This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USB 3.0 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the USB 3.1 page were merged into USB 3.0 on April 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
On 13 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to USB 3.x. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I added the
The factual accuracy of parts of this article (those related to article) may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. |
tag as numerous sentences in the article refer to 2010 data -- or refer to events that will happen in 2010 or early 2011 in the future tense. Someone needs to go through and update the article thoroughly as well as fix tense. Nasukaren ( talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Bad wikipedia page. Bad. 49.183.221.95 ( talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
On the side panel apple computers is listed as a manufacture but in the last sentence (of the introduction) it states that they have chosen to adopt a different port. Can anyone confirm this because it seem strange that they would reject what they manufacture. 60.242.188.86 ( talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Apple is *not* a manufacturer of USB chipsets nor the ports needed for 3.0. Apple only integrates the components from other manufacturers (or doesn't) into what they do manufacture (which is only whole systems and major subassemblies of such, but not at large anymore components or chipsets–with some notable exceptions like the A4/A5 CPUs used in mobile devices). Since Apple only uses Intel chipsets in their computers and since the USB 3.0 specification was still receiving not insignificant revisions to it that would make manufacturers of computers or mobile devices wary of potential compatibility issues as of late 2011, it would stand to reason that these two things are the true primary reason Apple does not support (or can't) USB 3.0 in its computers yet. It is not really their fault, but it is more Intel to blame. I just love it when people poke the finger at Apple like they are conspiring to reject USB 3.0... This is not the case. If anybody was conspiring to reject USB 3.0, it would be Intel because Intel knew it was developing a competing interface called Thunderbolt which was to be released later than USB 3.0. >>=---><applimattic---> 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
To extend this line, we still need a source if we're going to say stuff like, "Thus, Intel's lack of support for USB 3.0 proves to be a primary reason why Apple has yet to ship any computers with USB 3.0 capable ports." That's original research. Seems to make sense, and the conspiracy theory above might support it, but it's got to be sourced before it hits the 'pedia, yes? Rufwork ( talk) 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Bonvallite ( talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
First line of article states that this is the 2nd revision of USB, confusing since it's 3.0. Recommendation is to add source of this fact (or fix if mistake). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.102.82 ( talk) 06:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That is correct. In computer taxonomy of revision numbers, every whole number is a MAJOR version. Every decimal number or "point release" is a minor revision. That system is nearly universally used now for hardware versions, software versions and even documentation versions like this. All records concerned with USB would show that USB hardware was locked with releases 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 specs... However, don't be fooled into thinking USB 1.0 was the original, there were many revisions before that.. all of course "minor".. Since 2.0 from 1.1 was the first major revision, that makes 3.0 from 2.0 the second (as the article states). >>=---><applimattic---> 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The text states several times that ports require "0.9 milliwatts" of power to be available. This needs to be changed to "0.9 watts" or "900 milliwatts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.202.86 ( talk) 15:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The text states "Windows 8 was the first operating system to offer built in support for USB 3.0.", but in the paragraph above it states "The Linux kernel has supported USB 3.0 since version 2.6.31, which was released in September 2009." While Development of Windows 8 started in 2009, it was first announced at CES 2011, and the first pre-release version of came out in 9/2011. Therefore, I submit that the statement that Windows 8 was the first operating system to offer support for USB 3.0 is incorrect. It may be better stated with a qualifier as "Windows 8 was the first Microsoft operating System to offer ..." since Linux supported USB 3.0 since 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewneely ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No idea how to upload the images, but since it took me a while to understand that the A connectors also had 9 pins, i took a couple pictures to show it. They are free to use.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcb/8362939551/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcb/8362940085/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.54.37 ( talk) 06:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Help expand and improve on connectors to list are the following
Bonvallite ( talk) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The new version of USB is already written, and even demonstrated working at CES 2013. It is up for review to be finalized in the first quarter of 2013. Specification release announcement can be found here. It is *also* called SuperSpeed USB 3.0, which may lead to some confusion. Someone might want to do a write up soon, since it will soon be finalized. 173.66.7.99 ( talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The tables (and picture) in this section are jumbled on top of each other when viewed in 1024x768 display. The second table should probably be moved down.
Also, could there be more information regarding the new type B connectors (pictured)? For example, to what extent they are backward compatible (perhaps with a mention of speed loss). 108.202.193.175 ( talk) 16:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
{{multicol}}
tag, please report that at the appropriate talk page. —
Dsimic (
talk)
17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)style=
parameters in double quotes."border:none"
. Ultimately I decided against it, as there's a slightly more cohesive feel to the entire table if the following rows don't appear completely disconnected from what's above."On January 4, 2010, Seagate announced a small portable HDD with PC Card targeted for laptops (or desktop with PC Card slot addition) at the CES in Las Vegas Nevada." That's an Express Card, not a PC Card nor a CardBus card. There are no USB 3.0 PC Card or CardBus adapters. That should go into the do not use the wrong terminology file, same as the cases where people mix up PCI, PCIe and PCI-X. Bizzybody ( talk) 11:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In two places the article refers to "Go/s" - is this supposed to be GB/s? If not, then what is it? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No one takes into account the 8b/10b encoding to convert the units GB/s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daroooo ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
In the chart shown in the USB 3.2 section, they divide the bits per second by 8 to get bytes per second and I think that is wrong. Because of the 8b/10b encoding, you should do a straight divide by 10 to convert from bits to bytes. I'm not 100% positive and I don't really want to edit the original page but thought I would mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedzsan ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
=LIKE 2.00 Manoj kumar madheshiya ( talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not doing this on the front page because in a way I'm being contentious, daring to question the authorities contention that USB 3 A sockets are compatible with USB 2 A plugs - the pins are insufficiently robust and do in due course bend, making the entire socket unusable. Some such mention should be made to maintain NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 ( talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
USB 3.0. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
merge discussion
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overlapping scope 3.1 gen 1 and 3.0 Widefox; talk 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC) This has been forked twice by IP User:91.9.109.24 User:91.9.105.240 Ping User:Voidxor. Widefox; talk 08:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Can anonymous users !vote here?
Conclusion?It's been more than seven days since the discussion started and we have unanimous support for merging the 3.1 article back into here. Going once... going twice... ? Jeh ( talk) 00:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 sections should be merged, and the USB 3.0 section title should be updated to USB 3.1 ; Searches or references to USB 3.0 should redirect to the new USB 3.1 article. USB 3.1 deprecates USB 3.0, just like how USB 1.1 deprecated USB 1.0; In addition to the new 10Gbps USB 3.1 Gen 2 stuff, the USB 3.1 spec includes the entirety of USB 3.0 plus all of the engineering change notices that were released after USB 3.0 was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.196.154.3 ( talk) 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on USB 3.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The picture at the bottom-left of the page under the heading "Backward compatibility" contains the text "Macro-B superspeed" in the red text. 'Macro' Looks wrong but I can't fix it without removing the picture completely. Kayman1uk ( talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 16:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
USB 3.0 → USB 3 – Since it covers 3.0 3.1 and 3.2? — Omegatron ( talk) 15:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This should be renamed to USB 3 or USB 3.x — Omegatron ( talk) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I came to this article trying to figure out what the weird turquoise port on my computer was, and this article is clearly incomplete. This article should mention type A connector colors (with images), which seemed to start with USB 3. For example blue for 3.0, turquoise or cyan for 3.1 Gen 2. I think I've also seen green and red, but I'm not sure what those are. Possible source: https://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/usb-3-1-vs-usb-type-c-vs-usb-3-0-whats-the-difference/ I'd add the section myself, but it seems only wiki-lawyers can navigate all the rules and regulations to be able to actually post something without it being flagged and deleted these days, so I'll leave it to you. 2600:8800:7900:1A9:B538:CC69:5EB6:41AA ( talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I am finding a factual disconnect between the USB-IF's own February 2019 press release (PDF) on what the USB 3.2 spec is (and therefore how various media outlets talk about USB 3.2) and information on this page and on computerlanguage.com.
I think the "Gen #x#" language has been dropped with the exception of USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. I have not modified this page because I'm not sure about the accuracy of the technical spec table in the USB 3.2 section. There are two 10gbps speeds listed but according to the PDF there appears to only be one, and I'm not versed in the technical details enough to accurately correct the article. Will someone who is please update this section? Chrisw10 ( talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This article contains this table:
USB-IF recommended marketing name [1] | Logo [2] | USB 3.2
transfer mode |
Older specifications | Dual-lane | Encoding | Nominal speed | Connectors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USB 3.1 | USB 3.0 | Gbit/s | GB/s | USB-A, B, micro B
(SuperSpeed) [3] |
USB-C | |||||
SuperSpeed USB | USB 3.2 Gen 1×1 | USB 3.1 Gen 1 | USB 3.0 | No | 8b/10b | 5 | 0.500 | Yes | Yes | |
SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbit/s | USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 | — | — | Yes | 8b/10b | 10 | 1.0 | No | Yes | |
SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbit/s | USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 | USB 3.1 Gen 2 | — | No | 128b/132b | 10 | 1.2 | Yes | Yes | |
SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbit/s | USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 | — | — | Yes | 128b/132b | 20 | 2.4 | No | Yes |
But USB-C has a different table. Unfortunately, it cannot be included here because it is a non-free image. It is in the section Alternate Mode partner specifications, on the right side of the screen, with the caption Table showing various protocols supported by USB-C. Please check there.
They do not agree on the SuperSpeed 10 Gbit/s logos. I tried to read the reference [2] but I can't make sense of this:
The USB-IF SuperSpeed USB Trident Logo may be used solely in conjunction with Product consisting of a hub, peripheral device, add-in card, motherboard, or cable and connector assembly (anything that is not a USB Host end product) that signals at 5 Gbps, that has been submitted to and passed the SuperSpeed USB Test Procedure, and that has been posted on the USB-IF Integrators List; or solely in conjunction with Product not consisting of a hub, peripheral device, add-in card, motherboard, or cable and connector assembly, that is based on and compliant with the USB-IF USB 3.2 specification.
To me, it seems to start out to say that the logo is for hubs, peripheral devices, add-in cards, motherboards, or cable and connector assemblies; anything that is not an USB Host end product, whatever that may be. But for USB 3.2, it should be used precisely on a Product not being any of the categories for which it should be used for the earlier mentioned (unversioned) criteria. Even my attempt at explanation is hard to read...
Could somebody who understands this (a seasoned lawyer?) please have our Wikipedia articles agree on what the symbols mean? Bonus points for getting it right as well. Thanks! Digital Brains ( talk) 15:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps Trident Logo (looking like "SS 20") is available in updated logo usage guidelines PDF document (and has been already used on some products, e.g. ASUS ROG ZENITH II EXTREME) :
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_logo_usage_guidelines_final_103019.pdf
(if anyone is able to make SVG out of it, please add it to the "USB 3.2 transfer modes" table)
At the end of the lead section is an inline note (the USB 3.0 specification was released on 12 November 2008, not 2010)
which appears to be disputing the date given in the infobox and maybe elsewhere in the article. I haven't got time to investigate further but it does need addressing and the article correcting if necessary.
Awkward42 (
talk) [the alternate account of
Thryduulf (
talk)]
00:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
VIA did sell non supported 3.0 chipsets, support for it in 2020?. Not sure what boards made it to markets, 2008-2010 models, chips sets by VIA meant to be released for intel chips, Nvidia Nforce, but Core chips were only supporting native intel chips. So the backwards reengenierd the chips sets for AMD, legal issues too.... So we did see USB 3.0 support on some boards, before it was implemented in the USB consortium agreements. Some did got full USB 3,0 native support, some just half and half 2.0/ 3.0......, later diver support did fix some issues, not on all 2008-2010 boards!
Good luck writing this on wiki or get sources....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:CC1B:F2CA:2543:6E5F ( talk) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a MASSIVE backlash all over the Internet from the whole 3.0/3.1/3.2 gen 1,2,1x1,2x,1x2,2x2 naming madness. We really need a reception/criticism section in this wiki page to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.63.49 ( talk) 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
"Although both Gen 1 and 2 signal at 10 Gbit/s, Gen 1 uses the older, less efficient line coding which results in smaller byte-rate." but the list right before this sentence listed Gen 1 as 5 Gbit/s, not 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.166.55 ( talk) 20:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
USB 3.0 → USB 3.x – It's about all 3.x subversions and there are no specific subversion pages yet. ZH8000 ( talk) 19:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 05:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
20:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The article very helpfully contains this paragraph
Unlike previous standards, the USB 3.0 standard does not specify a maximum cable length, requiring only that all cables meet an electrical specification: for copper cabling with AWG 26 wires, the maximum practical length is 3 meters (10 ft).
However, this discusses USB 3.0 cabling. Since later revisions increase the per-lane bandwidth, I wonder if it is still around 3 metres when lanes operate at 10 Gb/s. It would be great if the article provided this information. Digital Brains ( talk) 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USB 3.0 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the USB 3.1 page were merged into USB 3.0 on April 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
On 13 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to USB 3.x. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I added the
The factual accuracy of parts of this article (those related to article) may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. |
tag as numerous sentences in the article refer to 2010 data -- or refer to events that will happen in 2010 or early 2011 in the future tense. Someone needs to go through and update the article thoroughly as well as fix tense. Nasukaren ( talk) 01:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Bad wikipedia page. Bad. 49.183.221.95 ( talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 15:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
On the side panel apple computers is listed as a manufacture but in the last sentence (of the introduction) it states that they have chosen to adopt a different port. Can anyone confirm this because it seem strange that they would reject what they manufacture. 60.242.188.86 ( talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Apple is *not* a manufacturer of USB chipsets nor the ports needed for 3.0. Apple only integrates the components from other manufacturers (or doesn't) into what they do manufacture (which is only whole systems and major subassemblies of such, but not at large anymore components or chipsets–with some notable exceptions like the A4/A5 CPUs used in mobile devices). Since Apple only uses Intel chipsets in their computers and since the USB 3.0 specification was still receiving not insignificant revisions to it that would make manufacturers of computers or mobile devices wary of potential compatibility issues as of late 2011, it would stand to reason that these two things are the true primary reason Apple does not support (or can't) USB 3.0 in its computers yet. It is not really their fault, but it is more Intel to blame. I just love it when people poke the finger at Apple like they are conspiring to reject USB 3.0... This is not the case. If anybody was conspiring to reject USB 3.0, it would be Intel because Intel knew it was developing a competing interface called Thunderbolt which was to be released later than USB 3.0. >>=---><applimattic---> 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
To extend this line, we still need a source if we're going to say stuff like, "Thus, Intel's lack of support for USB 3.0 proves to be a primary reason why Apple has yet to ship any computers with USB 3.0 capable ports." That's original research. Seems to make sense, and the conspiracy theory above might support it, but it's got to be sourced before it hits the 'pedia, yes? Rufwork ( talk) 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Bonvallite ( talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
First line of article states that this is the 2nd revision of USB, confusing since it's 3.0. Recommendation is to add source of this fact (or fix if mistake). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.102.82 ( talk) 06:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
That is correct. In computer taxonomy of revision numbers, every whole number is a MAJOR version. Every decimal number or "point release" is a minor revision. That system is nearly universally used now for hardware versions, software versions and even documentation versions like this. All records concerned with USB would show that USB hardware was locked with releases 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 specs... However, don't be fooled into thinking USB 1.0 was the original, there were many revisions before that.. all of course "minor".. Since 2.0 from 1.1 was the first major revision, that makes 3.0 from 2.0 the second (as the article states). >>=---><applimattic---> 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The text states several times that ports require "0.9 milliwatts" of power to be available. This needs to be changed to "0.9 watts" or "900 milliwatts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.202.86 ( talk) 15:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The text states "Windows 8 was the first operating system to offer built in support for USB 3.0.", but in the paragraph above it states "The Linux kernel has supported USB 3.0 since version 2.6.31, which was released in September 2009." While Development of Windows 8 started in 2009, it was first announced at CES 2011, and the first pre-release version of came out in 9/2011. Therefore, I submit that the statement that Windows 8 was the first operating system to offer support for USB 3.0 is incorrect. It may be better stated with a qualifier as "Windows 8 was the first Microsoft operating System to offer ..." since Linux supported USB 3.0 since 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewneely ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No idea how to upload the images, but since it took me a while to understand that the A connectors also had 9 pins, i took a couple pictures to show it. They are free to use.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcb/8362939551/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcb/8362940085/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.54.37 ( talk) 06:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Help expand and improve on connectors to list are the following
Bonvallite ( talk) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The new version of USB is already written, and even demonstrated working at CES 2013. It is up for review to be finalized in the first quarter of 2013. Specification release announcement can be found here. It is *also* called SuperSpeed USB 3.0, which may lead to some confusion. Someone might want to do a write up soon, since it will soon be finalized. 173.66.7.99 ( talk) 00:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The tables (and picture) in this section are jumbled on top of each other when viewed in 1024x768 display. The second table should probably be moved down.
