USB Promoter Group Announces USB4® Version 2.0

[Eigenvektor]

Summary

USB4 will receive a speed update (80 Gbps). Keeping to their tradition of braindead versioning, the USB Promoter Group has chosen to call it USB4 2.0.

 

Quotes

Quote

The USB Promoter Group today announced the pending release of the USB4^® Version 2.0 specification, a major update to enable up to 80 Gbps of data performance over the USB Type-C^® cable and connector. The USB Type-C and USB Power Delivery (USB PD) specifications will also be updated to enable this higher level of data performance. All of these specification updates are expected to be published in advance of this year’s series of USB DevDays developer events planned for November.

 

My thoughts

Do those guys (and gals) seriously not understand how versioning works? It's nice to see new tech, why use this completely weird naming though...

 

Sources

• https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220901005211/en/USB-Promoter-Group-Announces-USB4®-Version-2.0
• https://www.tomshardware.com/news/usb-4-version-2-announced-80gbps

[Senzelian]

This shit is getting better and better. 

 

Time to add that nonsense to my signature:
 

05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0, 3.1 Gen1)

10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 (USB 3.1 Gen2)

20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 

40Gb/s - USB 4.0, Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4

80Gb/s - USB 4 2.0, Thunderbolt 5

[AbydosOne]

5 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

USB4 2.0

They really missed the chance to re-sub-brand as "Firewire2" because "now it's blazing (fast)"

[RONOTHAN##]

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

USB Promoter Group has chosen to call it USB4 2.0.

So let me get this straight, we now have USB 420? 

 

Someone must've had a field day. 

[johnt]

Does it matter? I transferred 130 GBs of photos from my SSD to a portable NVME drive and it took a whopping 6 minutes. That's insane! I've over these ratings and labels.

 

I still can't get any of my keyboards to work with USB C to C cables regardless of polarity or cable specification.

[manikyath]

11 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

the USB Promoter Group has chosen to call it USB4 2.0

It should be illegal for a commitee to think of a name this bad.

 

EDIT: hire the idiot that thought of the acer buh-midge-qua-fuzz-x" and put them in charge of USB names, because they will be better. (i actually spent 10 minutes finding a reference on it...)

Spoiler

 

 

[pythonmegapixel]

So is there any standard numbered USB4-1.0, or not? I've lost track of this bull***t.

 

Look, USB Forum, how about you just have one version number. It starts at 1.0.  If there's a minor revision to the current standard, it goes to 1.1, then 1.2, and so on. If there's a new standard it goes to 2.0, then 3.0, then so on. Just like everything else. And absolutely NO rebranding previously named versions as something else, OK?

 

It really shouldn't be that hard.

[Senzelian]

1 minute ago, pythonmegapixel said:

So is there any standard numbered USB4-1.0, or not? I've lost track of this bull***t.

 

Look, USB Forum, how about you just have one version number. It starts at 1.0.  If there's a minor revision to the current standard, it goes to 1.1, then 1.2, and so on. If there's a new standard it goes to 2.0, then 3.0, then so on. Just like everything else. And absolutely NO rebranding previously named versions as something else, OK?

 

It really shouldn't be that hard.

What's so hard about understanding that USB 3.0 went to USB 3.1 Gen 1 and then USB 3.2 Gen 1. So easy! 

[LAwLz]

Another thread about USB naming standards where people who clearly doesn't understand why the names are the way they are or how complex the USB spec is gives uneducated opinions and think they are sooo funny... 

 

The old naming scheme was fine and perfectly logical.

This one is a bit weird at a surface level at least, but I'll withhold judgment until I see the marking names and such. 

 

 

Amazing that they are able to reach 80Gbps over USB now. I doubt it will be useful for anything other than some very high end docking stations though. 

[tikker]

So when are network cables going to disappear in favour of these

Seriously though, 80 Gbps is crazy. I wonder what kind of cables this'll require qualtiy and cost-wise.

  

 

1 hour ago, pythonmegapixel said:

So is there any standard numbered USB4-1.0, or not? I've lost track of this bull***t.

Yes, the original USB4 specification is/was Version 1.0: https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb4r-specification

Now it'll be revised, so the specification version goes up.

1 hour ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Look, USB Forum, how about you just have one version number. It starts at 1.0.  If there's a minor revision to the current standard, it goes to 1.1, then 1.2, and so on. If there's a new standard it goes to 2.0, then 3.0, then so on. Just like everything else. And absolutely NO rebranding previously named versions as something else, OK?

It really shouldn't be that hard.

