USB 3.2 Boosts Transfer Speeds To 2GBps Via Type-C

[Guest]

The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) released the specifications for USB 3.2, and the update doubles maximum data transfer speeds to 2 GBps, thanks to the inclusion of two sets of SuperSpeed pins and wires in USB Type-C.

USB 3.2 Boosts Transfer Speeds To 2GBps Via Type-C : Read more

 

[poochiepiano]

I'm sort of conflicted as this labeling system is really hard for consumers at large to grasp. People are still becoming aware of USB 3.0, much less 3.1. Now there's no 3.0, but rather 3.1 Gen 1 and 3.1 Gen 2, which is enough of a headache. Now there's USB 3.2? I haven't even mentioned Type-A and Type-C yet. This is easy enough for enthusiasts to get straight, but for non-tech-inclined consumers, it's a disaster. I'm only like, 80% certain everything I wrote above is correct.

But what's the alternative, not getting faster transfer speeds? Guess we'll just have to deal with confusing nomenclature. Whatever... at the end of the day, if it fits in the port, you'll transfer the data by sometime.

 

[pabloxmena]

@POOCHIEPIANO 100% with you.

 

[Emerald]

If USB 3.2 will use two sets of SuperSpeed pins and wires, shouldn't we expect speeds of up to 20GB/s?

 

[deball14]

20gb/s mate.

 

[EdwardN]

Really not that complicated. A is rectangle, C is rounded rectangle and reversible. Everything else is revisional. 1.1 - 2.0 - 3.11 - 3.12 - 3.2 are just the protocol details. Most devices you buy come with the cable you need.

 

[velocityg4]

They should have made things clearer for consumers. Call it USB 3.1 Gen 2 Rev B.

 

[collin3000]

3.1 Gen 2 Rev Be wouldn't clear things up for non techies.
Call it "Superspeed ++" and slap a number with "2x as fast". That's the "easiest" way for consumers. And even then they'll be confused.

 

[jasonkaler]

The naming is really bad.
In my opinion, type C should have been called USB 4 and the different variants of USB 3 should have simply been .1 .2 and .3

 

[derekullo]

I miss the easy way to remember them.

USB 1.1 = Forever
USB 2.0 = 40 times faster than forever
USB 3.x = REALLY FAST

As far as 128 gigabyte flash drives are concerned.


Nobody mentioned it yet but, 20Gb/s = 2500 megabytes a second ... PCI-E SSD speed


You would need to a 5 bay NAS full of Samsung 850s to fully exploit that kind of speed.

Or a NAS with a single Samsung 960.

I had to google that but m.2 nas's do exist.

https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/tbs-453a

Not 3.2 or even 3.1 compatible but it does exist.



Still praying for 10 Gb Ethernet to become standard.

 

[weilin]

@Emerald

You are both correct. the 20gb/s you're quoting is 20 gigabits per second. Toms' is quoting 2gB which is 2 gigabytes per second. The former is the physical signaling rate (with overhead included). The latter is useful data payload rate (without overhead, also the bit vs byte factor).

 

[Nintendork]

At least 2.5-5Gbit ethernet should already be standard.

 

[andyz0976]

Isn't the USB 3.1 Gen 1 basically the original USB 3.0?
Why bother to change its name and cause confusion when you can just call them 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2?

 

[poochiepiano]

The naming is really bad.
In my opinion, type C should have been called USB 4 and the different variants of USB 3 should have simply been .1 .2 and .3

But it's not the same, is it? You can have a Type C USB 3.1 gen 1 or gen 2 port or a USB 3.2 port. Calling it a USB 4 port would then not tell you anything about its transfer speed capabilities.

 

[jasonkaler]

The naming is really bad.
In my opinion, type C should have been called USB 4 and the different variants of USB 3 should have simply been .1 .2 and .3

But it's not the same, is it? You can have a Type C USB 3.1 gen 1 or gen 2 port or a USB 3.2 port. Calling it a USB 4 port would then not tell you anything about its transfer speed capabilities.

USB 1.x 2.x and 3.0 don't tell you anything about their speeds either.