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 5 minutes 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..
15155 18 minutes 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 16 minutes ago [-]
... and the bunch of proprietary voltage schemes like Quickcharge.
brcmthrowaway 22 minutes ago [-]
Where does TB5 come into all of this?
Neywiny 13 minutes ago [-]
I don't see why it would. Thunderbolt is not a USB standard
stevex 4 minutes 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.
Kirby64 6 minutes ago [-]
Thunderbolt 5 and USB4v2 are the same thing now. They both support 80gbps and pcie pass through.
Rendered at 23:31:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
- 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