> This is the only cable we scanned that contains no PCBA; the pins just connect directly to the wires.
What is the PCB for if it's technically possible to omit it?
USB-C head-to-head comparison
151–160 of 232 posts
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#152> This is the only cable we scanned that contains no PCBA; the pins just connect directly to the wires. What is the PCB for if it's technically possible to omit it?
Structural integrity. The pins might move around or push back without it, over time?
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/...
I understand having retimer (ie. active signal booster) chips midway along a long cable... But at the end of a cable a mere 2 inches from the place the signal is going to end up seems superfluous... Is it because the thunderbolt spec inherits timing parameters from PciE and it was hard to meet those with a long cable?
Maybe someone else can say with certainty, but I will note that they chose a > 1m cable to image. Thunderbolt 4 cables That probably explains the irregular pricing intervals stepping up from 1.8m $129 to 3.0m for $159. Though it's a very Apple thing to charge $30 for the extra 1.2m of cable. At least the complexity of the integrated circuit can explain that first jump.
I'd imagine both the very-high bandwidth and the PCIe interop make necessary the retimers.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#154Cables with chipsets in them... the possibilities for data exfiltration are endless.
And commercially available for cheap.
https://shop.hak5.org/products/omg-cable
This cable has a built in keylogger and Wifi among other things.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I try to find the humor that our global manufacturing is so absolutely broken and encouraged by our politicians that Chinese crapware makers don't need to do anything but slam the keyboard for their "company name"... And the world lines up to buy it.
From what I understand, the gibberish name trend started with Amazon requiring a unique trademark for at least some product sales. You can see the perverse incentive results.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#156Hold on a sec.. I need to update the firmware on my USB-C cable. Crazy how miniature and advanced things are becoming.
Right, don’t forget to update your USB-C to MagSafe 3 cable firmware!
https://www.macworld.com/article/1514105/macbook-air-pro-mag...
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Watch the Anker TB4 cable on Amazon, it’s frequently on sale. I snagged it for $29.99. If it’s for connecting your Mac to a 4K or 5k monitor, I think Apple’s cables are worth the premium.
Anker Thunderbolt 4 Cable 2.3 ft https://a.co/d/23pCtRE
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#158I wish these were more widely available: https://caberqu.com/home/20-42-c2c-caberqu-746052578813.html... I have one from the kickstarter, and every new USB-C cable gets tested and labeled. Most are USB 2.0. A few will have the power delivery pins. It's such a crapshoot on any shopping site. It should be mandatory that these cables are correctly spec'd and labeled.
Shameless plug: I made a version of this you can order yourself from JLCPCB (with some bonus connectors.)
https://alvarop.com/2023/07/usb-cable-tester
Github project: https://github.com/alvarop/usb_c_cable_tester
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#159> Why does this cable have all 24 pins when only half of them are connected? The extra pins could help the plug sit more securely in its socket. Another guess: the same factory makes Thunderbolt cables, and it’s cheaper to maintain just one design, even though that means wasted material and effort. The highest volume manufacturers may be fully integrated. Usually how it works, especially for these relatively low volu…
are they really hand-soldered? They look so small! Isn't there a machine that is cheaper for high volume soldering of those small connections?
There's a pretty decent chance it is a mix of both.
USB-C connectors with pre-attached PCBs ("paddle cards") are widely available[0], and are created by a machine. Aligning the cables with the paddle card is quite tricky to automate, so humans are still used for that.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It should be mandatory that these cables are correctly spec’s and labeled Why doesn’t the USB standards group mandate labeling of some type? Probably not words, but symbols would be good enough.
Isn’t that how we got USB 3 Gen 2 PD 130w Muffin-Spec? Their names are terrible. Besides. If companies are going to make non-conforming cables, they can put fake labels on them too. No normal person is going to check for the right labels. They need a “USB C 4 cable”. They type that into Amazon and buy the thing with a low price and 4 stars. The exact markings on the cable don’t make a difference.
You can probably blame the manufacturers and tech press for that.
These were always only intended to be internal designations for very specific technologies, with the devices and cables simply labeled with their actual capabilities. None of the Gen1/Gen2/Gen3 nonsense, simply "10G" / "20G" / "40G".
Unfortunately not everyone got that memo, and once the general population got used to the complicated internal-only designation it became pretty much impossible to use any other term for it.