• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

USB4 Version 2.0 Said to get 120 Gbps Asymmetric Mode

True. I am more concerned about features offered over USB4, as those are more relaxed than TB4. Microsoft was so annoyed by the USB4 spec that they ordered all OEMs to support PCIe tunnelling on every laptop that uses Windows.
Ehhh, you can say that about TB in general. TB4 and TB3 are practically the same thing at the end of the day. The only difference between them and USB4 is that you're going straight to the support for the 40Gbit link. All in all, I don't really care a whole lot about the features in USB4 as I use two TB3 displays. The only thing I really care about is that if I get a newer device with USB4, that the same displays will continue to work. I already get a lot of the lower USB revision speeds via the same ports and if I really were to need something faster than 5Gbps, I can always use one of the two additional TB3 ports I have for a TB device. To me, USB4 is just the glue to ties Thunderbolt and USB together, but TB already supported a lot of this, so it's not like a whole lot is new for current users of TB3.
 
Not that fast. USB4 introduces confusion among consumers because we do not know exactly what we are getting with USB-C port. That's a problem. The reason for that is too many optional features and more vague package of features, which opens advertisement to deception, misinformation and abuse.
You literally stated above that Windows is mandating PCIe tunnelling and because of that, tunneling will become de facto part of the standard. With DP alt mode already guaranteed on top of that, that means USB-C monitors, docks, and eGPUs will all just work - which is the scenario almost everyone has been using Thunderbolt for until now. Therefore, TB is no longer necessary except for some very niche applications (and potentially Macs if Apple doesn't follow Microsoft's lead, which is unlikely since Apple likes taking money from its users not paying money to companies like Intel).

USB4 is not currently faster than TB4. Where did you get that information from?
This article. Yes, I know the 80/80Gbps and 120/40Gbps speeds won't be implemented for a while, but the current USB spec is now faster than the current TB spec.

DP Alt Mode is currently limited to DP 1.4 until first AMD Rembrandt laptops come out with UHBR10 40 Gbps speed certification. OEMs that implement TB4, which is literally almost all of them with Intel CPUs in laptops, know that once TB4 port is installed, a defined package of features would reach consumer. With USB4, I'd imagine a lot of complaints from disgruntled consumers.
DP 1.2 can already support four 1080p@60 monitors, the world's most common resolution. Most scenarios where such monitors are used, i.e. corporates, are also using shitty Intel iGPUs that only support a maximum of 3 monitors (1 internal + 2 external). Therefore DP 1.2 is already enough for almost everyone because the limitation isn't display bandwidth, but Intel's rubbish display hardware, so Rembrandt shipping with "only" DP 1.4 really isn't an issue (assuming of course it doesn't have the same arbitrary display count limitation that Intel does). By the time DP 1.4 levels of bandwidth are actually required for monitors, all USB4 ports will support DP 2.0 and this new 80/80 speed (and probably 120/40 too).
 
Last edited:
Ehhh, you can say that about TB in general. TB4 and TB3 are practically the same thing at the end of the day. The only difference between them and USB4 is that you're going straight to the support for the 40Gbit link. All in all, I don't really care a whole lot about the features in USB4 as I use two TB3 displays. The only thing I really care about is that if I get a newer device with USB4, that the same displays will continue to work. I already get a lot of the lower USB revision speeds via the same ports and if I really were to need something faster than 5Gbps, I can always use one of the two additional TB3 ports I have for a TB device. To me, USB4 is just the glue to ties Thunderbolt and USB together, but TB already supported a lot of this, so it's not like a whole lot is new for current users of TB3.
True, to an extent. TB3 had annoying implementations of PCIe 3.0 x2 rather than x4, which halved speeds. For example, some TB3 ports on Asrock Z390 motherboards did not have full speed chip. They never told this to customers.
 
120Gbps is 15GB/s which is just a tad lower than PCIe 3.0 x16.
At these speeds, we'd get eGPUs working with no performance deficit, if this USB4 v2 handles latencies well (which it probably doesn't).
the 120g mentioned above is not bi-directional.
and tb4 40g ic uses pcie3.0x4 lanes (32g).
so, 80g probably is using pcie4.0x4 lanes, which is still far from pcie3.0x16 or pcie4.0x8.


the current "joke" is, asm4242 should be gen4x4 while tb4 ic is still gen3x4.
 
Not again!
USB 4 v.2 gen 1 2x2
 
Think laptops with high resolution displays and an external GPU.
You need only 14.4Gbps to get 4K60 without subsampling, and that still fits well within the eGPU's 40Gbps upstream bandwidth.
Technically those 40Gbps would even be good for 4K144Hz, which requires less than 32Gbps.


