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

USB-C head-to-head comparison

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 232 posts

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#122

Post by artimaeis »

londons_explore wrote: post #77

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?

It's an Intel Thunderbolt ReTimer chip.

https://youtu.be/LBWnb0ZIlEA?si=hgLg_TOa9zr42wpU&t=304

I can't find the 7040 specifically, but here's a similar 9040R chip: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/211299/...

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#123

Post by Isthatablackgsd »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #96
Isthatablackgsd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming it would involves more ICs which it can bump the cost of the testing kit exponentially to test all of the pins.

If it's exponential that's a huge assumption that needs more backing.

I'm not a EE. It is my understanding that to fully test 24 pins would includes putting a full load of higher wattage through those wiring to ensure they are capable of transferring. Higher wattage which means it needs a larger transformer to output that large amount of power or it would need a 200+ watts power brick to supply the wattage. That includes needing safety/failsafe components to protect itself and the device it is connected to, thus increasing the risk of potential damage if it was mishandled. I won't be surprised if the cable reporting that it can handle higher wattage when it is not in reality. Also, this includes the testing system to ensure it is handling rigorously without damaging it.

I don't know the cost of the such device, I am assuming the higher cost based on other devices for other thing such as ethernet cable tester such as Fluke which are $100+.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#125

Post by wronglebowski »

upon_drumhead wrote: post #18

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

My guess is they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Seems like the products they sell would be very useful to said companies. Wouldn't want to air any of their dirty laundry, it's PR not a reporting/review perspective.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#127

Post by vlovich123 »

duped wrote: post #112
criddell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Considering most people that encounter USB cables these days is for the purposes of charging some device, and a smaller minority will actually care about optimizing the charging speed, the universal connector solves a lot of the important usability problems even if it creates other kind of problems. Engineering is about trade offs and while separate connectors might make you personally happy, it would probably result in more expensive devices and cables that have even worse interop (the more generic the hw can be, the cheaper it is at scale).

I think the logos would be helpful but I doubt anything will happen in that direction because the benefit is likely marginal.

Post reply on HN