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

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#171

Post by crote »

XIVMagnus wrote: post #4

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

Not really. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Apple cable is a relatively long 40Gbps cable, with active redriver/retimer due to its length. The competitors are bargain-bin 0.48Gbps cables, intended primarily for charging.

In fact, the NiceTQ cable violates the spec so badly it won't even work in most scenarios. The ATYFUER one is part of an A-to-C cable and is pretty much a textbook example of what such a connector should look like. The AmazonBasics one is also a decent example of a pretty standard low-speed C-C cable.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#172

Post by crote »

agapon wrote: post #98
londons_explore wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want my computer to have a built in cable tester. Just plug both ends of the same cable into two different ports of a computer, and it has a little popup saying "This cable can support charging at this rate and data at that rate, and is fully functional". Or "This cable has 1 bad pin, and that may affect video/audio/charging/whatever functionality" Ideally, the computer would test every pin in the cable, and…

Something like this? https://hackaday.com/2023/08/11/usb-c-cable-tester-is-compac... https://www.tindie.com/products/petl/usb-c-cable-tester-c2c-...

No, these only test connectivity. They do not check the eMarker.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#173

Post by lxgr »

crote wrote: post #161
c-linkage wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figure the reason the Apple USB-C cable has a complex PCB embedded in the head-end of the cable is to detect Apple-certified devices and ensure top speed only when paired with an Apple-certified cable. Both the device and the cable have to recognize each other as properly licensed devices, otherwise you get sub-standard performance.

No. Doing 40Gbps data is really hard because physics. Once you get beyond about 100cm, the signal loss basically requires you to add a repeater or retimer. This has been part of the USB-C specification since the very beginning, and any cable of this length doing 40Gbps will feature a similar PCB.

Sure, but I'm trying to do 10 Gbit/s on a The USB specs say that C-to-C cables need an e-marker for that, and A-to-B or other non-C-to-C cables need nothing at all (apart from one or two resistors in case of an A-to-C or C-to-micro-B adapter).

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#174

Post by scarface_74 »

avianlyric wrote: post #49
brightball wrote: post #15

This stuff is what worries me about the whole EU standards body issue. I'd rather Apple be able to innovate and create a better connector than locking them into this mismatched and inconsistent reality.

Better is relative. The EU goals is standardisation to reduce e-waste. Unless Apple are going to innovate a way make every phone manufacturer adopt their fancy new connector, it’s never going to “better” than USB-C. If you’re evaluating connectors from the perspective of reducing e-waste.

“We are going to put all of our effort on standardizing cables so when Android users have to throw away their phones every year because they don’t get updates at least they won’t have to throw away the cable”

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#175

Post by simondotau »

oaiey wrote: post #129
culopatin wrote: post #6

I wish they had compared to off brand thunderbolt cables to see if Apple’s is worth the premium

Yeah, this article is Apple favoring FUD. There are tons of high quality USB-C cables. You just need to pick the right one.

It's true that there are many high quality USB-C cables, but they are utterly swamped by an order of magnitude more low quality USB-C cables. A particularly tech savvy person might be able to wade through the muck, but most normal people won't even know to.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#176

Post by usrusr »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #113
troupo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Unfortunately with USB-C, it seems to be impossible to get those really lightweight thin charge only cables. I really miss those for traveling. My lightest A/micro-B examples even do some slow data, which has occasionally been useful as a contingency.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#177

Post by xp84 »

PumpkinSpice wrote: post #52

This is how you do advertising on HN... The page is a very explicit plug (pun intended?) for their industrial CT products, and it was clearly done for marketing purposes, not because it reveals anything interesting. It is an apples-to-oranges comparison of several cables, basically showing that they're doing what they're supposed to and are constructed as expected. It was even submitted by an account that is clearly…

Yes, I was deeply disappointed that they didn’t test any reputable cable advertised as equivalent to the Apple one. So it didn’t answer the interesting question of whether there’s any point in buying Apple vs say, Anker.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#180

Post by xp84 »

brightball wrote: post #15

This stuff is what worries me about the whole EU standards body issue. I'd rather Apple be able to innovate and create a better connector than locking them into this mismatched and inconsistent reality.

Apple are the ones who decided to wait at least 7 years to adopt USB-C after it was available. If they could have “innovated” - maybe USB 3.0 support could have been added to Lightning? But they showed zero interest in innovating over all that time, so I think that’s fantasy.

The EU wouldn’t have forced their hand if they were innovative instead of being greedy, lazy, and rent-seeking.

Post reply on HN