The only reason they have Thunderbolt is because USB 3.x was slower than TB3 and didn't have DisplayPort alt mode. USB4 is now faster than TB4 and guarantees DP alt mode, so there is literally zero reason for OEMs to care about Thunderbolt any more; all it does is add cost and complexity to designs.
AFAIK USB throws in a lot more latency than Thunderbolt which is just direct access to a bunch of PCIe lanes.

It could be that USB4 runs at clocks so high that this latency becomes negligible, but there should be a significantly higher amount of cycles needed for each USB I/O operation than there is for Thunderbolt.
 
AFAIK USB throws in a lot more latency than Thunderbolt which is just direct access to a bunch of PCIe lanes.

It could be that USB4 runs at clocks so high that this latency becomes negligible, but there should be a significantly higher amount of cycles needed for each USB I/O operation than there is for Thunderbolt.
That is a good point which might make a difference for eGPUs, but I personally don't see it being an issue - the inherent latency imposed by physical cable length is IMO going to be the bigger problem, and that's insurmountable with electric cables regardless of whether you're using USB or TB or something else. If it really is enough of an issue then fibre-optic USB/TB cables should overcome it.
 
You need only 14.4Gbps to get 4K60 without subsampling, and that still fits well within the eGPU's 40Gbps upstream bandwidth.
Technically those 40Gbps would even be good for 4K144Hz, which requires less than 32Gbps.
Yes and no. The bandwidth requirements have been moving forward, especially now, during transition between 8-bit and 10-bit displays, and 1440p to 4K.
We now need minimum 40 Gbps cables with DP 2.0 UHBR10 certificatrion for 4K/120 10-bit RGB and 4K/144 10-bit RGB images. Transition from 8 to 10 bit takes another ~25% of bandwidth for the sme resolution and refresh rate.
 
That is a good point which might make a difference for eGPUs, but I personally don't see it being an issue - the inherent latency imposed by physical cable length is IMO going to be the bigger problem, and that's insurmountable with electric cables regardless of whether you're using USB or TB or something else. If it really is enough of an issue then fibre-optic USB/TB cables should overcome it.
I'm no expert, I'll just note that it would be very weird if optical cables had less latency than electrical cables at same length. Speed of signal transmission is very similar in both. Besides, optical converters may contribute some additional latency. Here are the speeds, all relative to the speed of light in vacuum:

AFAIK USB throws in a lot more latency than Thunderbolt which is just direct access to a bunch of PCIe lanes.
That's the "old" USB. USB4 supports PCIe tunneling, which should be the same thing - direct access to PCIe lanes. Sure, data still has to pass through PCIe switches but isn't burdened by USB protocols. Hmm, is my understanding too optimistic?
 
That's the "old" USB. USB4 supports PCIe tunneling, which should be the same thing - direct access to PCIe lanes. Sure, data still has to pass through PCIe switches but isn't burdened by USB protocols. Hmm, is my understanding too optimistic?
Yes. The problem is security, because USB has traditionally been restricted to relatively simple devices that have not required much in the way of access to host resources; but PCIe devices require direct access to both memory (DMA) and the PCIe bus, which are extremely highly privileged activities. So USB's current model of "plug it in and it just shows up in My Computer" absolutely cannot work for PCIe-over-USB devices; there will need to be some sort of "Do you want to allow this device to connect?" prompt for such devices, and how that is implemented is as yet unclear (is/should it be an inherent OS function, or should USB firmware control it a la Thunderbolt's implementation?).

Security is also a factor in the actual data transfers because PCIe-over-USB devices will be operating in a limited trust environment, versus ordinary PCIe slot-connected devices that operate with full trust. That means that every single operation attempted by a PCIe-over-USB device will need to be verified by the USB controller to which that device is connected, to ensure that the device is actually the device it claims to be and that it is allowed to do what it is trying to do, and probably a whole number of other things I can't think of. This introduces inherent latency that simply cannot be overcome by anything.

Now, Thunderbolt has already encountered these issues and mostly solved them, and of course USB-IF has the TB spec now, but... TB was designed from the ground up with direct access to privileged host resources in mind, while USB was not, so how much of the TB implementation can or can't be reused for USB is unknown.

tl;dr when security enters the picture, nothing is ever simple.
 
USB 2x4x4x3, USB 2.3 Gen 3, USB 4.15 Gen 2 Mk3.
 
Yes. The problem is security, because USB has traditionally been restricted to relatively simple devices that have not required much in the way of access to host resources; but PCIe devices require direct access to both memory (DMA) and the PCIe bus, which are extremely highly privileged activities. So USB's current model of "plug it in and it just shows up in My Computer" absolutely cannot work for PCIe-over-USB devices; there will need to be some sort of "Do you want to allow this device to connect?" prompt for such devices, and how that is implemented is as yet unclear (is/should it be an inherent OS function, or should USB firmware control it a la Thunderbolt's implementation?).