What you suggest is more or less what happened though. It's a complicated standard which makes it a bit confusing, I agree, but USB4 simply refers to the USB4 standard and Version 2, in this case, refers to the revision of said standard. I suspect they are not calling it 4.1 anymore since IIRC they changed the branding to move further away from USB X.Y style and to just call it USB4 (note that the space between USB and 4 is officially removed as well). It may be a little confusing, but it's also been misued plenty by us consumers and industry. Older articles perfectly illustrate the problem of misuse even with the new USB4 standard:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/usb-4-faq,38766.html

Quote

Get ready for a whole new generation of USB. First announced in 2019, "USB4” (official spelling lacks a space, but we’re using one in this article to reflect the way readers search) is finally appearing in some shipping computers

Instead of a heads up on what they should search for due to changes, the blame is put (indirectly) on the manufacturer for not naming it they way they want/expect it to be named.

 

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

What's so hard about understanding that USB 3.0 went to USB 3.1 Gen 1 and then USB 3.2 Gen 1. So easy! 

As brought up in other threads, treat it as building codes. It's easier to understand how if you build a house now you have do it according to 2022 guidelines and not to any previous ones to your liking. Any older guideline is void and for all practical intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore. Things like Gen 1 and Gen 2 will be the equivalent of a gas line and a three-phase power line to support the various types of stoves out in the wild.

 

People don't understand that the Gen NxM stuff has next to nothing to do with versioning, because we see it pop up so often in these articles I think, but it is just an internal not-for-consumers term referring to a transfer mode within the spec. USB 3.0 was 5 Gbps. The spec updated to be capable of 10 Gbps, so the specification was updated to 3.1 and the old 5 Gbps transfer mode became Gen 1 for the simple fact that you need a term to distinguish bewteen 5 Gbps and 10 Gbps. The USB marketing marketing guidelines also tell you not to use those technical terms on your products and to simply use the terms they define for products supporting certain transfer speeds, which just mention the relevant speeds.

[PeachGr]

I imagine people reading it as USB for two

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, PeachGr said:

I imagine people reading it as USB for two

USB 4.0 rev 2.0 USB 420?

[Heliian]

They should start using roman numerals and begin at I. 

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Another thread about USB naming standards where people who clearly doesn't understand why the names are the way they are or how complex the USB spec is gives uneducated opinions and think they are sooo funny... 

People don't need to understand the complexities of the spec to give their opinion on a name.  I still contend that the 3.0/3.1/3.2 naming scheme was overly complicated for the general public.  They can use whatever naming scheme they want for the internal design methodology, but they really should have a better naming scheme for general use.

 

There's a reason that IEEE.1394 never caught on as a name, and it was always knows as 'Firewire'; despite that only being specifically meant when referring to Apple computers.  The former is hard for most people to remember and - perhaps more importantly - doesn't roll off the tongue as easy.

2 hours ago, tikker said:

So when are network cables going to disappear in favour of these

When they can get these speeds over greater than 3 feet, let me know.  Also, speed isn't the only metric to be concerned about, there's also latency and how well it handles multiple commands at the same time.  I'm not saying it can't handle it, but I also don't know that it can.  Though perhaps it's possible this could be a good replacement for enterprise grade switch to switch communication in racks, rather than using fiber connections.

[Eigenvektor]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

When they can get these speeds over greater than 3 feet, let me know.  Also, speed isn't the only metric to be concerned about, there's also latency and how well it handles multiple commands at the same time.  I'm not saying it can't handle it, but I also don't know that it can.  Though perhaps it's possible this could be a good replacement for enterprise grade switch to switch communication in racks, rather than using fiber connections.

There's also the reason that USB is essentially point-to-point and doesn't have a protocol able to do all the things you expect your network to be able to do (routing, port forwarding)

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Another thread about USB naming standards where people who clearly doesn't understand why the names are the way they are or how complex the USB spec is gives uneducated opinions and think they are sooo funny...

I get that there are technical differences like encodings and so on. That still doesn't explain why they felt the need to retroactively rename older standards. I think most people would've been able to understand that USB 3.2 is faster than USB 3.0. Except now USB 3.2 and USB 3.0 may actually refer to the same speed, depending on whether you mean USB 3.2 Gen 1x1, Gen 1x2, Gen 2x1 or Gen 2x2 How is that less complicated than USB 3.2, 3.1, 3.0?

