Live data from Hacker News

USB-C head-to-head comparison

lumafield.com

111–120 of 232 posts

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fast and cheap way to avoid running afoul of trademark laws.

It isn't to avoid running afoul of trademark laws, it's just that it's easy to trademark pseudorandom brand names, and Amazon upranks trademarked brands.

How much does it cost to trademark a brand globally? Or at least in major markets? Hiw long before someone starts trademarking uuids?

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#112
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop a labeling? You could design the connectors to only terminate at another connector that supports the same features, preventing anyone from confusing one cable for another. And the reason we don't do that is because it would expose the lie that there can be a universal data and power connector for all devices, and rather than live in a world where everything can connect perfectly fine with the right cables, w…

I think you’re letting perfect be the enemy of good here.

I understand its a bit of a hot take but I just fundamentally disagree with the premise that we should be using one connector for such a wide range of devices. It's a recipe for garbage.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#113
post #13

Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Clearly we are paying for quality here, the question is LTV how quickly does the thunderbolt break

> Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. > Clearly we are paying for quality here It's not just quality. It's because Intel did the sensible thing and made a bunch of things that are optional in USB-C mandatory in Thunderbolt certification. So you always know what you're getting.

The problem is that cables are not clearly marked by speed. Being able to get a $5 slow cable is a good thing.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#114

I'm a bit annoyed that the only comparisons in the article are Apple's gold plated cable and then three random Amazon fly by night cables. I wish they had tested a more reputable cable that was maybe only 1/4 of the price of the Apple cable.

There really aren't any, at least for genuine Thunderbolt 4 cables. Anker's 2.3-foot TB4 cable is $40, or about $17.40/foot, while Apple's 1-meter TB4 cable is $70, or $21.30/foot. Not a huge difference. Apple certainly gouges people a lot of the time, but I don't think their Thunderbolt cables are an example of this; they're genuinely complicated pieces of engineering.

Cable Matters has a 2 meter certified TB4 cable that's $54. That's a pretty big difference from $129.

I don't know a lot about intermediate quality cables, but I'd at least want to see a thunderbolt 4 fly by night cable, one of these $20-$30 ones.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#115
post #86

The scans and analysis were cool, but comparing one quality cable from Apple to one budget offering from Amazon and two e-waste options from completely unknown brands isn't enough to answer the leading question "Does Apple’s Thunderbolt 4 cable really warrant its $129 price tag?" Especially considering none of those cables even advertised feature parity with Apple's cable.

Agreed -- the summary of this article could be "cables with different specs perform differently."

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#116

I wish they imaged other premium third party cables like cablematters or anker.

Their choice is remarkably ridiculous.

It looks like they start at a 10 and then continue with 4, 3, 2.

I wonder who paid for this...how is this even getting so many upvotes? It's pretty much useless.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#117
post #107

On the apple cable... That circuit looks like a lot more than an e-marker. Why do we have a massive 105 pin BGA chip in there? Does this cable run iOS or something?

Yes, this is the question I was going to ask. Is that an Apple ASIC? Or something off-the-shelf? Crazy if it was an FPGA inside a cable, but maybe not with the price tag. We need to have someone dissect one of these to see if there are any markings on that. I supposed something this tiny is a wafer level chip-scale package. I can't seem to find any 105 pin BGAs at Octopart or Digikey, but it isn't easy to shop by pin…

Here's the teardown:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/23/teardown-of-apple...

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#118
post #62

“ Another curiosity hidden in the circuit board is this wiggle on one of the traces. It contains a tiny detour to make sure it’s the same length as its paired trace, which is especially important when dealing with extra-high-speed data transmission.” A wiggle that small is adding picosecond delays. I’m surprised that’s necessary. Cool!

This comes up all the time in the context of DRAM routing. See e.g. the first image at https://resources.altium.com/p/pcb-routing-guidelines-ddr4-m... .

Okay in this case impedance matching is more important than the time delay. Thanks for the link :)

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#119
For a second I thought this was an ad for a democratized CT scan machine, but alas it's a 75k$/y subscription machine? This makes a convincing case for having CT scanners available in one's hobby workshop, but the prices would have to come down quite a lot.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#120
post #78

Speaking of USB-C 10 Gbit/s cables, I've noticed something odd about the iPhone 15 Pro: I have a USB-C cable that has been yielding 10 Gbit/s speeds (i.e. USB 3 Gen 2x1 or possibly but very unlikely 1x2) when used at my Mac with various devices (mostly SSDs). However, that same cable only gets USB 2 speeds when connecting the iPhone to my Mac. The iPhone itself also seems to only get USB 2 speeds using the SSD and th…

I think a good step in debugging this would be to download Apple’s “Additional Tools for Xcode 15”, and then open up IO Registry Explorer. There’s a lot more info to see there about attached devices than the standard system profiler.
Post reply on HN