USB-C head-to-head comparison • Hacker News Board

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#91

Post by yborg » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

weinzierl wrote: post #87

PCB = Printed Circuit Board, what is a PCBA?

Printed Circuit Board Assembly. Proper nomenclature for a populated printed circuit board.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#92

Post by CivBase » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

upon_drumhead wrote: post #18

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

Anker, Cable Matters, Spigen, Satechi, Belkin, CalDigit, StarTech.com, OWC, Wavlink, UGreen, or literally any brand anyone has ever heard of would be nice.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#93

Post by kube-system » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

digging wrote: post #84

jandrese wrote: post #81

I'm a bit annoyed that the only comparisons in the article are Apple's gold plated cable and then three random Amazon fly by night cables. I wish they had tested a more reputable cable that was maybe only 1/4 of the price of the Apple cable.

This is why I scan comments before reading the article... I'm more interested in comparison of high quality brands than junk, since I'm already not going to buy junk.

I think the idea here was to demonstrate contrast between products with the x-ray machine they sell, not to be a buyers guide of USB-C cables.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#94

Post by c-linkage » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #78

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 th…

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.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#95

Post by iameli » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

Now do 5000 more.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#96

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

Isthatablackgsd wrote: post #45

izacus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really strange that even getting a separate testing device is really hard. There are some that test pins and some that can read the emarker, but none affordable that can do both.

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.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#97

Post by Analemma_ » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #81

I'm a bit annoyed that the only comparisons in the article are Apple's gold plated cable and then three random Amazon fly by night cables. I wish they had tested a more reputable cable that was maybe only 1/4 of the price of the Apple cable.

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.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#98

Post by agapon » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #5

gregmac wrote: post #2

> This manufacturer claims the cable transmits data at up to 10 Gbps – a speed that corresponds to USB 3.1 Gen 2 – but it only has enough pins and wires to support USB 2.0 at up to 480 Mbps. In any case, this cable accumulated 29 one-star reviews on Amazon and was discontinued the day after we bought it. Pretty much sums up the experience of buying cables in the past couple years.

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-...

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#99

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #81

I'm a bit annoyed that the only comparisons in the article are Apple's gold plated cable and then three random Amazon fly by night cables. I wish they had tested a more reputable cable that was maybe only 1/4 of the price of the Apple cable.

[deleted]

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#100

Post by Spooky23 » Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

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…

It's amazing what people fail to notice when it pays their bills.