 

When shopping for e.g. an external disk that runs with "actual" USB 3.2 (20 Gbps), you now have to pay close attention to make sure you're not simply sold a rebranded USB 3.0 one. And the rebrand to USB4 hasn't improved things, because there's 10, 20 and 40 Gbps versions of it already.

[Senzelian]

8 hours ago, tikker said:

As brought up in other threads, treat it as building codes. It's easier to understand how if you build a house now you have do it according to 2022 guidelines and not to any previous ones to your liking. Any older guideline is void and for all practical intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore. Things like Gen 1 and Gen 2 will be the equivalent of a gas line and a three-phase power line to support the various types of stoves out in the wild.

 

People don't understand that the Gen NxM stuff has next to nothing to do with versioning, because we see it pop up so often in these articles I think, but it is just an internal not-for-consumers term referring to a transfer mode within the spec. USB 3.0 was 5 Gbps. The spec updated to be capable of 10 Gbps, so the specification was updated to 3.1 and the old 5 Gbps transfer mode became Gen 1 for the simple fact that you need a term to distinguish bewteen 5 Gbps and 10 Gbps. The USB marketing marketing guidelines also tell you not to use those technical terms on your products and to simply use the terms they define for products supporting certain transfer speeds, which just mention the relevant speeds.

 

Companies use the 3.1 and 3.2 specification for marketing their products, too!

The customer is forced either way to know what these specifications mean and that's the problem.

 

Customers were used to USB 2 and USB 3. Incredibly simple, everyone understood it and it has been this way for many years. Out of nowhere it was changed to USB 3.1 Gen 1 and afterwards again to USB 3.2 Gen 1 and instead of at least continueing with that naming scheme with USB 3.2 Gen 3, we got USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. It doesn't matter if it should've been called USB 5Gbps, USB 10Gbps and USB 20Gbps. Simply changing it was dumb. Any change would've been dumb. There was no way it would've worked out well.

 

And now with USB 4 2.0 it gets even dumber. It's the same thing all over again.

"But it's not intended for marketing"; well, companies use it anyway and the customer has to get used to it. It simply sucks!

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

People don't need to understand the complexities of the spec to give their opinion on a name.  I still contend that the 3.0/3.1/3.2 naming scheme was overly complicated for the general public.  They can use whatever naming scheme they want for the internal design methodology, but they really should have a better naming scheme for general use.

And this is why I don't think people who has no understanding of the situation shouldn't comment on it.

THEY HAD BETTER A BETTER NAMING SCHEME FOR GENERAL USE! It's just that most people and manufacturers for some reason decided to use the internal design names instead of the very straight forward marketing names.

 

For example USB 3.2 was the name of the specification. The marketing name was things like "SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps". Pretty explanatory and easy to understand, right?

 

Your "fix" is what they did. It's just that for some reason people didn't adopt the general use naming scheme. Tech influencers pushing the specification name for some reason didn't help either.

 

 

USB 3.2 refers to the name of the specification which encompasses various ways of wiring and doing encoding for a variety of speeds and how they should operate to be backwards compatible. When new things gets added to the specification, it is updated to a new revision. But since the specification also contains all the old stuff, older USB complaint devices are also complaint with the newer standard, although maybe not all features.

Since this is confusing to the general public, the USB-IF did design general use names such as "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps", but it seems like barely anyone felt like using the simple naming schemes. Probably because bitching and moaning is so much fun. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Jito463 said:

There's a reason that IEEE.1394 never caught on as a name, and it was always knows as 'Firewire'; despite that only being specifically meant when referring to Apple computers.  The former is hard for most people to remember and - perhaps more importantly - doesn't roll off the tongue as easy.

If you want to make an analogy, the USB situation is as if people stubbornly referred to FireWire as "IEEE.1394" and refused to call it FireWire. And then we had a bunch of people complain about how hard it was to remember which speed "IEEE 1394b-2002" had compared to IEEE "1394a-2000". 

Just call it FireWire 400 and FireWire 800. Just call USB USB 10Gbps or USB 20Gbps, like you are suppose to.

[LAwLz]

@Jito463 @RONOTHAN## @Eigenvektor

 

The names like USB 3.1 and USB 3.2 were not meant to be used on consumer facing products.

USB 3.1 and USB 3.2, and the other USB X.X names all refer to the specifications. You can think of it as a word document that contains the details about how a USB device should be built.

When they went from USB 3.1 to USB 3.2, they basically went "okay, now we will allow more lanes to be used". So they opened the old USB-3.1.docx file on their computer, added a few paragraphs about how manufacturers are allowed to use more lanes, and then saved the document as USB-3.2.docx.

