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

71–80 of 232 posts

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#71

Post by colejohnson66 »

criddell wrote: post #57
bloopernova wrote: post #3

I 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.

> 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.

Because the USB Consortium is partially made up of the same companies that make garbage cables.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#72

Post by ricardobeat »

aalimov_ wrote: post #27
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…

> 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 … If you have a Mac you might be able to try the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test app. It would require you to also have a drive that* can handle the read/write speeds of the cable you are testing… but you’ll only get accurate numbers if your drive can handle read/write that’s above what…

If the computer could test on a loop like the parent comment suggested, every single machine built in the last decade has enough memory bandwidth to test >40Gbps. No need to write to disk.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#73

Post by artursapek »

cmiller1 wrote: post #64
culopatin wrote: post #6

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

In my experience having bought cheap, middle of the road, and high end USB-C cables and adaptors, Apple's have been the only ones that have lasted me more than a year.

Caldigit's Thunderbolt cable which comes with their dock has lasted much longer than that.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#74

Post by mardifoufs »

jamesdwilson wrote: post #67
mardifoufs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the FNB-58 which says has a 24 pin interface but that might not necessarily mean that it tests all of them! I should probably test it. It's a bit pricy but very well built, and pretty stable as long as you update the firmware or get one with a newer version already installed.

it SAYS it has a 24 pin interface but have you run it through a tester tester?

Hahahahaha yes I realized it was a bit stupid as I was writing it.They only mention having 24pin interfaces, not testing though I don't see how they could do one without the other, or how it would support 120w passthrough without those pins being connected! But it's AliExpress! One of my favorite online stores, but you absolutely have to always double check what you buy.

Still, more trustworthy than buying more niche electronics from Amazon imo.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#75

Post by colonwqbang »

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…

I found it interesting. Why not market your product by demoing what it can do? I'm not going to buy a CT scanner but if someone else does I don't mind it.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#76

Post by galaxyLogic »

bee_rider wrote: post #47
floatrock wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> accumulated 29 one-star reviews on Amazon and was discontinued the day after we bought it. They forgot to say how it re-appeared the next day under some other manufacturer name that's a random assortment of words and letters slightly different than "NiceTQ"

It is annoying that these sellers do this, but it is a pretty obvious thing to do, it is economically incentivized, and so it is totally unsurprising. The weird thing, IMO, is that Amazon doesn’t see this as a big problem that they need to solve. I mean if I was to give somebody advice as to which cables they should buy on Amazon, it would have to be: use a brand you know and make sure you buy it directly from their…

> The weird thing, IMO, is that Amazon doesn’t see this as a big problem that they need to solve.

Not so weird I think. They pretty much have a monopoly so what do they care. The more Amazon is used as the sales-channel the more money Amazon makes. And most users don't have a way of testing their cables. If a cable stops working it is easy to assume the user somehow broke the cable or its connectors themselves.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#78

Post by lxgr »

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 that cable. Yet with another, newer USB-C 10 Gbit/s cable, I get 10 Gbit/s throughout all scenarios.

What's going on here? Is the iPhone overly strict about supporting USB 3 speeds over USB-C cables, i.e. is my old cable possibly not electronically marked properly, and the Mac is just more tolerant of that?

And something else I've noticed: The iPhone also does not get 10 Gbit/s using a somewhat monstrous adapter construction (USB-C to USB-A adapter, USB-A to USB-C cable) that should however be fully standards-compliant without any active e-markers (i.e. a resistor-marked A-to-C cable and a resistor-marked C-to-A adapter).

I really wish there was an easy way to dump the cable's SOP' communication on macOS and look into whether a given cable is actually e-marked, and if so, with what capabilities. Alternatively, just showing this in "System Information" would really help, i.e. indicating whether a connection is only using USB 2 speeds due to the cable or the device not supporting more.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#79

Post by [deleted] »

jonhohle wrote: post #68
WestCoastJustin wrote: post #42

Hold on a sec.. I need to update the firmware on my USB-C cable. Crazy how miniature and advanced things are becoming.

Let me introduce you to the Lightning Digital AV Adapter - https://panic.com/blog/the-lightning-digital-av-adapter-surp... If an anonymous comment[0] is to be believed, the adapter runs XNU (the macOS kernel) on an ARM SOC with 2GB of RAM. The OS for the adapter is pushed down when the device connects. 0 - https://panic.com/blog/the-lightning-digital-av-adapter-surp...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN