USB Cheat Sheet (2022)

171

ggwerbret about 4 hours ago 46 commentsRead Article on fabiensanglard.net

ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

64% Positive

Analyzed from 1192 words in the discussion.

Discussion (46 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

DHowett•about 3 hours ago

Excellent article.

If I could offer one correction, it would be that SBU (as specified by the USB 3.0 Promoter Group[1]) means "Sideband Use" rather than "Secondary Bus".

On some devices, it is used to carry UART; on others, audio.

[1]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%... (pdf)

altairprime•about 2 hours ago

Their email address is under the Contact link in the header :)

floxy•about 1 hour ago

I don't know what short-distance data communications will be like in 2050, but we know it will be called USB.

jasongill•about 1 hour ago

USB-G 4.6 SuperSpeed Plus, but the cables will still just be used for charging your random electronics and won't even work for that half the time.

Neywiny•about 3 hours ago

I actually like the 3.2 naming. Gen is speed, "by" is width. It puts it very roughly on par with PCIe's naming which nobody complains about. I just don't like that USB 3, USB 3.1, and USB 3.2 are the same things. And that sales people don't seem to understand that saying a chip supports 3.1 or 3.2 tells me it's anywhere from 5-20gbps which isn't ideal.

mistyvales•about 3 hours ago

PCI-E has had the same standard since its inception: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. USB has changed multiple times and has remained confusing for the vast majority of people. What was 3.0 is now not 3.0. Even 3.1 has changed. There is no reason to use this naming convention they currently have but for some reason they stick with it..

kimixa•about 3 hours ago

PCIe also had things like "1.1", "2.1" and "3.1" - that fixed issues and added functionality - but there wasn't the same crossover between "feature sets and spec revisions" and "speeds" we see in USB today.

mistyvales•about 2 hours ago

Manufacturers of mainstream consumer motherboards never used 1.1, 2.1, etc. for PCI-E though. What is 4.0 on the spec sheet will be 4.0 to the buyer. My old 2016 motherboard has a slew of 3.0 labelled USB ports that are now not 3.0, hence the conundrum. It just doesn't make sense why they changed established naming conventions. Is this something that causes me sleepless nights? Not in the least. But it's still an annoyance for consumers and even advanced users as detailed in that latest Geerling video et al.

Neywiny•about 3 hours ago

Possibly they stick with it because it's usable (ish) and it was driving everyone up the wall when they'd change it?

retired•about 2 hours ago

And not only the sales people. Windows doesn't report anywhere what your motherboard is capable of, and even if you connect with a device it will not tell you the speed it agreed on.

1a527dd5•about 2 hours ago

Tangent: Author has this fabulous post I'd highly recommend: https://fabiensanglard.net/mjolnir/index.html

I read it once years ago and I come back to it every now and then wishing my current PC (10+ years and going) would gently die so I could finally build something small and tiny.

fabiensanglard•about 2 hours ago

You know, accidents happen. If you were to trip over the carpet and that venerable PC falls in the dumpster.

15155•about 3 hours ago

Good sheet. Worth adding:

- Female vs male crossover naming and pinouts for Type-C connectors

- Actual voltage, modulation and signaling schemes (USB4v2 uses PAM3 11b/7t encoding)

- PD generations and profiles

mschuster91•about 3 hours ago

... and the bunch of proprietary voltage schemes like Quickcharge.

retired•about 2 hours ago

Thanks to the EU those are now forbidden, all phones and laptops should be compatible with USB-PD.

Update: USB-PD is a requirement, but manufacturers are allowed to have their own proprietary charging solution.

dang•about 2 hours ago

Related. Others?

USB Cheat Sheet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31271038 - May 2022 (168 comments)

userbinator•about 2 hours ago

IMHO USB 3.0 was the last sanely-named version. Then again, if you're familiar with Ethernet, the proliferation of variants isn't unexpected.

drob518•about 2 hours ago

I’ve been a tech guy for 45 years and I still can’t figure out USB and Thunderbolt and what goes with what and how fast it’s supposed to run.

15155•about 2 hours ago

If you buy Thunderbolt 5 cables: every USB standard is compatible and then some.

ProllyInfamous•about 2 hours ago

It wasn't until last year that I finally purchased my first USB-C device/cables – and after years of solid DisplayPort and Thunderbolt2 connections I absolutely hate USB-C (it's too delicate, physically).

Not until 2023 did I even have a computer newer than 2012, so I missed almost all of USB3's hayday — including nomenclature disputes — but the speeds sure are an improvement!

maxloh•about 3 hours ago

I once heard that the USB naming is misleading by design so that vendors could still sell older generations accessories they had in stock. The USB-IF just rebrands the old ones to make them sound current.

Imagine the following naming:

  USB 3.0 / USB 3.1 Gen 1 / USB 3.2 Gen 1 -> USB 3 5Gbps
  USB 3.1 / USB 3.1 Gen 2 / USB 3.2 Gen 2 -> USB 3 10Gbps
  USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 -> USB 3 20Gbps

Isn't that much clearer? I think USB 4 is finally going to the right direction.

sgjohnson•about 2 hours ago

> I think USB 4 is finally going to the right direction.

