71–80 of 272 posts
It doesn't cover every possible configuration, but it's good enough for when I'm like "I need a USB cable" vs "I need a good USB cable"
I use this tester: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CF95VL2Y
> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something. T…
> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something. T…
Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This effectively only tells you what the E-Marker reports though, the actual capabilities of the cable are still unknown. You can say the cable can do whatever you want on the E-Marker, its not the source of truth. The problem is, to actually benchmark everything, voltage drop, resistance, actual bandwidth (especially at Thunderbolt 5 speeds) requires a lot of hardware. Using a USB-C Test Controller ($13,000), connec…
well, that's disappointing; someone needs to miniaturize that and reduce the cost massively
As always, these testers (the affordable ones) are capable of testing continuity, and, I guess, the cable chip report. If you want to test bandwidth, that's a five- or six-figure bit of gear.
I always found this confusing because USB 3.0 Micro-B cables can transfer data faster than USB 2.0 without needing an e-marker, so why do USB-C cables need one if they already have the Tx and Rx SuperSpeed wires?
It seems like the answer is, roughly, "it's complicated".
https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/1ow1tpf/why_d...
https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/13j0gev/do_us...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.
So, call it USB-D or something, if one cable is significantly different (in purpose, performance, form factor) than another cable. Don't just call everything the same label, and let the non-technical buyer beware.
> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something. T…
As always, these testers (the affordable ones) are capable of testing continuity, and, I guess, the cable chip report. If you want to test bandwidth, that's a five- or six-figure bit of gear.
Why on earth is so much more expensive than an arbitrary pair of devices that could max out a cable?
You need to generate a precise, calibrated, 40GHz signal, transmit it, then precisely measure the returned signal for phase, amplitude, and waveform integrity -at that speed.
Oscilloscopes and logic analyzers that run at that speed, are damn expensive.