Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

eclecticlight.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 333 posts

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#141

Post by mmastrac »

madeofpalk wrote: post #128
mmastrac wrote: post #116

I find it amusing that every single one of our high-speed standards (ethernet, HDMI, PCIE, displayport, USB) are basically just the same high-speed differential pairs under the hood with different framing. I don't know exactly what we can do about this situation, but at some point it probably makes sense for all of them to converge into a multi-lane, differential-pair standard (or just support nesting each other arbi…

IIRC Thunderbolt essentially is "PCIE but in a cable"

That's my understanding as well.

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#142

Post by mmastrac »

akelly wrote: post #130
mmastrac wrote: post #116

I find it amusing that every single one of our high-speed standards (ethernet, HDMI, PCIE, displayport, USB) are basically just the same high-speed differential pairs under the hood with different framing. I don't know exactly what we can do about this situation, but at some point it probably makes sense for all of them to converge into a multi-lane, differential-pair standard (or just support nesting each other arbi…

Maybe we can call it a Universal Serial Bus

How many parallel differential pairs can you have before it's no longer serial? Hah.

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#143

Post by jsjohnst »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #87
jsjohnst wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Seems like the simplest counterpoint would be to demonstrate a M1 mac transmitting at the full data rate using a different cable.

Which I’d be happy to do assuming I knew the exact specs (brand/model) of the drives OP was using.

If you’d like me to demonstrate that MacOS on Apple Silicon correctly supports USB 3.2 gen 2 devices at 10Gb/s using multiple brands of drives/models, happy to do as well.

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#144

Post by faller »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #138
faller wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then why rename 3.0 to 3.1 then 3.2? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask. Keep in mind that: * USB3.0 was released in 2008. * USB3.1 was released in 2013. * USB3.2 was released in 2017. Each standard is standalone, and specifies all of its transfer modes. I wouldn't be surprised if each of these specs also included fixes, and thus technically would represent different specs.

I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" speed is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" (or "USB4 Gen 1") speed just because the USB Consortium said so.

> I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1"

No, it's not.

If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it.

If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.

If instead you implement it based on the USB 3.2 spec then that standard specifies four distinct transfer modes: the Gen1 specified in USB3.2, the Gen2 specified in USB3.2, and the new ones.

> just because the USB Consortium said so.

Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#145

Post by giantrobot »

grishka wrote: post #126
notatoad wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, USB 3.1 was an update to the spec to allow USB Type C connectors. USB 3.0 specified the old type-a connector on one end and one of the weird oversized type-b connectors on the other end. Maybe not relevant as a consumer to have a difference in the spec version for that, but if you’re a manufacturer trying to implement it, it’s worth a bump to the minor version number.

I have some Android phones that have a USB-C port but only support 2.0 speeds (as per the macOS system info USB tree thing). Which version is that then? I've always assumed that the physical layer of the protocol and the connectors themselves were separate specs and you could have USB protocol running over any kind of arbitrarily shaped connector. And no protocol over a USB(-A) connector, because those are de-facto l…

Very likely the Android device doesn't advertise any particular USB spec. If anything it might have a logo for the minimum spec it supports. You can put USB controllers in a device and not worry about any USB-IF if you don't use any USB branding on the box, IIRC any licenses owed are covered in the price of the ICs.

The logical connection in USB doesn't care about the physical connection. Your phone could just have some soldered leads for all the protocol cares.

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#146

Post by faller »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #139
frosted-flakes wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the name of the standard. I'm not sure that those names were ever meant to be user-facing, but unfortunately they are. If device-makers choose to support a newer standard (say 3.2), that standard needs to support older speeds (Gen 1), in addition to newer speeds (Gen 2).

But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage. If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds. I could even plug it into a USB 1.1 hub, and it would just work. I didn't need "USB 3.0 Gen 4"[a] (3.0) to know that it would work at "USB 3.0 Gen 2"[a] (1.1) or "USB 3.0 Gen 3" (2.0) speeds. [a]: Made up names; USB 3…

> But USB 3.0 supported USB 2.0 and 1.0/1.1 speeds already without this "generation" garbage.

No, not quite. What do you think the USB3.0 SuperSpeed is? Why, a brand new transfer mode.

> If I plugged a USB 3.0 cable (9 pins) into a USB 2.0 (4 pin) hub, the device still worked at the lower speeds.

You'd be glad to know that nothing changed in that regard with USB3.0, 3.1, and 3.2.

In fact, the whole point of this submission is to showcase how M1 macs are only capable of drawing a lower data transfer speed unlike the new Mac Studio, thus proving that the M1 macs don't support USB 3.1 Gen2, aka SuperSpeed+.

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#147

Post by fumar »

kcb wrote: post #100
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Apple doesn't make low-end devices.

Isn't the Mac M1 mini $699?

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#148

Post by colejohnson66 »

faller wrote: post #144
colejohnson66 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" speed is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" (or "USB4 Gen 1") speed just because the USB Consortium said so.

> I'm not talking about the standards, but the marketing names. "USB 3.0" is now "USB 3.2 Gen 1" No, it's not. If you implement it from the legacy USB 3.0 spec then you don't care about it. It's SuperSpeed, and that's it. If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2. If instead you implement…

> No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

> If instead you implement it to comply with the USB3.1 spec then you have two separate transfer modes specified in the 3.1 standard: the legacy Gen1 and the newly-added Gen2.

No. If your device only supports 5 Gb/sec speeds, it's USB 3.0, yes. "SuperSpeed" and all that jazz. But with USB 3.2, it's now (magically) USB 3.2 Gen 1[0]:

> Under this rebranding, the standard previously known as USB 3.0 or USB 3.1 Gen 1 will now be called USB 3.2 Gen 1. Furthermore, the standard previously known as USB 3.1 Gen 2 will now be renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2.

Yes, there's different transfer speeds, but if you only support 5 Gb/sec, you're a "Gen 1" device. If you're arguing that implementing USB 3.1 mandates support of the 10 Gb/sec mode, you're wrong. If that was the case, there'd be no point of this "Gen" nonsense because a 20 Gb/sec device would just be "USB 3.2" and a 5 Gb/sec device would be "USB 3.0".

Remember the whole debacle a few weeks ago about HDMI 2.1 essentially just being HDMI 2.0? Why would they do that other than to confuse? The only reason for this (USB) stupid naming is to confuse consumers into thinking that their 5 Gb/sec device is "top of the line" because it supports "USB 3.2" or "USB4".

For example, here's a "USB 3.2 Gen 1" flash drive.[1] It's a 5 Gb/sec flash drive, but it's 3.2 instead of the more appropriate 3.0. Why? To confuse.

> Who exactly do you think the USB consortium is? I mean, how do you think a standard is put together?

I think it's a consortium of companies. Many of which have marketing teams. And I'm right.[2]

[0]: https://www.msi.com/blog/new-usb-standard-usb-3-2-gen-1-gen2...

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Ultra-Flash-Drive/dp/B0...

[2]: https://www.usb.org/members

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#149

Post by lionkor »

akelly wrote: post #130
mmastrac wrote: post #116

I find it amusing that every single one of our high-speed standards (ethernet, HDMI, PCIE, displayport, USB) are basically just the same high-speed differential pairs under the hood with different framing. I don't know exactly what we can do about this situation, but at some point it probably makes sense for all of them to converge into a multi-lane, differential-pair standard (or just support nesting each other arbi…

Maybe we can call it a Universal Serial Bus

I like the idea! Let's start with v1.0, and then just let our PR team decide on the next versions

Re: M1 Thunderbolt ports don’t fully support USB 3.1 Gen 2

#150

Post by gardaani »

choikwa wrote: post #65
masklinn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? USB 3.1 Gen 1 is the straight rebranding of USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 2 is the "original" 3.1, which is 3.0 updated to a 10Gbps signalling rate (from 5), and a more efficient encoding (128/132, versus 8/10). But wait, there's worse! USB 3.2 Gen 1 is the same thing as USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB 3.2…

I hope USB4 fixes things.

It does give consumer friendly marketing names (USB4 20Gbps) to the different Gens, but the Gens are there: USB4 Gen 2x1, 2x2, 3x1, 3x2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#USB_3.x_.E2.80.93_4.x_dat...
Post reply on HN