406 Not Acceptable
USB-C head-to-head comparison
31–40 of 232 posts
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#32I'm curious about the 9-layer PCBA -- is it an amplifier or signal conditioner, to achieve 40 Gb/s? Or does it implement some protocol?
Or for power delivery? I see what might be resistors or capacitors. Not sure what else.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#33I can't help but dislike chips in cables
Thunderbolt is an Active spec, chips are required.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I swear, there must be software to make pseudo English phoneme strings for Chinese resellers to register as “companies” on amazon. 95% of them are ridiculous and I can’t believe a human made them.
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.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#35I wish they had compared to off brand thunderbolt cables to see if Apple’s is worth the premium
The thunderbolt licensing is pretty strict, so I'm not sure anyone is selling knock off thunderbolt cables that underperform the rated specs.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#36I wish they had compared to off brand thunderbolt cables to see if Apple’s is worth the premium
You could get a 1m Belkin Thunderbolt 4 cable for about $40. Afaik Intel controls/certifies Thunderbolt cables and Apple just has free use of name or something.
So should any Thunderbolt branded cable have similar performance and build quality to the Apple cable, then? Cause I wanted to know the same thing - I came away honestly impressed and thinking maybe I should buy an Apple cable even though I don't own an iPhone. But the real question is whether other vendors have the same quality at a lower price point, because I don't feel the desire to pay the Apple price if they aren't better than the competition.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#37Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Clearly we are paying for quality here, the question is LTV how quickly does the thunderbolt break
Why would it break if the same type of wiring is used? Unless you mean the active chipset breaking somehow, rendering that cable useless?
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#38Cables with chipsets in them... the possibilities for data exfiltration are endless.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#39Insane 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.
That's why I prefer to pay the premium for Thunderbolt cables. You know exactly what you're getting.
Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it doesn't check for the last piece of the puzzle - the USB-C cable e-marker which has to be present to signal advanced capabilities for charging and thunderbolt. So it's not sufficient to test for high performance cables :/
For that, I use an FNB58 (which I got from AliExpress - https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256804478930060.html ).
[deleted]