Talk:USB4

Weird square brackets

Is anyone else seeing "[[]][[]][[]]" at the top of the page? I've attached a screenshot. I can't figure out where it's coming from in the source.

Top of USB4 page showing "[[]][[]][[]]"

TaylorKline (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is coming from deprecated/removed parameters in the infobox template (and a bug in wikisource engine). 2A00:1370:812D:F205:B90D:8F1:41E5:3D52 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this specification backwards compatible?

The article doesn't discuss it at all, while USB 3.0's article, for contrast, has a whole section about it. -Cardace (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not directly. It is backwared compatible with USB 1.x and 2.0, as it uses dedicated lines in the connector, but the compatibility with 3.x requires extra (possibly optional, but all vendors are likely to implement it by detecting the other side, and switching to USB 3) support, as the USB 3.2 is tunneled in USB4. 81.6.34.63 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

if USB4 does not directly support USB 3.2 (and 3.X what a naming mess) then this article should have a HUGE HEADLINE saying so. are you sure? 2601:40D:8100:9400:75D2:A01F:5B18:248E (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The USB-IF announcement hopefully wasn't misleadingly worded. It states: "Key characteristics of the USB4 solution include: ... Backward compatibility with USB 3.2, USB 2.0 and Thunderbolt 3 ... Even as the USB4 specification introduces a new underlying protocol, compatibility with existing USB 3.2, USB 2.0 and Thunderbolt 3 hosts and devices is supported"

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/USB-IF_USB4%20spec%20announcement_FINAL.pdf 2601:40D:8100:9400:75D2:A01F:5B18:248E (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

native USB 3.2 support? yes or no

it's not clear here whether (or not) USB 3.2 native signals are supported by USB4. native, versus "tunneling". example: if a USB 3.2 2x2 (20Gbps) SSD enclosure is connected to a USB4 controller, will it work? or won't it. 2601:40D:8100:9400:75D2:A01F:5B18:248E (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it must be. 2601:40D:8100:9400:75D2:A01F:5B18:248E (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The USB-IF announcement hopefully wasn't misleadingly worded. It states: "Key characteristics of the USB4 solution include: ... Backward compatibility with USB 3.2, USB 2.0 and Thunderbolt 3 ... Even as the USB4 specification introduces a new underlying protocol, compatibility with existing USB 3.2, USB 2.0 and Thunderbolt 3 hosts and devices is supported"

https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/USB-IF_USB4%20spec%20announcement_FINAL.pdf 2601:40D:8100:9400:75D2:A01F:5B18:248E (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I answered my own question. The answer is "yes". Native USB 3.2 (up through 2x2 20Gbps) is preserved with USB4.

Quote from the 2019 USB4 spec:

"When configured over a USB Type-C® connector interface, USB4 functionally replaces USB 3.2

while retaining USB 2.0 bus operating in parallel. Enhanced SuperSpeed USB, as defined in USB

3.2, remains the fundamental architecture for USB data transfer on a USB4 Fabric."

page 10 https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB4%20Specification.zip 2601:40D:8100:9400:AD8F:11DD:575C:16E2 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

'Data transfer mode' paragraph conclusion is incorrect? that 20Gbps is optional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4#Data_transfer_modes

Data transfer modes
[...] "Therefore, when the host and device do not support optional PCIe tunneling, the maximum non-display bandwidth is limited to USB 3.2 20 Gbit/s, while only USB 3.2 10 Gbit/s is mandatory."

above is from the article text. it's getting cited throughout the internet. I believe it's incorrect.
below is from the USB4 spec

section §2.1.1.4.1 USB4 Peripheral Device
A USB4 peripheral device supports 20G USB4 operation (Gen2x2) and optionally 40G USB4 operation (Gen3x2).

section §2.1.1.4.2 USB4 Hub
A USB4 hub supports 20G USB4 operation (Gen2x2) and 40G USB4 operation (Gen3x2).

section §2.1.1.5 USB4 Host
A USB4 host supports 20G USB4 operation (Gen2x2) and optionally 40G USB4 operation (Gen3x2).
2601:40D:8100:9400:C892:CEF6:8C23:551D (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the distinction is that the your underlined 20Gbps speed includes display traffic, while the paragraph you're commenting on is for non display USB3-only traffic. Interestingly, v2.0 spec removed that limitation and now USB3 can optionally utilize the full available bandwidth. I've edited the paragraph to reflect this. Sdht (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:8281:E6B0:6024:910B:8AE:E635 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative. But I repeat:

Those 3 sections §2.1.1.4 and §2.1.1.5 plainly say native USB 3.2 (Gen2x2) 20Gbps is supported. it is mandatory.

