USB4 Version 2.0 to offer up to 80 Gbps data transfer

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2022
The USB-C cable is getting yet another standard called USB4 Version 2.0, which enables up to 80 Gbps data transfer speeds with specific cabling.

USB4 Version 2.0 adds yet another standard to keep up with
USB4 Version 2.0 adds yet another standard to keep up with


The USB4 Version 2.0 standard will continue to rely upon USB Type-C connectors. This announcement is targeted at developers who will prepare for the incoming architecture change.

"Once again following USB tradition, this updated USB4 specification doubles data performance to deliver higher levels of functionality to the USB Type-C ecosystem," said Brad Saunders, the USB Promoter Group Chairman. "Solutions seeing the most benefit from this speed enhancement include higher-performance displays, storage, and USB-based hubs and docks."

Since USB4 Version 2.0 is backward compatible, users can use the new cables and devices with any USB Type-C connector supporting USB4 Version 1.0, USB 3.2, USB 2.0, and Thunderbolt 3. Older cables will connect to USB4 2.0 ports and function normally.

Features of USB4 Version 2.0

  • Up to 80 Gbps data transfer, based on a new physical layer architecture, using existing 40 Gbps USB Type-C passive cables and newly-defined 80 Gbps USB Type-C active cables.

  • Updates to data and display protocols to better use the increase in available bandwidth.

  • USB data architecture updates now enable USB 3.2 data tunneling to exceed 20 Gbps.

  • Updated to align with the latest versions of the DisplayPort and PCIe specifications.
More details about the upcoming USB4 Version 2.0 spec will be shared during the USB Developer Days 2022 conference. The event is held starting on November 1 in Seattle, Washington.

Apple belongs to the USB Promoter Group that develops the USB standard. The group will provide branding and marketing guidelines for the 80 Gbps standard at a later date.

Manufacturers have as of yet mostly failed to adhere to the labeling requirements the group established in September 2021.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,423member
    Well, it that architectural change impacts the iPhone 15 next year, that would be, exceptional, though somehow, I don't expect that.
    narwhalwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 20
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?
    avon b7skippingrocknarwhalBeDifferenttwokatmewblastdoorbaconstangcaladanianchiaStrangeDays
  • Reply 3 of 20
    "Once again following USB tradition"

    They certainly are following USB tradition with that brain-dead name.

    narwhalBeDifferenttwokatmewbaconstangcaladanianchiaStrangeDaysseanjmuthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 4 of 20
    crowley said:
    Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?

    exactly
    narwhalnetroxuraharaBeDifferenttwokatmewblastdoorseanjmuthuk_vanalingamMBearwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 20
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,617member
    The point of version numbers is that they're fucking NUMBER VERSIONS. 

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2 Gen 1 —> USB 3.1 Gen 2 —> USB 3.2 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 3 —> USB4 Version 2.0. 

    Obviously. 

    Go fuck yourself, USB Consortium. 

    (Sorry, do I seem angry? Yeah.)
    baconstangroundaboutnowseanjmuthuk_vanalingamMBearEaksterwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 6 of 20
    neilmneilm Posts: 989member
    spheric said:
    The point of version numbers is that they're fucking NUMBER VERSIONS. 

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2 Gen 1 —> USB 3.1 Gen 2 —> USB 3.2 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 3 —> USB4 Version 2.0. 

    Obviously. 

    Go fuck yourself, USB Consortium. 

    (Sorry, do I seem angry? Yeah.)
    And next, USB4 Version 2.0 Gen 1.1?

    Yeah, it’s a dumpster fire.
    twokatmewbaconstangseanjmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 7 of 20
    USB is NOT consumer friendly. The fact that 1) for exactly the same cable, the numbering scheme changes constantly as spheric explains  2) There are almost no labeling requirements for cables so all USB C cables look alike.  The only ones I see have labels are thunderbolt 3 and 4.  That means people (like me) have drawers of cables that only work for certain functions, yet all look alike.  I am reduced to putting a Zip tie on each cable and using my own abbreviation system to explain what that cable does.  e.g. 60W power,  USB 3.1G2, no thunderbolt, no echip; another one 100W power, thunderbolt 3, echip, no USB 3.1G2; another one 100W power, USB 2.0
    sphericM68000twokatmewbaconstanglollivercaladanianentropyschiamuthuk_vanalingamdewme
  • Reply 8 of 20
    This new name just adds to my list of reasons to avoid USB as much as possible.
    seanjwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 20
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,387member
    crowley said:
    Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?
    Seriously. They make me think of George in this scene https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkGSoqSMBw
    seanjwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 20
    "Manufacturers have as of yet mostly failed to adhere to the labeling requirements the group established in September 2022. "
    No Sheet...

    "Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?"
    Maybe they can't count past 5?  Afraid to run out of fingers?  

    "USB-C, one connector to do it all.'   That means nothing unless one cable does it all.  Otherwise you wind up with the confusing mess we have now.


    blastdoorlolliverseanjmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 20
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,387member
    "Manufacturers have as of yet mostly failed to adhere to the labeling requirements the group established in September 2022. "
    No Sheet...

    "Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?"
    Maybe they can't count past 5?  Afraid to run out of fingers?  

    "USB-C, one connector to do it all.'   That means nothing unless one cable does it all.  Otherwise you wind up with the confusing mess we have now.


