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

New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 384 posts

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#61

Post by red369 »

user34283 wrote: post #6

I have a RTL8157 5 Gbps adapter from CableMatters. Interestingly it seems to get burning hot on the MacBook M1 Pro while it remains cool on the M5 Pro model. Maybe the workload is different, but I would not rule out some sort of hardware or driver difference. I only use a 1G port on my router at the moment.

Huh! That's very interesting.

I am definitely not the person to shed any light on what is going on, but you've added to my feeling that these adapters are all incomprehensible, so I'll try and do the same for you.

I have a USB C ethernet adapter (a Belkin USB-C to Ethernet + Charge Adapter which I recommend if you need it). I ran out of USB C ports one day, and plugged it through a USB C to USB A adapter instead. I must have done an fast.com speed-test to make sure it wasn't going to slow things down drastically, and found that the latency was lower! Not a huge amount, and I think the max speed was quicker without the adapter. But still, lower latency through a $1.50 Essager USB C to USB A adapter, bought from Shein or Shopee or somewhere silly!

I tried tons of times, back and forward, with the adapter a few times, then without the adapter a few times. Even on multiple laptops. As much as I don't want to, I keep seeing lower latency through this cheap adapter.

Next step, I'll try USB C to USB A, then back through a USB A to USB C adapter. Who knows how fast my internet could be!

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#62

Post by eqvinox »

oliwarner wrote: post #51
t312227 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-

Is that really true? If so, is there a saner way to handle this than upgrade all the things to 10GBE ? Like a POE ethernet condom that interfaces with both network and devices at native max speeds without the core network having to degrade?

> Is that really true?

It's not, cf. sibling posts. The GP probably learned networking in the 80ies~90ies when it was true, but those times are long gone.

(unless you're talking wifi.)

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#63

Post by ssl-3 »

mort96 wrote: post #53

All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other versions. I have absolutely no idea what anyone means when they say USB 3.2 gen 2x2. I used to know what USB 3.2 meant but it's certainly not that.

Oh, it's fine.

The lack of clarity is in keeping with the USB C connector itself, which may supply or accept power at various rates or not at all, may be fast or slow, may provide or accept video or not, and may even provide an interpretation of PCI Express but probably doesn't.

It probably looks the same no matter what, and the cable selected to use probably also won't be very forthcoming with its capabilities either.

(Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.)

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#64

Post by izacus »

mort96 wrote: post #53

All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other versions. I have absolutely no idea what anyone means when they say USB 3.2 gen 2x2. I used to know what USB 3.2 meant but it's certainly not that.

[flagged]

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#65

Post by izacus »

Iulioh wrote: post #15
eqvinox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically yes, practically that hasn't been built yet. I've only seen it for 2.5Gbase-T, and only for 802.3bt Type 3 (51W). If anyone's aware of something better, I'd be interested too :) (Then again I wouldn't voluntarily use 5Gb-T or 10Gb-T anyway, and ≈50W is enough for most use cases.) [ed.: https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256807960919319.html ("2.5GPD2CBT-20V" variant) - actually 2.5G not 1G as I wrote initi…

Eh. A lot of laptops won't accept less than 60w My work laptop won't accept less than 90w (A modern HP, i7 155h with a random low end GPU) At first everyone at the office just assumed that the USB C wasn't able to charge the pc

Most laptops will take 45W. There might be some workstations that don't, but even gaming stuff with 5080s will charge on 45W.

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#66

Post by izacus »

jeroenhd wrote: post #36
spockz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. So we got EU laws to mandate USB-C chargers and then get manufacturers that flaunt the spirit of the law by rejecting lower wattages.

My laptop refuses to charge for 45W chargers as well, but I can almost understand it. When plugged into 100W chargers while powered on, it takes ten minutes to gain a single percentage point. Idle in power save may let me charge the thing in a few hours. If I start playing video, the battery slowly drains. If your laptop is part space heater, like most laptops with Nvidia GPUs in them seem to be, using a low power ad…

Which laptop is that? My Razer with 5070 will take 45W chargers just fine, so do the ThinkPads, my work 16" MacBook and previous Asus Zephyrus with 4070.

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#67

Post by eqvinox »

_blk wrote: post #42
Iulioh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. A lot of laptops won't accept less than 60w My work laptop won't accept less than 90w (A modern HP, i7 155h with a random low end GPU) At first everyone at the office just assumed that the USB C wasn't able to charge the pc

The issue might not be the wattage bit rather the minimum voltage. (Some?) Macs seems to charge at 15v already, most laptops need 20v

Coincidentally, the USB-C spec is written such that wattage implies a minimum set of supported voltages:

* ≤15W charger: must have 5V

* ≤27W charger: must have 5V & 9V

* ≤45W charger: must have 5V & 9V & 15V

* (OT but worth noting: >60W: requires "chipped" cable.)

* ≤100W charger: must have 5V & 9V & 15V & 20V

(levels above this starting to become relevant for the new 240W stuff)

(36W/12V doesn't exist anymore in PD 3.0. There seems to be a pattern with 140W @ 28V now, and then 240W at 48V, I haven't checked what's actually in the specs now for those, vs. what's just "herd agreement".)

Some devices are built to only charge from 20V, which means you need to buy a 45.000001W (scnr) charger to be sure it'll charge. If I remember correctly, requiring a minimum wattage to charge is permitted by the standard, so if the device requires a 46W charger it can assume it'll get 15V. Not sure about what exactly the spec says there, though.

(Of course the chargers may support higher voltages at lower power, but that'd cost money to build so they pretty much don't.)

NB: the lower voltages are all mandatory to support for higher powered chargers to be spec compliant. Some that don't do that exist — they're not spec compliant.

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#68

Post by Latty »

mort96 wrote: post #53

All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other versions. I have absolutely no idea what anyone means when they say USB 3.2 gen 2x2. I used to know what USB 3.2 meant but it's certainly not that.

To be fair they seem to have taken this often-stated criticism on board. USB 4's naming is more sensible, and they've pushed the simple data speed & power labelling that makes it easier to work out what you need.

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#69

Post by mort96 »

izacus wrote: post #64
mort96 wrote: post #53

All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other versions. I have absolutely no idea what anyone means when they say USB 3.2 gen 2x2. I used to know what USB 3.2 meant but it's certainly not that.

[flagged]

Well it means I have no idea what TFA is talking about when it mentions USB versions, for one.

Re: New 10 GbE USB adapters are cooler, smaller, cheaper

#70

Post by xattt »

izacus wrote: post #64
mort96 wrote: post #53

All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other versions. I have absolutely no idea what anyone means when they say USB 3.2 gen 2x2. I used to know what USB 3.2 meant but it's certainly not that.

[flagged]

A sense of perfect knowledge of the things around you, and not feeling like someone is trying to take advantage of you any time you go shopping.
Post reply on HN