The preceding Architectural Overview - Section 2 and Figures 2-1 explain and illustrate that ALL native USB 3.2 continues to be supported as-is. (as-was). The logical USB4 "Router" block diagram boxes in the Figures 2-1 show this. Each Router contains a "USB3 Adapter" (for tunnel re-packaging USB4 style), and next to it, a separate exterior USB3 straight-thru bypass.  (denoted as Enhanced SuperSpeed).

2.1 USB4 System Description


Figure 2-1 illustrates the dual bus architecture of USB 3.2 as augmented by USB4. As architected, backward compatibility is supported with minimum interoperability starting at USB 2.0, working up through USB 3.2, and finally up to USB4

The USB4 v2 spec adds emphasis that USB 3.2 Enhanced SuperSpeed support exists in the Host, and down,

"Enhanced SuperSpeed" means the modes collectively in USB 3.2 including Gen2x2 20Gbps dual-lane mode over USB-C.

§2.1.1.5 USB4 Host
A USB4 Host contains:
• A Host Router.
• A USB 2.0 Host.
• An Enhanced SuperSpeed Host.
• A DisplayPort Source.

§2.1.1.4.2 USB4 Hub
A USB4 Hub contains:
• A Device Router.
• An Enhanced SuperSpeed USB Hub.
• A PCIe Switch.
• A USB 2.0 Hub.

§2.1.1.4.1 USB4 Peripheral Device
A USB4 Peripheral Device contains a Device Router and can also optionally contain one or more of the following:
• An Enhanced SuperSpeed Function.
• A USB 2.0 Function.
• A PCIe Function.
• A DisplayPort Source or Sink.

The source of 20Gbps confusion and error in this article seems to be due to a mis-reading of Section §9.2.1 which pertains to Tunneled protocol. That entire section falls under the title 9 USB3 Tunneling. Yes, for that situation (tunneling), the USB3 Gen2x2 20Gbps support is relegated to optional. The difficulty with tunneling USB3 Gen2x2 is, the 2 lanes of 10Gbps packets would need to be merged together into single payloads of 20Gbps tunneled packets. (and decoded back to 2 lanes of 10Gbps at the opposite endpoint). USB-IF apparently deemed that to be too grubby to mandate in USB4, and declared it optional.

But un-tunneled native USB3 Gen2x2 20Gbps traffic (and even USB 2) still needs to be supported - per Sections 2 cited above. 2601:40D:8281:E6B0:6024:910B:8AE:E635 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing one crucial part: there are two types of "Gen2". USB 3.2 Gen2x2 and USB4 Gen2x2 are different things. Your quotes of §2.1.1.x are talking about USB4 Gen2x2, not USB 3.2 Gen2x2.

As proof, look at §4.3.1.2.1, which describes the USB4 Link Encoding:

When RS-FEC is off, Transport Layer Packets are encoded using either 64b/66b encoding (for Gen 2 speed traffic)

Compare this to the USB 3.2 specification, which in §6.3.2 clearly states:

A Gen 2 link, operating at 10 Gbps, shall use the encoding rules described in this subsection. The encoding is a scrambled 128b/132b encoding

This contradiction means USB4 Gen2 and USB 3.2 Gen2 cannot possibly be the same thing!

Secondly, "Enhanced SuperSpeed" doesn't mean what you think it does. See the "Terms and Abbreviations" section of the USB 3.2 specification, which defines it as:

Enhanced SuperSpeed: An adjective referring to any valid collection of USB defined features defined for the bus that runs over the SSRx and SSTx differential pairs in a USB 3.x system. It is used in place of phrases like SuperSpeed/SuperSpeedPlus.

This means an "Enhanced SuperSpeed Host/Hub/Device" is a device capable of any variant of USB3. The USB4.2 spec in §2.1.1.4.2 mandates backwards compatibility with USB 3.2, but because Gen2x2 mode is an optional part of USB 3.2 this would also be satisfied by merely Gen2x1 support.

