Thursday, February 28th 2019

USB-IF Rebrands USB 3.0 and 3.1 With New USB 3.2 20Gbps Standard

You would have thought that the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) would have learned their lesson the first time around with the rebranding of USB standards; however, that doesn't seem to be the case. At MWC 2019, they announced that the USB 3.2 standard would include the previous USB 3.0 and 3.1 specifications, but with a twist. USB 3.0, which has a data rate of 5Gbps, had already been rebranded as USB 3.1 Gen 1, will now once again be rebranded as USB 3.2 Gen 1. Meanwhile, USB 3.1 Gen 2 with a data rate of 10Gbps will be renamed USB 3.2 Gen 2. Finally, the new kid on the block which has a data rate of 20Gbps will be officially named USB 3.2 Gen 2x2.

While there is a reason for these names, the fact remains that it doesn't do consumers any favors. USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 gets its name from the two high-speed 10Gbps channels it uses to achieve the new data rate. Keep in mind that previous USB standards only allowed for one channel, and only USB Type-C connectors allow for dual channels. This, as you may have guessed by now, means USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 is only usable via USB Type-C connectors. To try and reduce confusion, USB-IF has suggested that vendors use marketing terms on top of the current naming scheme to help consumers understand what is what in the world of USB. USB 3.0 USB 3.1 Gen 1 USB 3.2 Gen 1 will be marketed as SuperSpeed USB, and USB 3.2 Gen 2 will be marketed as SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps as per our sources. Finally, the newest standard will use SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps as its marketing term, not that it will do much if implementation of the new standard will take as long as it took for USB 3.2 Gen 2 and the Type-C connector.
Sources: Computer Base, via Toms Hardware
Add your own comment

42 Comments on USB-IF Rebrands USB 3.0 and 3.1 With New USB 3.2 20Gbps Standard

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
How stupid are these people?

Just call it USB 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and stop confusing the tech illiterate
Posted on Reply
#2
king of swag187
Or (hear me out) just call it USB 3, 4, 5 etc...
Thats what they should have done IMO but hey
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
Or even just USB 3.0 5/10/20Gb (3.1 for type C connectors)
Posted on Reply
#4
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Someone at the USB-IF needs to get punched in the face because clearly they didn't get the memo that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted on Reply
#5
Berfs1
Mussels said:
How stupid are these people?

Just call it USB 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and stop confusing the tech illiterate
Lmao I’m tech literate and this is confusing as hell. I’d rather call it USB-5, USB-10, and USB-20 at this point... (USB-5C, 10C and 20C for type C connectors)
Posted on Reply
#6
Wavetrex
Seems that everyone at USB-IF is smoking something really strong.
They must be Dutch...

But I do like the 20gbps idea, it would make external NVMe SSD's pretty common, and might also serve as display connection for VR headsets with no lag and work just fine with 2x2.5K screens (20gbps is more than enough for that !)
I wonder if upcoming chipsets (Ryzen 3000) series will contain USB-20 as default ?
Posted on Reply
#7
Prima.Vera
Mussels said:
How stupid are these people?
Just call it USB 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and stop confusing the tech illiterate
king of swag187 said:
Or (hear me out) just call it USB 3, 4, 5 etc...
Thats what they should have done IMO but hey
Mussels said:
Or even just USB 3.0 5/10/20Gb (3.1 for type C connectors)
Berfs1 said:
Lmao I’m tech literate and this is confusing as hell. I’d rather call it USB-5, USB-10, and USB-20 at this point... (USB-5C, 10C and 20C for type C connectors)
Completelly agree with those.
Seems like those marketing guys out there are retarded to say the least....
Posted on Reply
#8
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Should have just debuted it as USB4-20 (see what I did there :laugh:[plain])[/plain] which drops A and B type connectors (still support adapters and converters though).

USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 were fantastic because of their simplicity. USB 3.# is a disaster like HDMI and DisplayPort where simply connecting the device in no way means it will work as intended. At least DisplayPort separated bandwidth from main versioning by way of HBR, HBR2, and HBR3.
Posted on Reply
#9
king of swag187
haha hahaha im rolling on the floor laughing
But I do agree, they seemed to have screwed up with the USB 3.x gen
Posted on Reply
#10
Assimilator
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

So they tried to fix the confusion that their initial stupid naming caused... by introducing an even more stupid naming scheme.

It's taken a couple of random people in this thread a few minutes to come up with alternatives that all make more sense than what the USB-IF has chosen. Just what the f**k, seriously?

Personally, I'd go with USB 3.0 for the single-channel 5Gbps version; USB 3.1 for the single-channel 10Gbps version; and USB 3.2 for the dual-channel 20Gbps version, then append the connector type as necessary. So USB 3.0C = 5Gbps over a type-C connector, USB 3.1A = 10Gbps over a type-A.