Since they didn't really touch any of the old words in the document, they only added more, devices built using the blueprints in the old USB-3.1.docx file also adhere to the description in the USB-3.2.docx document. As a result, they could be relabelled as USB 3.2 complaint.

 

Why not make a brand new document and keep the old one? Because if they did that, it would be very complicated to design a USB device because of things like backwards compatibility. Manufacturers would have to look through like 10 different documents, they would have to make sure different documents didn't conflict with each other (since sometimes they do go back and slightly change things in the "old text" when adding new text), different standards may have different testing procedures so it would become a mess in that regard... Let's just say there are very good reasons for why things are done the way they are.

 

So how should consumers know what speed their USB ports run at? The USB-IF through of that...

The official name for a USB port that can do 10Gbps is.... SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps.

The official name for a USB port that can do 20Gbps is.... SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.

And so on and so forth. Extremely simple to understand and doesn't require someone to know that "the 20Gbps mode was introduced in the 3.2 update of the spec".

 

 

 

If you want a different analogy, think of this as a game update.

Let's say I play a free to play MMO. I got a level 60 character and the game is in version 1.0.

I stop playing the game because I find it boring, but shortly after I stop playing the game, the developers release patch 1.1 which extends the level cap to 70.

My account is not stuck at version 1.0, right? My account continues to be compatible with the game even after it was updated to 1.1. I don't have any of the new fancy stuff, and my level is just 60 rather than 70, but it's not like I am not allowed to say my account is compatible with version 1.1 of the game right?

Same deal with USB specs.

It would be crazy to tell people my account was "only 1.0 compatible, it doesn't work in version 1.1" just because you didn't have any of the new stuff. Version 1.1 contains all the stuff from 1.0, so any 1.0 character is inherently also part of 1.1. Same with USB.

 

 

 

Official statement from USB-IF:

Quote

The USB 3.2 specification absorbed all prior 3.x specifications. USB 3.2 identifies three transfer rates, USB 3.2 Gen 1 at 5Gbps, USB 3.2 Gen 2 at 10Gbps and USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 at 20Gbps. It is important that vendors clearly communicate the performance signaling that a product delivers in the product’s packaging, advertising content, and any other marketing materials.

 

USB 3.2 Gen 1

• Product capability: product signals at 5Gbps
• Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB

USB 3.2 Gen 2

• Product capability: product signals at 10Gbps
• Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps

USB 3.2 Gen 2x2

• Product capability: product signals at 20Gbps
• Marketing name: SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps

 

As I said in a different thread:  

On 12/26/2021 at 12:35 AM, LAwLz said:

If companies like motherboard manufacturers actually used the naming standards written in the USB specifications, nobody would have any issues knowing what speed their USB ports functioned at.

 

This is what Asus' website looks like:

 

Not that hard to follow but more complicated than it needs to be, since you need to know that Gen 1 means 5Gbps, gen 2 means 10Gbps and gen 2x2 means 20Gbps.

 

This is what Asus' website would look like if they followed the naming conventions laid out in the USB specs:

 

A bit more text and reading "SuperSpeed" so many times is annoying, but it becomes way clearer which ports run at what speed.

USB is confusing because component and device manufacturers make it confusing, not because the specs make it confusing.

[seon123]

10 hours ago, Senzelian said:

This shit is getting better and better. 

 

Time to add that nonsense to my signature:
 

05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0, 3.1 Gen1)

10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 (USB 3.1 Gen2)

20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 

40Gb/s - USB 4.0, Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4

80Gb/s - USB 4 2.0, Thunderbolt 5

Don't forget USB 3.2 Gen 1x2, which is also 10Gb/s, but is somehow different from 3.2 Gen 2x1

[Eigenvektor]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The names like USB 3.1 and USB 3.2 were not meant to be used on consumer facing products.

Except those names have been used and understood by everyone since the USB 1.0 days. You're not going convince people to suddenly switch to SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. They could've simply gone with

• USB 3.0 – 5 Gbps
• USB 3.1 – 10 Gbps
• USB 3.2 – 20 Gbps
• USB 4.0 – 40 Gbps
• USB 5.0 – 80 Gbps

I get that they're trying to get there with "USB4® 40Gbps", but basically everyone else has long since decided to go with USB 4.0. Instead of trying to fight this hopeless fight, they should've accepted that and reserved things like SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, Gen 3x2 for their internal version/revision instead and kept USB 3.2, 4.0, etc as the marketing name.

[LAwLz]

49 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Except those names have been used and understood by everyone since the USB 1.0 days. You're not going convince people to suddenly switch to SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. They could've simply gone with

• USB 3.0 – 5 Gbps
• USB 3.1 – 10 Gbps
• USB 3.2 – 20 Gbps
• USB 4.0 – 40 Gbps
• USB 5.0 – 80 Gbps

I get that they're trying to get there with "USB4® 40Gbps", but basically everyone else has long since decided to go with USB 4.0. Instead of trying to fight this hopeless fight, they should've accepted that and reserved things like SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, Gen 3x2 for their internal version/revision instead and kept USB 3.2, 4.0, etc as the marketing name.

The names clearly haven't been understood by everyone. That's why such a large amount of ignorant people whine about them. We see the same thing happening with HDMI 2.1 now. People assume things, use the incorrect terminology, and then get pissed when their assumptions and lack of knowledge bites them in the butt.

 

Your suggestion would also not work internally... Did you not read what I wrote?

That's the thing. They couldn't have gone with "USB 3.1 means 10Gbps, USB 3.2 means 20Gbps". 

 

 

Maybe, just maybe, the issue isn't the spec itself but rather than consumers and manufactures are using the incorrect terminology when referring to the ports? Maybe instead of blaming the USB-IF who is doing everything correctly and in a logical manner, we should blame the ones who fucks it up by misusing the terms in order to cause confusion?

 

Again, it is not the USB-IF that are doing things wrong. It's manufacturers, because they try to trick consumers. Stop being mad at the wrong people. 

[tikker]

8 hours ago, Jito463 said:

When they can get these speeds over greater than 3 feet, let me know.  Also, speed isn't the only metric to be concerned about, there's also latency and how well it handles multiple commands at the same time.  I'm not saying it can't handle it, but I also don't know that it can.  Though perhaps it's possible this could be a good replacement for enterprise grade switch to switch communication in racks, rather than using fiber connections.

Yeah it wasn't a completely serious statement. I think it's good they stay separate.

3 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Companies use the 3.1 and 3.2 specification for marketing their products, too!

The customer is forced either way to know what these specifications mean and that's the problem.

I agree. I would like to see better enforcement of the proposed marketing terms.

3 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Customers were used to USB 2 and USB 3. Incredibly simple, everyone understood it and it has been this way for many years. Out of nowhere it was changed to USB 3.1 Gen 1 and afterwards again to USB 3.2 Gen 1 and instead of at least continueing with that naming scheme with USB 3.2 Gen 3, we got USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. It doesn't matter if it should've been called USB 5Gbps, USB 10Gbps and USB 20Gbps. Simply changing it was dumb. Any change would've been dumb. There was no way it would've worked out well.

Except it wasn't out of nowhere. USB 3 got updated to support 10 Gbps transfer speeds. That needs an internal name, and thus the old 5 Gbps mode became the Gen 1 mode of the 3.1 revision of USB and the 10 Gbps mode became Gen 2. The Gen 2x2 mode is named that way because it uses two Gen 2 10 Gbps lanes (hence x2) to achieve 20 Gbps. There is simple logic to it. It may not be obvious to consumers, but it doesn't have to be, because it is not for consumers.

3 hours ago, Senzelian said:

And now with USB 4 2.0 it gets even dumber. It's the same thing all over again.

"But it's not intended for marketing"; well, companies use it anyway and the customer has to get used to it. It simply sucks!

But then who's fault is it: USB who tells those companies what to use or companies trying to be fancy by using inappropriate terminology and ignoring what they're told ot use? It's the same nonsense as computers being advertised as "16 core Intel processor" that tells you little about what it actually has.

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

Except those names have been used and understood by everyone since the USB 1.0 days. You're not going convince people to suddenly switch to SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps. They could've simply gone with

• USB 3.0 – 5 Gbps
• USB 3.1 – 10 Gbps
• USB 3.2 – 20 Gbps
• USB 4.0 – 40 Gbps
• USB 5.0 – 80 Gbps

I get that they're trying to get there with "USB4® 40Gbps", but basically everyone else has long since decided to go with USB 4.0.

This is largely a problem with the companies and consumers in my opinion. People don't accept SuperSpeed because it's a "dumb" name (not aimed at you, just the general idea I get surrounding that), then complain the versioning they shouldn't use anyway is too complicated. Now USB tries to simplifiy it, and it gets dismissed again because "we" have already decided it should have been 4.0. Like you say at the end: "I get that they're trying ..., but basically everyone else has long since decided to go with USB 4.0". We don't have to blindly agree with everything these bodies do, but shouldn't both companies and consumers also at some point try to actually stick to the guidelines when they're trying?