Direct proof of this can be found in §8.2.2.5.1, where Table 8-14 shows the configuration structure used to describe the adapter between the USB4 Router and the Enhanced SuperSpeed functionality. Note that bits 18:2 of field "ADP_USB3_GX_CS_4" define the "Maximum Supported Link Rate", with the possible options being "10 Gbps (Gen 2 – Single-Lane)" and "20 Gbps (Gen 2 – Aggregated)". If USB 3.2 Gen2x2 was mandatory, that first option would not need to be there!

And to back that up with some more sources: This Intel slide deck states on slide 13 in the column for USB4 Minimum PC data requirements: USB 3.2 - 10Gb/s. The spec sheet of the Intel® JHL8440 Thunderbolt™ 4 Controller (remember, TB4 is a superset of USB4) states:

Thunderbolt™/USB4 peripheral support at 40G; Native USB Type-C interface capabilities: USB2, USB3 (10G), DP1.4 Alt-mode; Tunneling capabilities (32G PCIe, USB3(10G), 2 displays (up to DP1.4); Other native interfaces: x1 PCIe 8GT/s, 1x USB3 (10G)

Finally, This AnandTech article is also very explicit about it:

This means that USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 devices - capable of operating at up to 20 Gbps like the SSDs we discussed in this review - will operate at Gen 2 speeds (10 Gbps) in those USB4 ports that only fulfil the minimum mandated USB 3.2 data speed. In fact, it is confirmed that even the USB4 40Gbps and Thunderbolt 4 ports (that are compliant with USB4 specifications) of the Tiger Lake UP3-based systems will operate these 20 Gbps SSDs only at 10 Gbps.

Yes, it's weird and confusing, and it completely breaks the whole "seamless backwards compatibility" promise, but it is what it is: there is zero doubt that USB 3.2 Gen2x2 is not a mandatory part of USB4. 95.98.155.251 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Add new logos

USB-IF has released new logos and guidelines to use them: https://www.usb.org/logo-license. The logos in Table "Comparison of transfer modes" needs to be updated. I'm not sure if I need to actually recreate the new logos similar to the current logos, or if I can copy the logos from the USB-IF pdf as "fair use". Sdht (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

a. below the "comparison of transfer modes" table

a. USB4 Gen 2x1 is different from USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. They only signify the same speed (10 Gbit/s), but are coded differently on the electrical layer.

shouldn't this read as .. USB4 Gen 2x1 is different from USB 3.2 Gen 2x1. They only signify the same speed (10 Gbit/s), but are coded differently on the electrical layer. ..? 2A00:6020:439A:9E00:5155:62C8:DD3E:BAA3 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Gen2x2 is 20Gbps, at 10Gbps per lane. 2601:40D:8281:E6B0:9897:E015:EB35:3A98 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

possibly that "note [a]" intended to say:

a. USB4 Gen 2 is different from USB 3.2 Gen 2. They only signify the same lane speed (10 Gbit/s), but are coded differently on the electrical layer. USB4 Gen2 uses 64b/66b encoding. USB 3.2 Gen2 uses 128b/132b encoding.

• the USB 3.2 spec indicates Gen2 encoding is 128b/132b.

• the USB 4 spec is peppered with notes about Gen2 encoding 64b/66b like this sample:

When RS-FEC is off, Transport Layer Packets are encoded using either 64b/66b encoding (for Gen 2 speed traffic) or 128b/132b encoding (for Gen 3 speed traffic).

(RS-FEC is another encoding option: "Reed-Solomon Forward Error-Correction")

2601:40D:8281:E6B0:F536:34D:84B1:B4D0 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

intel did not donate ThunderBolt

the beginning of this article states:
"USB4 is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification, which Intel has donated to the USB-IF,"

but according to Intel press, the TB spec was contributed to USB-IF.
that's a far cry from "donated".
the TB spec was never published publicly, nor are its full details incorporated into the USB4 spec text.
nor is it available on USB-IF site.
it still requires intel NDA to request it.
https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/developer-application
https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/developer-application/new

if a formal "ThunderBolt Protocol Specification" even exists,
what kind of "donated to the USB-IF" is that!?

see https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-leads-industry-next-generation-thunderbolt.html

How Thunderbolt Drives the Industry:
With the vision to make Thunderbolt available to everyone, Intel in 2019 contributed to the USB Promoter Group its Thunderbolt protocol specification, which served as the basis for USB4. As a leader in this industry group, Intel has worked to extend the performance of USB4 to the next level.  2601:40D:8281:E6B0:6024:910B:8AE:E635 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, to even say ThunderBolt3 served as a basis for USB4 is an Intel self-marketing exaggeration.

