Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 9 Jan 2017.
I think I love you, Gareth.
I think we misunderstood each other. I was talking about some of the specific examples you provided :
- current phones with USB Type C being unable to actually use the bandwidth of even USB 3.1 Gen 1.
- USB Type C monitors using HDMI or DisplayPort alternate modes, which do not use USB 3.1 protocol at all (they do not use DisplayLink chips).
- laptops AFAIK do not directly communicate with the host via Type C, so for laptops the Type C connector is a power source at best, which means USB generation is irrelevant, USB Power Delivery spec/support is what is relevant.
The real issue is not the fact that majority of USB Type C connectors on motherboards are missing 3.1 Gen 2. The real issue is that majority of them misses support for most of USB PD spec, that they miss alternate modes.
You can throw out the USB Type C monitor if your USB Type C motherboard connector will not support DisplayPort or HDMI alternate mode. Charging a Macbook battery will also be a painfull process unless the motherboard connector can provide at least 12V@3A charging (which in current implementations is questionable at best).
Simply put, USB protocol itself is only one small part of the whole of USB Type C ecosystem, and that is the major issue with Type C, not the USB 3.1 generation.
It is the same mess as saying M.2 (which size ? which key ? which protocol of the few allowed inside the specific key ?).
Entirely possible. I've always thought I'm misunderstood. <tortured sob>
Unless you're looking to use a USB storage device, in which case USB 3.1 Gen 2 via Type C gives you twice the throughput of USB 3.0. Hardly what I'd describe as an 'unused gimmick,' as you put it.
Let's follow this thinking through for a moment and say that a USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type C port which doesn't support DisplayPort, big-ass Power Delivery, or any of the other shinies properly is on my hypothetical living-room small form factor system. Is it an "unused gimmick," or is it something I can connect my phone to using a USB Type C to Type C cable (neatly sidestepping issues surrounding badly-made USB Type A to Type C adaptor cables making laptops and phones go kaphooey)? Something I can connect any one of the storage devices I linked you to earlier and enjoy the benefit of double the peak throughput compared with USB 3.0?
Here's my understanding of your argument, and feel free to correct it if I've got the wrong end of the stick: USB Type C is an 'unused gimmick' because nothing uses it (untrue), some things that do use it don't use it to its full potential (entirely true), USB 3.0 Type A is fine (true if you don't need the nice things that USB Type C can do or the increased bandwidth of USB 3.1 Gen 2), and Type C is clearly a failure 'cos you can't buy a Type C keyboard or mouse (which will change, in my opinion, given time). S'that right?
Tell you what: you seem confident that USB Type C ain't going to take off. Let's have a little wager: £5 to the charity of the winner's choice that in... let's say two years, motherboards and laptops without USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type C will be in the minority. You in?
EDIT: Look what I found: a USB Type-C keyboard! Okay, it's not out yet, but still - it exists!
Again, the examples were yours, not mine. For USB Type C displays, for connecting laptops to a PC with USB Type C, the USB 3.1 generation is really irrelevant, simply because they do not use USB 3.1 protocol at all. Obviously for storage it makes sense to get as quick interface as possible, no one argues that point.
Do you know, I've only just realised that you're not jrs77 and jrs77 isn't you. No wonder you're confused by what I've said: I'm having a two-way discussion with three people in it! Sorry - clearly I wasn't paying enough attention before posting!
Neither ironic not to make my point; I trimmed the bits I wasn't responding to, as you should.
I'm sorry but I have zero confidence that ryzen can compete in the higher segment until I actually see it tested as such on reliable sites. AMD has promised the world before.
Am I the only one that sees AMD dropping the ball on the pin count? Only 1331 as opposed to 1337 would have been a good humorous gimmick.
^ Yep it's been said a few times. They might do what intel did with socket 2011 and have some extra pins for better overclocking.
Separate names with a comma.