billion, two hundred and forty-seven million, six hundred and eighty-seven thousand, three hundred and twenty-four.

What, is it worst than USB 3.2 Gen 3 Version 2 revision C Type B double bandwidth type A with extended speed boost Gen 4 type A revision C with integrated flash version 11.4.45 version 4 Generation 3 revision B type C mode 4 version A revision B Generation 2.3?

[DragonTamer1]

Wish they had thought of something, anything better to call it.

 

I still don't own a single USB 3 capable flash drive and probably never will. All of my data transfers take place over my network which is faster and more continent. I know that not everyone has that luxury (though some posts on the forum would lead you to believe otherwise). If I plan on going somewhere else, I typically make sure that the device I'm taking has enough internal storage to hold what I need. If not, it can probably be streamed.

[captain_to_fire]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Hey, dipshits: More numbers fucking exist. There's literally and endless supply of them: why do you keep this retarded fucking scheme? 3.0, 3.1 3.1 gen 2, 3.2.

They'll probably use the nane "USB 4.0" when it's 100 Gbps 

[The Benjamins]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Hey, dipshits: More numbers fucking exist. There's literally and endless supply of them: why do you keep this retarded fucking scheme? 3.0, 3.1 3.1 gen 2, 3.2.

 

Here try this:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc.

 

X.0 is for big changes, and 0.X is for small changes. this update has 0 speed improvements per lane, it is just a standard to use all the Type-c pins for data.

[Master Disaster]

5 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Hey, dipshits: More numbers fucking exist. There's literally and endless supply of them: why do you keep this retarded fucking scheme? 3.0, 3.1 3.1 gen 2, 3.2.

 

Here try this:

 

  Hide contents

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc.

 

It's a revision to an existing standard, not a new standard. That's how version numbering works.

[Misanthrope]

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

It's a revision to an existing standard, not a new standard. That's how version numbering works.

That's the thinking of an engineer that doesn't gets human beings will use the product. You know what the people need to know? 1, 2, 3, 4. The 4 is the newest and is the largest number henceforth the best and fastest.

 

Engineers can discuss version and revision numbers all they want but people can't possibly keep up. Hell I can't barely keep up and I have like over 13 fucking thousand replies on a tech forum.

[Sniperfox47]

14 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I won't be surprised if a location for PCIe NVMe drives on the motherboard becomes standard. Like behind the motherboard, and cases have a cut out for accessing the drives.

You mean like perhaps a small slot with a 2x or 4x PCIe connections that lays flat against the board and then screws the drive in? We could call it like... next gen form factor! Or M.2 for short xP

 

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's the thinking of an engineer that doesn't gets human beings will use the product. You know what the people need to know? 1, 2, 3, 4. The 4 is the newest and is the largest number henceforth the best and fastest.

 

Engineers can discuss version and revision numbers all they want but people can't possibly keep up. Hell I can't barely keep up and I have like over 13 fucking thousand replies on a tech forum.

The problem is people see different versions and assume it's different. A ton of people were confused about whether USB 2.0 stuff would work with USB 3.0.

 

The fact of the matter is that USB 3.2, or even 3.1gen2 doesn't matter for most people. It's still USB 3. It will still work with all your USB 3 stuff. A USB 3.2 flash drive is no better than a USB 3.1gen1 flash drive. It's just USB 3.

 

Marketing 3.1gen1, 3.1gen2, and 3.2 as 4, 5, and 6 etc just would cause more marketing headaches. Consumers would actively avoid USB 2.0 devices because "why would I buy a version 2 thing when we're already on version 6!" There would be even more confusion about speeds "why is my version 4 drive the same speed as my version 3 drive?".

 

17 hours ago, tjcater said:

Lets not forget the several new flagship phones that are still utilizing the 2.0 specification.

Because USB 2.0 controllers are still far more power efficient than USB 3.0 controllers.

[Drak3]

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The 4 is the newest and is the largest number henceforth the best and fastest.

3.2 is the largest number as far as USB protocol is concerned...

 

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You mean like perhaps a small slot with a 2x or 4x PCIe connections that lays flat against the board and then screws the drive in? We could call it like... next gen form factor! Or M.2 for short xP

No, too universal and standardized. We need 15 competing standards that make no sense and offer nothing over one another.

[Misanthrope]

13 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You mean like perhaps a small slot with a 2x or 4x PCIe connections that lays flat against the board and then screws the drive in? We could call it like... next gen form factor! Or M.2 for short xP

 

The problem is people see different versions and assume it's different. A ton of people were confused about whether USB 2.0 stuff would work with USB 3.0.

 

The fact of the matter is that USB 3.2, or even 3.1gen2 doesn't matter for most people. It's still USB 3. It will still work with all your USB 3 stuff. A USB 3.2 flash drive is no better than a USB 3.1gen1 flash drive. It's just USB 3.

 

Marketing 3.1gen1, 3.1gen2, and 3.2 as 4, 5, and 6 etc just would cause more marketing headaches. Consumers would actively avoid USB 2.0 devices because "why would I buy a version 2 thing when we're already on version 6!" There would be even more confusion about speeds "why is my version 4 drive the same speed as my version 3 drive?".

 

Because USB 2.0 controllers are still far more power efficient than USB 3.0 controllers.

So the problem about people being confused by different numbers is solved by introducing even more complex naming schemes? That's the opposite of solving the issue of too much complexity for end users.

 

The technical side isn't the problem here: You have got to find a better way to present this shit to people: Device manufacturers specifying "Works with USB 2 through 4" would suffice instead of having to look up a fucking wikipedia article to find out what kind of performance you can get out of your new device with your current version.

[Sniperfox47]

16 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The technical side isn't the problem here: You have got to find a better way to present this shit to people: Device manufacturers specifying "Works with USB 2 through 4" would suffice instead of having to look up a fucking wikipedia article to find out what kind of performance you can get out of your new device with your current version.

Most users don't care. Like the vast vast vast majority of users couldn't be half bothered to give a flying rats bottom what the bandwidth on USB 3.2 is. They just see "bigger number is faster. Oh that number is a lot bigger, will it work? Let's ask sales associate X who has no idea what he's talking about anyways."