Minus public specs, Intel's ThunderBolt4 marketing info admits it delivers no more than 3,000 MB/s tunneled PCIe data.

It attempts to boost perception by saying in the same sentence it connects to PCIe3 x4 lane 32Gbps. (but so what?)

See pg 5 -- https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/intel-thunderbolt4-announcement-press-deck.pdf

ThunderBolt's 3000 MB/s is a mere smidgen more than 22Gbps.

USB4 leapfrogged ahead of ThunderBolt, with up to 40Gbps tunneled PCIe data.

math:

22Gbps = 22 x 230 = 22 x 10243 wherein Gbps is binary notation. (Billion = 10003)

divide by 8 for Bytes/sec. divide by 1 million for inflated MB/s decimal notation.

22Gbps = 2953 MB/s

2601:40D:8281:E6B0:C4A2:7CCC:6C3B:F5B4 (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I believe this indeed needs a rewording since I never expected Intel to just "donate" some of its tech. It's not like AMD donating Mantle to Vulkan. - Alexceltare2 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this needs an in-depth discussion, I don't think changing "donated" to "contributed" is controversial and is factually accurate, so I've gone ahead and changed it. 1lann (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"USB4 is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification" -- how factual or verifiable is this?

This USB4 article begins with a marketing embellishment that promotes Intel's competing ThunderBolt product line.
"USB4 is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification,..."

Compare to opposite claim in text extracted directly from the USB4 Specification:

2 Architectural Overview
Enhanced SuperSpeed USB, as defined in the USB 3.2 Specification, remains the fundamental architecture for USB data transfer on a USB4 Fabric.

In the hierarchy of the USB4 specification, Thunderbolt 3 compatibility / interoperability is a mere optional consideration that is appended lastly as the final Chapter 13 and expressed as a recipe of patch-ins .

13 Interoperability with Thunderbolt™ 3 (TBT3) Systems
This chapter defines requirements for a USB4 Product to be TBT3-Compatible.

In fact, neither a USB4 Host nor Peripheral Device is required to provide any TB compatibility at all.

2.1.5 Thunderbolt™ 3 (TBT3) Compatibility Support
A USB4 Host or USB4 Peripheral Device can optionally support interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 (TBT3) products.

A USB4 Hub is required to support interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 products on all of its Downstream Facing Ports. A USB4-Based Dock is required to support interoperability with Thunderbolt 3 products on its Upstream Facing Port in addition to all of its Downstream Facing Ports.

So, while some comparable aspects of ThunderBolt (eg PCIe tunneling) were implemented in USB4,
and TB3 compatibility support was mandated for USB4 Hubs/Docks, (read: foisted)
Don't you think this Wikipedia article wording demerits USB4 as a ThunderBolt me-too imitation...
...with gratuitous bias favoring Intel TB marketing narrative.

2601:40D:8281:E6B0:EDB9:254E:30C0:F0A (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The wording "based" is used by the USB Promoters Group in this announcement: https://usb.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/USB_PG_USB4_DevUpdate_Announcement_FINAL_20190226.pdf

Although I agree it's unclear how much of USB4 is really based on TBT3. 1lann (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

yes, but half of the two co-signers of that press release are Intel

read: foisted

2601:40D:8281:E6B0:864:3360:CA4:294C (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The correct emphasis would be:

Enhanced SuperSpeed USB, as defined in the USB 3.2 Specification, remains the fundamental architecture for USB data transfer on a USB4 Fabric.

It just means that the legacy USB data, as it is encapsulated within the USB4 data stream, is essentially unchanged from USB 3.2. You can see this in Figure 2-1 of the USB4.2 specification - note that the USB4 router talks to a logically-separate legacy SuperSpeed host/hub/device for USB3 device.

