Upcoming USB 3.2 Specification Will Double Data Rates Using Existing Cables (macrumors.com)

A new USB specification has been introduced today by the USB 3.0 Promoter Group, which is comprised of Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, and other companies. The new USB 3.2 specification will replace the existing 3.1 specification and will double data rates to 20Gbps using new wires available if your device embraces the newest USB hardware. Mac Rumors reports: An incremental update, USB 3.2 is designed to define multi-lane operation for USB 3.2 hosts and devices. USB Type-C cables already support multi-lane operation, and with USB 3.2, hosts and devices can be created as multi-lane solutions, allowing for either two lanes of 5Gb/s or two lanes of 10Gb/s operation. With support for two lanes of 10Gb/s transfer speeds, performance is essentially doubled over existing USB-C cables. As an example, the USB Promoter Group says a USB 3.2 host connected to a USB 3.2 storage device will be capable of 2GB/sec data transfer performance over a USB-C cable certified for USB SuperSpeed 10Gb/s USB 3.1, while also remaining backwards compatible with earlier USB devices. Along with two-lane operation, USB 3.2 continues to use SuperSpeed USB layer data rates and encoding techniques and will introduce a minor update to hub specifications for seamless transitions between single and two-lane operation.

Comments

Drop the Serial

[Big Hairy Ian]

Surely if they are going to have multiple data channels then this is a Universal Parallel Bus

Re:Drop the Serial

[iggymanz]

next they'll add daisy chaining though it might need a terminator at the end and little DIP switches to set each device to a unique ID. It could be called something like Simultaneous Chained Serial Interfaces

Re:Drop the Serial

[Matt_Bennett]

The difference is that the data on each line is sent serially, with embedded clocking and controlled skew between lanes- meaning that the data on each lane is somewhat independent. In general a parallel bus includes separate clocking. In a serial bus like this, the data is encoded in certain ways to allow the clock to be a part of the data- the most basic encoding is what is used in 10Mb Ethernet- Manchester, where every bit has it's own clock, and it goes up from there.

Re:Drop the Serial

[squiggleslash]

It's harder than you think: as you increase the data rate, trying to synchronize all 8/16/32/whatever lines becomes close to impossible. Breaking the data into multibit chunks and sending each serially via a different channel is easier because each channel can run independently, without regard to latency.

I believe this type of thing is also why we've moved away from, say, CPUs with direct access to memory (instead CPUs have multiple layers of cache between them and the computer's real memory.) It'd be nice and much more efficient to have the memory in your computer deliver up 64 bit words to the CPU at 4 gigawords a second (ie in sync with the CPU's 4GHz clock), but good luck trying to make a parallel motherboard bus that can deliver that.

wrong direction

[Build6]

the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction.

having "unique" plug types for particular purposes is a *feature*, not a bug - simply by looking at the plug, we know what the cable and the port does.

Replacing all the legacy ports is necessary (if only because the old plugs are simply just too big for modern hardware), but replacing EVERYTHING with one plug, when everything now looks the same, you end up with a situation where you simply do not know if a cable or port can do what you need it to do.

So you see a Type C plug - is it Thunderbolt or not? Is it a DisplayPort? What voltages/amps can it provide? nobody knows (where "nobody" can include the person whose hardware it is, much less someone else who has to work with it). just look at e.g. the many forum posts of people who connected "the wrong type" of USB-C-to-HDMI connectors because they didn't know their USB C wasn't the USB C that they thought USB C was supposed to be.

this is made even worse considering that there's active circuitry involved, where you need to worry about whether the cable itself is built right (see e.g. Benson Leung's long list of cables that can fry your hardware). in the old days, a crap cable just means crap performance or no connection. not any more.

Re:wrong direction

[Viol8]

"the "one plug for everything" trend that began with USB Type C is a step in the wrong direction."

I disagree. I'm utterly fed up with multiple different types of USB plug, some of them very similar making it an utter pain finding a cable with the correct connectors on both ends. There is zero reason to have all these - its not for space reasons like RS232 had its 9 pin plug since even the largest USB connector is pretty small.

"you end up with a situation where you simply do not know if a cable or port can do what you need it to do."

In 99% of cases you simply need to connect 2 devices, its not complex. If there is a max voltage/current issue then colour code the cables, but DONT create yet another sphagetti soup of connectors.

Re:wrong direction

[thegarbz]

No it's the right direction providing they get to the correct end goal. We're in a transition period where the capability of the spec is being built up. The end goal is perfectly in line with what you are saying: one plug, do everything, no confusion.

It's just not there yet.

Re:wrong direction

[Build6]

I think I need to point out something here - there's a distinction between "nice to have" and "practically unfeasible".

there is a functional issue I think you're overlooking - you're complaining about things not fitting together with all sorts of different plug types (microUSB, mini-USB etc.) - things "should" be electrically and functionality/feature-compatible, but which you cannot connect together, therefore you're unhappy about it.