    The Eurocrats are out of their gd minds if they think forcing apple users to “standardize” on USB will reduce e-waste. 
    entropystmaywatto_cobrathtFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 12 of 20
    blastdoor said:
    "Manufacturers have as of yet mostly failed to adhere to the labeling requirements the group established in September 2022. "
    No Sheet...

    "Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?"
    Maybe they can't count past 5?  Afraid to run out of fingers?  

    "USB-C, one connector to do it all.'   That means nothing unless one cable does it all.  Otherwise you wind up with the confusing mess we have now.


    The Eurocrats are out of their gd minds if they think forcing apple users to “standardize” on USB will reduce e-waste. 
    Perhaps you were thinking of this article?  https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/09/01/eu-demanding-improvements-on-cell-phone-parts-battery-endurance
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 20
    blastdoor said:
    "Manufacturers have as of yet mostly failed to adhere to the labeling requirements the group established in September 2022. "
    No Sheet...

    "Ffs, USB5. Or 4.1 if you really must. 4 v2 is ridiculous, what is wrong with the naming clowns at the forum?"
    Maybe they can't count past 5?  Afraid to run out of fingers?  

    "USB-C, one connector to do it all.'   That means nothing unless one cable does it all.  Otherwise you wind up with the confusing mess we have now.


    The Eurocrats are out of their gd minds if they think forcing apple users to “standardize” on USB will reduce e-waste. 
    Perhaps you were thinking of this article?  https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/09/01/eu-demanding-improvements-on-cell-phone-parts-battery-endurance
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/07/iphone-airpods-will-require-usb-c-for-charging-in-the-eu-by-late-2024/amp/
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 20
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,373member
    Next up MagSafe 4 - 4 magnetic dots flush with MacBookPro Case 2 dots have optical windows for 80Gbps transmission to the USB-c 4v2 plug at the other end. 
    Same connector on MacBook and IPadPro will handle 40Gbps 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 20
    spheric said:
    The point of version numbers is that they're fucking NUMBER VERSIONS. 

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2 Gen 1 —> USB 3.1 Gen 2 —> USB 3.2 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 3 —> USB4 Version 2.0. 

    Obviously. 

    Go fuck yourself, USB Consortium. 

    (Sorry, do I seem angry? Yeah.)

    I kind of see what the USB Consortium has doing but the naming still sucks.  Should have been

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2.1 —> USB 3.1.2 —> USB 3.2.2 —> USB 4.2 —> USB 4.3 —> USB 4.2.0. Simple and far more logical (still have some issues but it is better than what we got).

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 20
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,617member
    maximara said:
    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2.1 —> USB 3.1.2 —> USB 3.2.2 —> USB 4.2 —> USB 4.3 —> USB 4.2.0. Simple and far more logical
     :|  Uh.

    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 20
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,498member
    I know it won’t make anyone feel any better, but such is the nature of open standards when multiple parties with multiple competing interests are allowed to stir the pot and the standard remains under constant revision. Throwing yet another ingredient into an already confusing stew of naming confusion around USB does not help but doesn’t fundamentally change anything. Ethernet standards are not much better, but at least the near self obfuscated nature of IEEE versioning and naming scares away all but the hardiest of dedicated souls to weigh-in on the subject. 

    I don’t know what, if anything, can be done at this point to reign the USB versioning and naming conventions in without starting with a clean slate and hoping that it won’t also explode into a different flavor of confusion as it evolves. Open standards shouldn’t be open-loop, but they all seem to end up heading in that direction.

    If it makes you feel any better, go ahead and hug your Lightning cable, knowing that it is what it is and it will never make you scratch your head wondering why the things that you’ve connected together with it don’t seen to be working the way you expected.


    edited September 2022 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 18 of 20
    Send in a photon torpedo and start again 
    sphericwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 19 of 20
    spheric said:
    The point of version numbers is that they're fucking NUMBER VERSIONS. 

    USB 3 —> USB 3.1 —> USB 3.2 Gen 1 —> USB 3.1 Gen 2 —> USB 3.2 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 2 —> USB4 Gen 3 —> USB4 Version 2.0. 

    Obviously. 

    Go fuck yourself, USB Consortium. 

    (Sorry, do I seem angry? Yeah.)
    Here is a sequence for you to come down a little: 802.11 -> 802.11b -> 802.11a -> 802.11g -> 802.11n -> 802.11ac -> 802.11ax -> 802.11be ;)
    muthuk_vanalingamappleinsideruserwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 20
    urahara said:
    Here is a sequence for you to come down a little: 802.11 -> 802.11b -> 802.11a -> 802.11g -> 802.11n -> 802.11ac -> 802.11ax -> 802.11be ;)
    Yahbut... 

    WiFi's more of a tree with branches. Some standards are band dependent.

    2.4GHz = 802.11b -> 802.11g -> 802.11n
    5GHz =  802.11a -> 802.11n -> 802.11ac (WiFi 5) -> 802.11ac Wave 2 -> 802.11ax (WiFi 6) -> WiFi 6E -> 802.11be (WiFi 7)
    6GHz = 802.11ax (WiFi 6E) -> 802.11be (WiFi 7)
    60GHz = 802.11ad -> 802.11ay


    muthuk_vanalingamsphericFileMakerFeller
Sign In or Register to comment.