Security is also a factor in the actual data transfers because PCIe-over-USB devices will be operating in a limited trust environment, versus ordinary PCIe slot-connected devices that operate with full trust. That means that every single operation attempted by a PCIe-over-USB device will need to be verified by the USB controller to which that device is connected, to ensure that the device is actually the device it claims to be and that it is allowed to do what it is trying to do, and probably a whole number of other things I can't think of. This introduces inherent latency that simply cannot be overcome by anything.

Now, Thunderbolt has already encountered these issues and mostly solved them, and of course USB-IF has the TB spec now, but... TB was designed from the ground up with direct access to privileged host resources in mind, while USB was not, so how much of the TB implementation can or can't be reused for USB is unknown.

tl;dr when security enters the picture, nothing is ever simple.
True. I would definitely like to see system prompts when PCIe device is connected via USB4 port. And store cleared devices as secure, just like TB does. No ifs, no buts.
 
We now need minimum 40 Gbps cables with DP 2.0 UHBR10 certificatrion for 4K/120 10-bit RGB and 4K/144 10-bit RGB images. Transition from 8 to 10 bit takes another ~25% of bandwidth for the sme resolution and refresh rate.
I don't think you're going to find laptops with those anytime soon, though. The subject being discussed was whether or not the GPU->CPU bandwidth at 40Gbps is enough to send the uncompressed display data back to the laptop's monitor in an eGPU system. It will be enough in 99.99% of the situations IMO.

Regardless, I don't think I've ever used my eGPU without an external monitor, save to see if it worked. I don't know if this is such an important issue anyways.
 
I don't think you're going to find laptops with those anytime soon, though. The subject being discussed was whether or not the GPU->CPU bandwidth at 40Gbps is enough to send the uncompressed display data back to the laptop's monitor in an eGPU system. It will be enough in 99.99% of the situations IMO.
AMD has officially certified UHBR10 video output from Rembrandt 6000 APUs with VESA, so 40 Gbps signal is formally available over USB4 port. Now, it's up to vendors to decide to install it. It's fully uncompressed tier 1 DP 2.0 video signal for capable external monitors. Intel's CPUs will not support it even in Meteor Lake.

No GPU has DP 2.0 (UHBR) signalling as of this moment. DP 2.0 ports up to 80 Gbps are expected on new gen of GPUs this autumn. Phoronix showed AMD's display support in code for UHBR20 signals.

As regards to laptop's own monitor/display, internal eDP 1.4b still supports up to 32 Gbps from DP 1.4 spec.

Therefore, the only device that currently exists with DP 2.0 at 40 Gbps is AMD's Rembrandt APU. Reference laptop and reference monitor were certified a few months ago by VESA. We are now waiting for first AMD laptops and monitors, as well as GPUs, to implement DP 2.0. More of those devices ~Xmas and in 2023. DP 2.0 has been delayed for two years due to Covid.
 
AMD has officially certified UHBR10 video output from Rembrandt 6000 APUs with VESA, so 40 Gbps signal is formally available over USB4 port. Now, it's up to vendors to decide to install it. It's fully uncompressed tier 1 DP 2.0 video signal for capable external monitors. Intel's CPUs will not support it even in Meteor Lake.

No GPU has DP 2.0 (UHBR) signalling as of this moment. DP 2.0 ports up to 80 Gbps are expected on new gen of GPUs this autumn. Phoronix showed AMD's display support in code for UHBR20 signals.

As regards to laptop's own monitor/display, internal eDP 1.4b still supports up to 32 Gbps from DP 1.4 spec.

Therefore, the only device that currently exists with DP 2.0 at 40 Gbps is AMD's Rembrandt APU. Reference laptop and reference monitor were certified a few months ago by VESA. We are now waiting for first AMD laptops and monitors, as well as GPUs, to implement DP 2.0. More of those devices ~Xmas and in 2023. DP 2.0 has been delayed for two years due to Covid.
Technically Arc does have DP 2.0, which is one of the only things in its favour. :p
 
External hard drives? Do you mean HDD? Faster HDDs on the market are ~260 MB/s, which is much lower than one PCIe 3.0 lane uses when converting SATA signal from HDD. 40 Gbps cable can already serve many hard drives in external enclosures, and at top speed. Am I getting this right?
Missed the point entirely


No i'm clearly talking about IDE ATA 33 hard drives only so anything above 33MB/s is wrong /s
 
Back
Top