Similarly for consumers, abbreviate the names to "SS-5", "SS-10", and "SS-20" - which immediately tells you it's SuperSpeed of X Gbps - and again append the connector type. So SS-5-C would be 5 Gbps via type-C, SS-10-A would be 10Gbps via type-A.
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLostSwede
My logic suggests USB 3.0 = 5Gbps, USB 3.1 = 10Gbps, USB 3.2 = 20Gbps.

The USB-IF simply needs to stop coming up with stupid naming schemes and maybe do some forward planning with the naming schemes.
Posted on Reply
#12
R0H1T
Aquinus said:
Someone at the USB-IF needs to get punched in the face because clearly they didn't get the memo that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, because I don't see any good intentions in misleading people! This is exactly what others get sued for & the USB consortium should absolutely get sued for this!
Posted on Reply
#13
Assimilator
Maybe it's Intel trying to torpedo USB in order to promote Thunderbolt? XD
Posted on Reply
#14
human_error
Holy hell both the technical and marketing names for the standards are a complete disaster.

Even I would struggle with knowing if "SuperSpeed" or "Hi speed" or "full speed" are the best. What will they do next version? "super duper mega speed"? Surely having English names also makes it harder for non-English speakers to determine which is the best? Or do they translate it in every language?

3.1v1, v2, and 2x2 - holy hell they can't even get simple consistency with these. I get that they're trying to contain some semblance of technical information with the 2x2 moniker but anyone who cares would be fine in understanding if they called it USB 5 that it meant a 2x2 implementation based on a 3.x protocol and pinout. Keeping it as a 3.x version I also assume is meant to convey some of the protocol versions used, I just don't get why they think they should include technical information as part of the naming scheme, and use marketing names which make it near impossible for people to know what is the latest version.

Between the USB IF and the wireless consortium's wifi naming schemes they're showing that they lack a significant amount of common sense and understanding of consumer knowledge with these things, although the wifi standards people seem to now understand this and are trying to improve things for consumers.
Posted on Reply
#15
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
R0H1T said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, because I don't see any good intentions in misleading people! This is exactly what others get sued for & the USB consortium should absolutely get sued for this!
The idea behind USB-C for the connector itself made sense. The fact that there isn't a good consistent way for a Type-C's port to describe what it can and can not do with what cables is freaking insane. Things ranging from just USB 2.0 connectivity all the way up to Thunderbolt. Honestly, my experience with trying to get a Type C (not Thunderbolt,) display to work properly at work as been a freaking nightmare... with a HP laptop using a HP display. :kookoo:

Simply put, what people have been doing with the USB-C standard is just insane (not in a good way.)
Posted on Reply
#17
wiak
well they already fcked it up so, here is what they should have called it USB-SS 5Gbps, USB-SS 10Gbps and USB-SS 20Gbps

SS = SuperSpeed
Posted on Reply
#18
willace
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

They are smart enough to design new complex standard, but 10000% failed on naming anything.........

o_O:roll:
Posted on Reply
#19
TheLostSwede
TheGuruStud said:
USB is garbage. Bring back firewire.
Intel did, it's called Thunderbolt and costs a mint, just like FireWire did.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mayclore
5Gbps is USB 3.0. 10Gbps should have been USB 4.0 with a different standardized type-A color plug, and this 20Gbps thing should be USB 5.0 with yet another standardized color-plug for type-A. Instead we get USB 3.14159+ GT-R Super Speed 20 Ultimate Turbo X and now my brain awaits the sweet release of death.

And at this point, does anyone even WANT type-C plugs?
Posted on Reply
#21
cucker tarlson
Wait,slow and clear,can anyone tell me what the 20gbps standard is called ?
Posted on Reply
#22
TheGuruStud
TheLostSwede said:
Intel did, it's called Thunderbolt and costs a mint, Judy like FireWire did.
That's b/c intel turns everything to shit. Licensing fees killed firewire, usb was obsolete upon creation, then intel completely controlled TB with fees and now no one uses it. Too little, too late. Obviously, nothing was learned.

A standard is useless if it's not open. Gotta love the irony of Apple idiots paying for TB when they had 1394 and killed it.
Posted on Reply
#23
bobbyroonee
they seem to have a mental disability to count past 3.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheLostSwede
cucker tarlson said:
Wait,slow and clear,can anyone tell me what the 20gbps standard is called ?
USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 - SuperSpeed+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0#USB_3.2

One other thing worth pointing out is that USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 supposedly only supports USB-C type connectors.
Posted on Reply
#25
hat
Enthusiast
I've hacked into USB-IF and recovered one of their slides from their last meeting:



Perhaps this will shed some light onto what's going on here...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment