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

I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

makeuseof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 266 posts

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#141

Post by yreg »

Barbing wrote: post #111
boplicity wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's a USB-C charger out there that can actually pump out anything close to their rated maximum.

At $150 (“on sale” from $184?), wonder how close it comes: https://anker.com/products/a2687-anker-prime-charger-160w-3-...

I have not managed to stress test it yet, I believe that so far I saw it deliver ~100W max.

I got it for 110€ in some Amazon bundle together with 3 usb cables. Which is about the price of the 140W Apple brick. (We don't get the powerbricks included with the MacBooks.)

But Apple's is much larger, heavier and has a single port.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#143

Post by LiamPowell »

mshroyer wrote: post #75
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #18

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?

Testing in that way will only tell you if the two devices work with the given cable. It won't tell you what sort of margins you have. Not all devices are made equal.

A device isn't even necessarily better if it works with one cable when another doesn't, it might just happen to have a slightly lower impedance on its internal traces that happens to better match an out of spec cable, or any other one of a number of parameters.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#144

Post by dmos62 »

stouset wrote: post #84
ryandrake wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, great, it’s called USB-D. Is this a new connector? Or do we now need to resort to labeling cables and checking the label? Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort?

Ehem, we already do that. USB-C is an umbrella term and everyone has a homebaked organizing system to tell which USB-C cable can do what, or a homebaked testing routine where we run through 5 cables each time we need to connect something.

That's what the article is about. Calling all these cables USB-C and making them look indistinguishable is a very leaky abstraction.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#145

Post by roaringrocky »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #80
mshroyer wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth is so much more expensive than an arbitrary pair of devices that could max out a cable?

Think about it. 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.

But for bandwidth can't you just have two simple computers at either end that can send a 100GB file and if it arrives in 20 seconds, you know you have 40gbps of bandwidth?

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#146

Post by lrasinen »

The Treedix cable tester is awesome. Ordered one after reading Terence Eden's positive review* and went through all my cables the day it arrived. My favorite was the cable with only the ground connected; went immediately into the bin.

*) https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/06/gadget-review-treedix-usb-c...

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#147

Post by mrheosuper »

riffraff wrote: post #139
kuboble wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now we’re living in the hell we asked for N=1, but my quality of life has greatly improved. Literally all devices I use daily (laptop, phone, mp3 player, Bluetooth speaker, headphones) I charge from a single cable. I'm still grateful for this unification every time I charge my phone via the laptop charger.

I'm also happy we have a single connector but, n=1, I have a couple things that will not work with all cables. I have no idea why, nor have I bothered to find out, I just marked the cables they came with (which are USB-A to USB-C) same as GP did.

>I have no idea why, nor have I bothered to find out

The reason is simple; your device violated the USB-C spec by saving $0.0000002 of BOM cost

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#148

Post by hurfdurf »

ryandrake wrote: post #70

> 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…

  A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec,
It's called Thunderbolt.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#149

Post by hmng »

I know things have become much more complicated, but still remember fondly the good intentions of the original USB spec, which, for instances, forbade any extension cables (ignored, as expected, by many), with the reasoning that users should expect that if a cable connects, it should just work. Longer cables would need to be electrically "better", and extensions would eventually cause issues with electrical paths that were too long.

People still remembered the "black art" involved with, e.g., SCSI cables, where long chains would often had issues, and wanted to avoid that.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#150

Post by consp »

godelski wrote: post #122
Kirby64 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB-A has many variants and we don’t call it a different connector. Heck, USB-B and micro USB both have 3.0 variants that are physically different and we don’t call them something different either. I don’t see the problem here. This is just semantics, especially when they aren’t even labeled period… people just see a cable and will try plugging it in.

> USB-A has many variants > especially when they aren’t even labeled period What are you talking about? USB-A is color coded. You'll frequently see white and blue. Admittedly this is harder with USB-C because the size, but I don't see why we can't label these things. Not labeling just leads to confusion and fraud. https://www.corsair.com/us/en/explorer/diy-builder/storage/u...

The color coding is optional and ambiguous: Blue is recommended, not required, and there is no difference for 3.0, 3.1 (10gbit) or others. And you now also have red, yellow, green, purple and orange, which have no defined meaning in any standard and are just whatever a manufacturer wants to do. There is nothing preventing someone from selling standard 4 conductor A ports with red coloring.
Post reply on HN