The fact that I can't connect more than one monitor to my M1-based iMac is a fucking travesty.
M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
81–90 of 333 posts
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#82Apple seems to lack the connectivity options competing chips offer, as seen with the limit on external screens on some M1 models and these USB options. It's easy to underestimate the amount of work that external connectors need the chip to do in order to work optimally. It makes sense, of course, as the M1 evolved from a mobile chip with at most one port (USB C if you're lucky) and not a lot of host traffic. I hope A…
The fact that I can't connect more than one monitor to my M1-based iMac is a fucking travesty.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#83Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#84The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
No, "Essay FINAL (final version 2)(1).docx"
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#85Apple seems to lack the connectivity options competing chips offer, as seen with the limit on external screens on some M1 models and these USB options. It's easy to underestimate the amount of work that external connectors need the chip to do in order to work optimally. It makes sense, of course, as the M1 evolved from a mobile chip with at most one port (USB C if you're lucky) and not a lot of host traffic. I hope A…
The fact that I can't connect more than one monitor to my M1-based iMac is a fucking travesty.
May I ask why? I assume you were aware of this limitation, as Apple was pretty clear in the specs about it, that it only supports one external monitor.
If you pull the trigger on a purchase without reading the specs, then it's pretty much on you, no?
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#86The inability of the USB standards body to stick to a versioning scheme beggars belief: what in the world could "USB 3.1 Gen 2" possibly mean? Versions are free, why not simply name it "USB 3.2" and make the next one 3.3? "Gen 2" strikes me as the "Essay FINAL (final version 2).docx" of standards revisions.
The USB people decided to have new sub versions replace the older standard rather than extend it. USB 3.0 was replaced by USB 3.1, and then again replaced by USB 3.2. If you think of it in a bureaucratic sense, it starts to make sense (something receiving classification A under the Widget Law of 2012, classification B under the Widgets Etc. Law of 2014, and classification Å under the Widgets Standardisation Law of 2018). The problem is that they forgot to inform the general public how their versions work, and the general public also doesn't (and shouldn't need to) care about their weird versioning system.
As an end user, you shouldn't need to care about the generation and amount of lanes that USB provides. There's a logo on the box that has the USB shape, SS, and the speed. For textual representations, there's "SuperSpeed x gbps". If you see SS5 and your computer also had a sticker that says SS5 or SS10 or even SS20, you're good. That's how the USB guys foresaw the whole process going. Obscure use cases that may technically happen (like two gen 1 streams rather than a single gen 2 stream, aka USB 3.2 gen 1x2 rather than USB 3.2 gen 2x1) don't get a logo or a fancy name and you'll probably run into compatibility challenges for such a setup.
USB X.Y gen ZxQ isn't meant for the general public, it's a technical specification. x specifies the generation of the version y specifies which specification, z specifies the type of connection (given X.Y = 3.2 and above) with q specifying the amount of USB lanes available.
Like PCIe 4.0 1x16 vs 2x8, it's all designed as designations for domain experts. Use the SuperSpeed naming system like the USB people want you to and you'll probably be a lot less confused. They tried to simplify things (again) by dropping the SuperSpeed in USB 4, calling it simply USB 4 xx Gbps, which is probably for the best.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Just because it works on an Intel Mac does not mean the cable isn’t the issue! Happy to demonstrate in a live video along with oscilloscope readings to prove it is in fact the cable to blame.
What's your theory as to why the cable would be at fault, despite working perfectly well in a different machine?
Seems like the simplest counterpoint would be to demonstrate a M1 mac transmitting at the full data rate using a different cable.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#88Apple seems to lack the connectivity options competing chips offer, as seen with the limit on external screens on some M1 models and these USB options. It's easy to underestimate the amount of work that external connectors need the chip to do in order to work optimally. It makes sense, of course, as the M1 evolved from a mobile chip with at most one port (USB C if you're lucky) and not a lot of host traffic. I hope A…
> as seen with the limit on external screens on some M1 models (…) I hope Apple fixes these issues soon It’s only the base M1 used in the low-end devices that has limited support for external screens. A MBPro with M1 Max can drive 3x6k (DP1.4) plus 1x4k(HDMI2.0). That seems like more than enough for a laptop. Sounds to me like these issues have already been fixed.
How can you call a 2000$ mb pro or a 1700 imac low end devices?
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#89No post body was provided.
Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing happened with HDMI 2.1, all new features were defined as optional so everyone who only supports the 2.0 feature set can claim HDMI 2.1 compliance
There’s gotta be some lobbying or consulting firm hired by manufacturers that’s using the same strategy between the two standards. The consortiums don’t seem to realize that short-term profits are coming at their expense of their brand.
There's no need for lobbying by manufacturers since the consortiums are directly controlled by the manufacturers. If the brand looses value, they switch to the next one.