You're actually looking at a subset of the entire space, because remember: in the real world, not everything is supposed to plug into everything else.

It's not like if I can plug my handphone into my lawnmower it will automagically allow me to remotely mow my lawn from the office (actually, wait... somebody kickstarter this, quick). Making them plug-compatible achieves... what?

Not everything can work together with everything else. that's the point of having different plug types

having a "universal" plug type is something that would be VERY nice, just as it would be nice for unicorns to show up and make it rain cake (hey, they're my conception of unicorns so their powers are what I want it to be), but as a real world issue, you cannot build in sufficient forwards compatibility to make up for whatever may come up in the future, so even a "do everything" cable today will become "insufficient" in the future, and you're back to square one. Perhaps you can guarantee that every cable ever made now will always be useful in the future for at least plugging in your mouse and keyboard, but I really doubt there will be a shortage of mouse and keyboard cables in the future - the problem with Type C isn't at the "lowest common denominator" side of the market

again, not everything is supposed to plug into everything else, at least not at today's technology level (and arguably this will never be appropriate).

Let's say that in the future all lawnmowers use USB Type C plugs for power (so you could use the same cable to power your lawnmower as you use to charge your laptop). It then becomes physically possible to plug anything with a USB Type C port into your lawnmower.

Does that achieve anything if they simply don't do the same things?

Does plugging in your video projector into your lawnmower mean that you can have video recordings of you mowing the grass projected out onto a screen? Maybe, maybe not - let's say there's a niche demand for this, well, if video output was something your super duper special lawnmower is supposed to do, then having a VGA port, say, on your lawnmower makes sense, and you can tell video output is something it can do. However, your neighbour's lawnmower, which doesn't do video output, won't need that. But if they have a Type C port... is everything in the future to have stencilled/printed on the underside a full list of capabilities? Is that what we're supposed to do? I don't understand why it's such a problem that, if two things aren't supposed to work together, their ports physically don't match.

The problem now with a Type C port is, what it REALLY says, is that it MAY OR MAY NOT work with something else that has a Type C port. That's NOT an improvement.

That's easy enough to do

[DrXym]

Just stop transmitting the 0s. The data rate is instantly doubled.

Re: That's easy enough to do

[qbast]

And when we stop sending 0s, then we know exactly what will be sent - only 1s, so stop sending them as well. Instant infinite bandwidth and no cable is required!

Re:That's easy enough to do

[MysteriousPreacher]

It depends. If the cable is angled downwards then the 1s, being heavier, fall more quickly than 0s. If the cable is angled upwards then the 0s are lighter and move more quickly.

So whether you encode your data in to 0s or 1s will depend on how the cable is angled.

I think we're wasted here. We could be working for these guys: http://www.audioquest.com/ethe...

To quote their 'tech blurb' for what is an 8m Ethernet cable, ordinarily retailing for less than $10, being sold for $1,158.75:

DIRECTIONALITY: All audio cables are directional. The correct direction is determined by listening to every batch of metal conductors used in every AudioQuest audio cable. Arrows are clearly marked on the connectors to ensure superior sound quality. For best results have the arrow pointing in the direction of the flow of music. For example, NAS to Router, Router to Network Player.

Too confusing

[blindseer]

I have to wonder what the USB people are thinking. They have a good idea going here, why are they trying to ruin it?

It used to be that USB-C was USB but faster. It made the "On-The-Go" bi-directional features from USB2 required so people didn't have to worry about the host/device relationship too much. The Micro-AB connector was switched to a "flippable" version, they called "Type C", which is great. The new connector is just as small but handles more power, and I don't have to worry if I got the "right" end or which way is "up".

Where they are starting to mess this up is with four, FOUR, different video modes. You have Thunderbolt (which is just DisplayPort mixed with PCIe data), DisplayPort (which may or may not be backward compatible with the Thunderbolt mode), HDMI, and MHL (which may or may not be backward compatible with HDMI). They should have told the HDMI people to piss off and stopped at three. Maybe even tell the MHL people to piss off too but they already had an agreement with MHL on the micro-USB connector.

Now you have four video modes, two data modes (ThunderBolt and "SuperSpeed" USB), and with this new "Ludicrous Speed" mode they added a third data mode. It's already confusing on what video adapter or cable a person might need. Even buying a simple data cable is confusing. There's the USB2 cable, the USB3 cable, and the ThunderBolt cable, they all look identical at a glance with USB-C connectors on both ends. Will my expensive Thunderbolt cable support this new USB 3.2 data rate? Will it fall back to USB 3.1 speed nicely? Or will it crap out and support only USB2 speed?

They created this "SuperSpeed" naming to differentiate the USB2 speed devices from the faster USB3 ones. Then when USB-C came along with two "SuperSpeed" lanes they had to figure out how to make that clear to the user. They came up with "SuperSpeed+". (Notice the addition of the plus sign? It's easy to miss.) What is this new one going to be called?

I have to wonder if this is going to die before it even gets started. The people that want a faster USB got ThunderBolt already.