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

211–220 of 266 posts

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

#211

Post by po1nt »

XYen0n wrote: post #87
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…

USB-C is just a connector. A cable can be a USB-C connector USB 3.0, power delivery 3.1 cable, or it can be a USB-C connector Thunderbolt 4 cable, or it can be a USB-C connector DisplayPort 1.4 cable.

Yeah and that's the confusing part. Just imagine saying "Yeah this is german power plug, but it might support just 120V, but the device will negotiate once you plug it in.

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

#212

Post by sokoloff »

Kirby64 wrote: post #205
tremon wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still an astonishing design failure: different ports have different connectors for a reason. Can you imagine a what would have happened if the car charging infrastructure would have used your regular 120/230V plugs? There is zero reason why 480mbps USB-C should exist when we already had 480mbps USB-A, except for misguided designers prioritizing aesthetics over usability.

> Can you imagine a what would have happened if the car charging infrastructure would have used your regular 120/230V plugs? They largely do. I’m not sure I understand your point? The amount of current pulled by the car in an EV is dictated by the car (equivalent to the PD controller on USB-C) and the amount of current max is indicated by the EVSE (which, is sort of like an emarker). When you plug that EVSE into the…

"absolutely nothing" is overly strong wording for a plug-in EVSE.

The standardization of the receptacles tells how much current is safe to pull. "This receptacle is 50A rated and can supply 40A continuous" is given by the 14-50 receptacle shape.

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

#213

Post by blurrybird »

braiamp wrote: post #159
pzmarzly wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not TB5 compatible though, and if you are going to drive monitors through it, or connect external GPU, 120Gbit (TB5) is much better than 40Gbit TB4 gives you. If you are willing to pay a bit more, consider TB5 cables from CalDigit, StarTech, CableMatters, or Apple.

I can't find it anymore, but I'm pretty sure that the only reason they don't say it support TB5 is because they would need a license to say so.

You’re thinking of TB4 which only requires 40Gbps.

TrueSpec cables that advertise 40Gbps work fine as TB4 cables.

TB5 is 80Gbps so TrueSpec isn’t capable.

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

#214

Post by blurrybird »

TheTxT wrote: post #92
Gigachad wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My concern is stiffer cables are likely more likely to rip USB ports off the PCB. A lot of devices provide very little support to the USB port which is basically just hanging off pads on the PCB, so a stuff heavy cable could provide a lot more bending force to rip it off. Phones and macbooks have it done right where the outer portion of the port is built in to the device body, but most other devices don't do this.

They’re chunky, but very flexible. There’s basically no memory effect to them either, so they don’t try to curl up on their own.

Yeah even the shorter lengths (thicker) are way more complacent than I expected.

I’m slowly replacing every cable in the house and cars. I’m up to 7 and counting.

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

#215

Post by sokoloff »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #200
tremon wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still an astonishing design failure: different ports have different connectors for a reason. Can you imagine a what would have happened if the car charging infrastructure would have used your regular 120/230V plugs? There is zero reason why 480mbps USB-C should exist when we already had 480mbps USB-A, except for misguided designers prioritizing aesthetics over usability.

Except usb-c will have a baseline level if working even with your very lightweight cheap flexible usb2 60w cable. Adding connectors to obstruct functionality, to make each specific use physically incompatible with every other use, was hell. No thanks. Usb-c rocks, it's flexibility is amazing, and anytime you need a serious business use, good cables are well labelled. This is just yet another HN lightning rod issue wh…

> anytime you need a serious business use, good cables are well labelled.

Unfortunately, many not-good cables are also labeled similarly as good cables (fraudulently).

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

#216

Post by josephg »

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?

> Or do we now need to resort to labeling cables and checking the label?

YES oh please yes! Give me labels! I'm sick of playing guessing games with my USB cables. Which one should I use for my external drive? This cable is thick! Will it work? Maybe it's only thick so it can send power? It seems impossible to tell, even if I plug it in to my computer. The files are there, I just need to somehow guess that it's a bit slower than it's supposed to go. Another cable feels expensive but its 1m. Will it work? Do I get slower data rates? I can't tell. I hate guessing. Label the cables!

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

#217

Post by josephg »

phil21 wrote: post #209
dmos62 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, if you care about this and it annoys you the fix is very simple and relatively cheap. Just set a minimum baseline/standardization for the type of cable/capabilities you need for your highest end device. Only keep those cables, give away the rest, and buy a half dozen new cables so no matter which you select you will always get the right one. I've rarely found I need a "special" USB-C cable outside of connecti…

> Just set a minimum baseline/standardization for the type of cable/capabilities you need for your highest end device. Only keep those cables, give away the rest

I don't have a cable tester, and I don't want to buy one. The companies who make USB cables should be responsible for this testing. I don't want to do expensive homework on behalf of USB cable companies.

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

#218

Post by josephg »

brookst wrote: post #182
dmos62 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So there are 4 different current-carrying levels, from 2.5A to 5A EPR. There are 6 different transfer speeds, from 480mbps to 120gbps. There’s DisplayPort yes/no. There are 4 thunderbolt genrations, each with its own marker. Some of those are dependent (480mbps cables don’t have markers), so it’s not a full permutation problem. Only about 20 different combinations are valid. Is the proposal to have 20 different physi…

That can be solved the same way it was solved for SD / CFe cards. Just have a single mark which guarantees a baseline set of requirements.

- "USB Speed 2" means [20gbps, thunderbolt 3, displayport, 20 watts].

- "USB Speed 3" means 100gbps, thunderbolt 4, etc.

- "Power 100" means 100 watts minimum.

Make a little logo for each standard - "S2" / "S3" / "P100" which can be branded onto each end of the cable. People who care can look at the logos and tell what a given cable can do.

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

#219

Post by eek2121 »

Kirby64 wrote: post #72
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…

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.

It’s not hard to make a functional standard, the USB folks just don’t care, IMO. If they had simply worked on better naming, things would be much more clear.

(now they’d need to do something crazy like USB-C 40G PD60 as a name in order to fix things, unless the next version of USB is a clean break)

Now they’ve made a mess of things, and cables AND connectors are all over the place.

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

#220

Post by itsamario »

Kirby64 wrote: post #72
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…

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.

Now that EU made USBC a power standard I expect the 4k/8k/16k, 3.0/3.1/3.2, and 5/10/20gbps to be replaced with 60/120/240watts.

This way it's simpler to enforce a standard across the industries

Post reply on HN