Also, could there be more information regarding the new type B connectors (pictured)? For example, to what extent they are backward compatible (perhaps with a mention of speed loss). 108.202.193.175 ( talk) 16:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
{{multicol}}
tag, please report that at the appropriate talk page. —
Dsimic (
talk)
17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)style=
parameters in double quotes."border:none"
. Ultimately I decided against it, as there's a slightly more cohesive feel to the entire table if the following rows don't appear completely disconnected from what's above."On January 4, 2010, Seagate announced a small portable HDD with PC Card targeted for laptops (or desktop with PC Card slot addition) at the CES in Las Vegas Nevada." That's an Express Card, not a PC Card nor a CardBus card. There are no USB 3.0 PC Card or CardBus adapters. That should go into the do not use the wrong terminology file, same as the cases where people mix up PCI, PCIe and PCI-X. Bizzybody ( talk) 11:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In two places the article refers to "Go/s" - is this supposed to be GB/s? If not, then what is it? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
No one takes into account the 8b/10b encoding to convert the units GB/s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daroooo ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
In the chart shown in the USB 3.2 section, they divide the bits per second by 8 to get bytes per second and I think that is wrong. Because of the 8b/10b encoding, you should do a straight divide by 10 to convert from bits to bytes. I'm not 100% positive and I don't really want to edit the original page but thought I would mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedzsan ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
=LIKE 2.00 Manoj kumar madheshiya ( talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not doing this on the front page because in a way I'm being contentious, daring to question the authorities contention that USB 3 A sockets are compatible with USB 2 A plugs - the pins are insufficiently robust and do in due course bend, making the entire socket unusable. Some such mention should be made to maintain NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 ( talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
USB 3.0. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
merge discussion
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overlapping scope 3.1 gen 1 and 3.0 Widefox; talk 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC) This has been forked twice by IP User:91.9.109.24 User:91.9.105.240 Ping User:Voidxor. Widefox; talk 08:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Can anonymous users !vote here?
Conclusion?It's been more than seven days since the discussion started and we have unanimous support for merging the 3.1 article back into here. Going once... going twice... ? Jeh ( talk) 00:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 sections should be merged, and the USB 3.0 section title should be updated to USB 3.1 ; Searches or references to USB 3.0 should redirect to the new USB 3.1 article. USB 3.1 deprecates USB 3.0, just like how USB 1.1 deprecated USB 1.0; In addition to the new 10Gbps USB 3.1 Gen 2 stuff, the USB 3.1 spec includes the entirety of USB 3.0 plus all of the engineering change notices that were released after USB 3.0 was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.196.154.3 ( talk) 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on USB 3.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The picture at the bottom-left of the page under the heading "Backward compatibility" contains the text "Macro-B superspeed" in the red text. 'Macro' Looks wrong but I can't fix it without removing the picture completely. Kayman1uk ( talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 16:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
USB 3.0 → USB 3 – Since it covers 3.0 3.1 and 3.2? — Omegatron ( talk) 15:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This should be renamed to USB 3 or USB 3.x — Omegatron ( talk) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I came to this article trying to figure out what the weird turquoise port on my computer was, and this article is clearly incomplete. This article should mention type A connector colors (with images), which seemed to start with USB 3. For example blue for 3.0, turquoise or cyan for 3.1 Gen 2. I think I've also seen green and red, but I'm not sure what those are. Possible source: https://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/usb-3-1-vs-usb-type-c-vs-usb-3-0-whats-the-difference/ I'd add the section myself, but it seems only wiki-lawyers can navigate all the rules and regulations to be able to actually post something without it being flagged and deleted these days, so I'll leave it to you. 2600:8800:7900:1A9:B538:CC69:5EB6:41AA ( talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I am finding a factual disconnect between the USB-IF's own February 2019 press release (PDF) on what the USB 3.2 spec is (and therefore how various media outlets talk about USB 3.2) and information on this page and on computerlanguage.com.
I think the "Gen #x#" language has been dropped with the exception of USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. I have not modified this page because I'm not sure about the accuracy of the technical spec table in the USB 3.2 section. There are two 10gbps speeds listed but according to the PDF there appears to only be one, and I'm not versed in the technical details enough to accurately correct the article. Will someone who is please update this section? Chrisw10 ( talk) 23:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This article contains this table:
USB-IF recommended marketing name [1] | Logo [2] | USB 3.2
transfer mode |
Older specifications | Dual-lane | Encoding | Nominal speed | Connectors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USB 3.1 | USB 3.0 | Gbit/s | GB/s | USB-A, B, micro B
(SuperSpeed) [3] |
USB-C | |||||
SuperSpeed USB | USB 3.2 Gen 1×1 | USB 3.1 Gen 1 | USB 3.0 | No | 8b/10b | 5 | 0.500 | Yes | Yes | |
SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbit/s | USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 | — | — | Yes | 8b/10b | 10 | 1.0 | No | Yes | |
SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbit/s | USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 | USB 3.1 Gen 2 | — | No | 128b/132b | 10 | 1.2 | Yes | Yes | |
SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbit/s | USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 | — | — | Yes | 128b/132b | 20 | 2.4 | No | Yes |
But USB-C has a different table. Unfortunately, it cannot be included here because it is a non-free image. It is in the section Alternate Mode partner specifications, on the right side of the screen, with the caption Table showing various protocols supported by USB-C. Please check there.