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

Instead of trying to fight this hopeless fight, they should've accepted that and reserved things like SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps, Gen 3x2 for their internal version/revision instead and kept USB 3.2, 4.0, etc as the marketing name.

I like the abstracted "SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps" style nomenclature. Gen NxM already is the internal naming. All the consumer should have to worry about is the speed and maybe whether it's USB 3 or USB4 at most. Naming like SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps removes the need to remember which speed 3.1 or 3.2 were, it's printed straight on the box.

[Senzelian]

21 minutes ago, tikker said:

Except it wasn't out of nowhere. USB 3 got updated to support 10 Gbps transfer speeds. That needs an internal name, and thus the old 5 Gbps mode became the Gen 1 mode of the 3.1 revision of USB and the 10 Gbps mode became Gen 2. The Gen 2x2 mode is named that way because it uses two Gen 2 10 Gbps lanes (hence x2) to achieve 20 Gbps. There is simple logic to it. It may not be obvious to consumers, but it doesn't have to be, because it is not for consumers.

Not at first.

Before Gen 1 and Gen 2 were a thing, the 10Gbps standard was simply called USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 was still named the same it always has been. Everyone was fine with that. They changed the name of USB 5Gbps and 10Gbps two more times after that!

 

They went from

• USB 3.0 (5)
• USB 3.1 (10)

to

• USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5)
• USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10)

to

• USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5)
• USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10)
• USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20)

 

21 minutes ago, tikker said:

But then who's fault is it: USB who tells those companies what to use or companies trying to be fancy by using inappropriate terminology and ignoring what they're told ot use? It's the same nonsense as computers being advertised as "16 core Intel processor" that tells you little about what it actually has.

No one cares who's fault it is. Everyone just want it fixed and the clear answer is: Don't rename it in the first place.

And the worst thing is that USB 3.1 (10Gbps) was the official marketing name for it. Why do you think companies, especially motherboard manufacturers jumped onto the bandwaggon in the first place?

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Before Gen 1 and Gen 2 were a thing, the 10Gbps standard was simply called USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 was still named the same it always has been.

No it wasn't.

When USB 3.1 was released, it completely replaced USB 3.0.

Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.

 

11 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

They changed the name of USB 5Gbps and 10Gbps two more times after that!

No they didn't. They never changed the name of 5Gbps and 10Gbps.

What changed name was the standard, and it changed name when more transfer modes were introduced.

Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

No one cares who's fault it is. Everyone just want it fixed and the clear answer is: Don't rename it in the first place.

And the worst thing is that USB 3.1 (10Gbps) was the official marketing name for it. Why do you think companies, especially motherboard manufacturers jumped onto the bandwaggon in the first place?

Are you seriously telling engineers to stop labelling their specifications because you use them incorrectly and get confused?

Holy shit the entitlement of some people. Stop using the incorrect terms and maybe you won't be so confused in the future.

Stop using the internal working names of the specifications when talking about a particular implementation of the specs.

 

This is seriously as stupid as if people started calling Zen4 processors "AM5 processors", and then got pissed when AMD released Zen5 processors that also used the AM5 socket because it's "confusing" that the same socket can support multiple processors with various capabilities.

Then when someone says "maybe we should refer to the CPU based on its capabilities and not the specifications of the socket" people get pissed because they don't want to do that for some reason.

[Senzelian]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it wasn't.

When USB 3.1 was released, it completely replaced USB 3.0.

Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.

 

No they didn't. They never changed the name of 5Gbps and 10Gbps.

What changed name was the standard, and it changed name when more transfer modes were introduced.

Stop talking about things you clearly have no understanding of.

 

 

Are you seriously telling engineers to stop labelling their specifications because you use them incorrectly and get confused?

Holy shit the entitlement of some people. Stop using the incorrect terms and maybe you won't be so confused in the future.

Stop using the internal working names of the specifications when talking about a particular implementation of the specs.

 

This is seriously as stupid as if people started calling Zen4 processors "AM5 processors", and then got pissed when AMD released Zen5 processors that also used the AM5 socket because it's "confusing" that the same socket can support multiple processors with various capabilities.

Then when someone says "maybe we should refer to the CPU based on its capabilities and not the specifications of the socket" people get pissed because they don't want to do that for some reason.

 

Your double standards are showing. Suggestion: Calm down and get your facts right. Maybe ask before accusing someone. Can be quite useful.