USB 4 is actually going into an even worse direction. USB 4 = Thunderbolt 4, except everything is optional. e.g. USB 4 might not even support DP Alt mode. Thunderbolt 4 always will.

brigade•about 1 hour ago

Even backwards compatibility is optional in USB4. There are USB4 devices (SSDs at least) that will not function when connected to USB 3 ports.

xzjis•about 2 hours ago

Or it could be: 5 Gbps --> USB 3 10 Gbps --> USB 3.1 20 Gbps --> USB 3.2

Higher number = better

kubik369•about 3 hours ago

I think this practice is rather blatantly what you say. The same thing with HDMI forum folding HDMI 2.0 into HDMI 2.1. They made the new 2.1 features optional, therefore manufacturers were able to call their 2.0 devices 2.1 without actually supporting the 2.1 features. AMD has been recently doing similar things, releasing “new” generation of mobile processors where half of them are just rebrands of the older generation.

AdamH12113•about 1 hour ago

This is generally good but it’s missing low speed (1.5 megabits/second), which is also under USB 1.1.

pxeboot•about 2 hours ago

I still don't understand why MacBooks support USB4/Thunderbolt 4/5, but NOT USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. So you can get 20-40Gb/s speeds with more expensive external disks, but only 10Gb/s with the cheaper, more commonly available ones that advertise 20Gb/s.

altairprime•about 1 hour ago

I believe it’s that MacBooks support Thunderbolt primarily and USB only where absolutely necessary beyond what’s coded into one of the TB specs; and I assume TB doesn’t define 3.2x2x2 as part of any TB spec <=5?

offbyone42•about 2 hours ago

I just wish product listings were clear and actually followed the specs.

retired•about 2 hours ago

The simplicity of Thunderbolt. Versions 1 and 2 used mini DisplayPort, 3 and upwards USB-C. Version 1 was 10Gbps, 2 was 20Gbps, 3 was 40Gbps, 4 was 40Gbps, 5 is 80 or 120Gbps with boosting.

A Thunderbolt 5 cable will always support 80Gbps, DisplayPort 2.1, PCIe, USB4 and power of up to 240 watt.

sgjohnson•about 2 hours ago

> and power of up to 240 watt

Except active optical cables. None exist yet that I'm aware of though.

retired•about 2 hours ago

I'd guess that most people who use optical Thunderbolt cables are aware that they do not carry power.

conception•about 2 hours ago

This article is why I replaced all the usb dock cables in the office to make sure the usb cable connected to the laptops was transferring enough power so the laptop wouldn't silently lower its frequency for the lower power draw. 10-30% speed bump just because.

brcmthrowaway•about 3 hours ago

Where does TB5 come into all of this?

syhol•about 2 hours ago

- Thunderbolt 3 is a superset of USB 3.1

- USB4 is built on Thunderbolt 3's protocol, implementing a subset of its mandatory features

- Thunderbolt 4 is a strict profile of USB4 (all optional features made mandatory)

- USB4 v2 introduced 80 Gbps signaling

- Thunderbolt 5 is a strict profile of USB4 v2 (again, optional features made mandatory)

Neywiny•about 3 hours ago

I don't see why it would. Thunderbolt is not a USB standard

aleph_minus_one•about 3 hours ago

> Thunderbolt is not a USB standard

Concerning Thunderbolt 3: USB4 is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol [1].

Concerning Thunderbolt 4: "In July 2020 Intel announced Thunderbolt 4 as an implementation of USB4 40 Gbit/s with additional requirements, such as mandatory backward compatibility to Thunderbolt 3 and requirement for smaller notebooks to support being charged over Thunderbolt 4 ports.[14] Publications such as AnandTech described Thunderbolt 4 as "superset of TB3 and USB4" and "able to accept TB4, TB3, USB4, and USB 3/2/1 connections"." [2]

Concerning Thunderbolt 5: Intel considers Thunderbolt 5 as an implementation of USB4 Version 2.0. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USB4&oldid=134742...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USB4&oldid=134742...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USB4&oldid=134742...

Kirby64•about 3 hours ago

Thunderbolt 5 and USB4v2 are the same thing now. They both support 80gbps and pcie pass through.

aleph_minus_one•about 3 hours ago

> Thunderbolt 5 and USB4v2 are the same thing now. They both support 80gbps and pcie pass through.

Not completely true: Thunderbolt 5 demands some capabilities that are optional for USB4v2.

stevex•about 3 hours ago

Doesn't it run over a USB-C shaped wire? If you're trying to understand things that plug into USB-shaped ports it seems at least worth mentioning.

DiabloD3•about 2 hours ago

To be fair: You should refer to these as Type-C cables, as they carry things that are not USB protocol.

The sole exception should be made for "charge only" cables, which can, and should, be referred to as "wired for USB 2.0". These cables "shouldn't" exist, but I also don't want to buy a $30 cable just to charge my phone.

stackghost•about 3 hours ago

Thunderbolt 5 is basically just PCI Express, power delivery, and DisplayPort over the same cable, which for reasons passing understanding is terminated with a USB-C connector.

I think most of those cables will also support USB the protocol.

naveed125•about 3 hours ago

nice work, thanks

aleksi1578•about 2 hours ago

What is wrong with you? This shit has been around for ages… you just tell us that the stuff that has been there for decades is problematic… ok tell me something new

fl4regun•about 2 hours ago

You need to relax buddy, it's just a post on a web forum, why are you so angry?