They do not agree on the SuperSpeed 10 Gbit/s logos. I tried to read the reference [2] but I can't make sense of this:
The USB-IF SuperSpeed USB Trident Logo may be used solely in conjunction with Product consisting of a hub, peripheral device, add-in card, motherboard, or cable and connector assembly (anything that is not a USB Host end product) that signals at 5 Gbps, that has been submitted to and passed the SuperSpeed USB Test Procedure, and that has been posted on the USB-IF Integrators List; or solely in conjunction with Product not consisting of a hub, peripheral device, add-in card, motherboard, or cable and connector assembly, that is based on and compliant with the USB-IF USB 3.2 specification.
To me, it seems to start out to say that the logo is for hubs, peripheral devices, add-in cards, motherboards, or cable and connector assemblies; anything that is not an USB Host end product, whatever that may be. But for USB 3.2, it should be used precisely on a Product not being any of the categories for which it should be used for the earlier mentioned (unversioned) criteria. Even my attempt at explanation is hard to read...
Could somebody who understands this (a seasoned lawyer?) please have our Wikipedia articles agree on what the symbols mean? Bonus points for getting it right as well. Thanks! Digital Brains ( talk) 15:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps Trident Logo (looking like "SS 20") is available in updated logo usage guidelines PDF document (and has been already used on some products, e.g. ASUS ROG ZENITH II EXTREME) :
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_logo_usage_guidelines_final_103019.pdf
(if anyone is able to make SVG out of it, please add it to the "USB 3.2 transfer modes" table)
At the end of the lead section is an inline note (the USB 3.0 specification was released on 12 November 2008, not 2010)
which appears to be disputing the date given in the infobox and maybe elsewhere in the article. I haven't got time to investigate further but it does need addressing and the article correcting if necessary.
Awkward42 (
talk) [the alternate account of
Thryduulf (
talk)]
00:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
VIA did sell non supported 3.0 chipsets, support for it in 2020?. Not sure what boards made it to markets, 2008-2010 models, chips sets by VIA meant to be released for intel chips, Nvidia Nforce, but Core chips were only supporting native intel chips. So the backwards reengenierd the chips sets for AMD, legal issues too.... So we did see USB 3.0 support on some boards, before it was implemented in the USB consortium agreements. Some did got full USB 3,0 native support, some just half and half 2.0/ 3.0......, later diver support did fix some issues, not on all 2008-2010 boards!
Good luck writing this on wiki or get sources....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:CC1B:F2CA:2543:6E5F ( talk) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a MASSIVE backlash all over the Internet from the whole 3.0/3.1/3.2 gen 1,2,1x1,2x,1x2,2x2 naming madness. We really need a reception/criticism section in this wiki page to address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.63.49 ( talk) 21:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
"Although both Gen 1 and 2 signal at 10 Gbit/s, Gen 1 uses the older, less efficient line coding which results in smaller byte-rate." but the list right before this sentence listed Gen 1 as 5 Gbit/s, not 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.166.55 ( talk) 20:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
USB 3.0 → USB 3.x – It's about all 3.x subversions and there are no specific subversion pages yet. ZH8000 ( talk) 19:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 05:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, College of Engineering, Pune, India supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
20:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The article very helpfully contains this paragraph
Unlike previous standards, the USB 3.0 standard does not specify a maximum cable length, requiring only that all cables meet an electrical specification: for copper cabling with AWG 26 wires, the maximum practical length is 3 meters (10 ft).
However, this discusses USB 3.0 cabling. Since later revisions increase the per-lane bandwidth, I wonder if it is still around 3 metres when lanes operate at 10 Gb/s. It would be great if the article provided this information. Digital Brains ( talk) 09:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)