Protocol-wise, USB4 is 100% based on TBT3! Its physical layers and low-level protocols were based on Thunderbolt, not on USB. Think "slightly-faster Thunderbolt 3, which in addition to PCI-E data packets and Displayport data packets can now also transfer USB data packets", not "slightly-faster USB, which can now also transfer Thunderbolt data".

USB4 devices are not required to be TBT3-compatible because support for PCI-E tunneling (which is mandatory with TBT3) is not required for USB4 hosts/devices, but every USB4 will still be talking the underlying Thunderbolt-derived protocol. So yes, "USB4 is based on the Thunderbolt 3 protocol specification" would indeed be the correct way of expressing this. 95.98.155.251 (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

shouldn't TB3 comments under Hardware Support be moved to TB3 Compatibility topic?

there are a couple TB3 comments under Hardware Support that seem off-topic there.
wouldn't they be best located under the dedicated Thunderbolt 3 compatibility section?
they seem to serve no purpose except promo plugs for TB3 where they're presently at.

(talk) 07:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

meanwhile, I edited-in some touch-ups in its statements and their order, to make it more balanced and cohesive.

note. that cited [Brad Saunders quote] and article containing it is duplicated (plagiarized) throughout the internet, no telling where it began, with no link to the original published article, nor more importantly, a link to that actual quotation source.

maybe it should instead say  "Brad Saunders is rumored to have said [....]"

for example, google: “We do expect PC vendors to broadly support Thunderbolt backward compatibility, because most of what they need is already built into the USB 4 design,”

2601:40D:8281:E6B0:1956:C17C:AD27:3C94 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

The article has been fully protected for 3 days due to edit warring. Please try to resolve the content dispute here on the talk page. If the involved editors are unable to achieve consensus, please make use of dispute resolution options such as getting a third opinion. If an unrelated change needs to be made urgently, please see WP:FULL for instructions on how to make an edit request while the page is still protected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan, There is no content dispute here. There is one IP editor editing in violation of policies and editing guidelines, and others trying to restrain them. Characterising this as "edit war" and applying full protection is way over the top, and should not be labelled as "Requested at RFPP"; it was not.
If you needed to revert, the last stable revision was this one. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that DQ blocked the IP range and fully protected the article, that certainly qualifies as overkill if ever there was. 2A00:23C8:9883:2601:2DCD:38D:854B:47E2 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor was blocked 45 minutes after USB4 was protected for their behavior subsequent to the page protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've lifted the full protection as it is hopefully unnecessary now, but the incivility in edit summaries towards a new editor is bitey and concerning. Specifically, telling a new editor in an edit summary to RTFSP and LEAD SECTION IS FOR LAY PEOPLE AND MUST USE LAY LANGUAGE is not exactly conducive to making forward progress on an article, even if there are problems with the new editor's additions and behavior. If you find yourself nearing the point where you're ready to start shouting in edit summaries, it's an opportunity to use the talk page and have a discussion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan, I get you, but how do you know that an IP editor is a new editor? How do you know their editing time on Wikipedia? Also, this was the second time I had to include this comment in edit summary, because they seemingly ignored the previous summary. Yes, the problem with the editor was that they ignore much of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and style guides, and instead use Wikipedia to publish poorly executed original research – their own interpretation of selected primary sources.
I have now restored the last stable version before the article got massacred by the IP editor. Feel free to institute temporary semi protection as requested. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty whether they're a new editor, but that is my impression. When you have some time, please read through the WP:BITEY article. The issues you're citing are good reasons to open discussions on the article talk page or a user talk page, not reasons to escalate in edit summaries.

You might consider reviewing the changes to see what might be improved and integrated into the article as an alternative to restoring such an old version of the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan, That was three-week-old version of an article that was hardly getting one edit per week on average prior to the recent problematic spree by the IP editor. That stable version was certainly much better than what the IP editor has turned the article into.
Yes, some edits could potentially be incorporated in the article, but as you can see in the sections above, the editor focuses on interpretations of primary sources with a solitary aim to disprove any claims that USB4 could be in any way based on Thunderbolt. It's unclear why they are so bent on it, whether they have any vested interest or not (sure, I'm vaguely aware of the whole intellectual property aspects, royalties, patents, etc.). However, to-date nearly all of their editing was attempts to convince the reader that USB4 is not based on Thunderbolt specifications, even as other editors offered sources for such claims.
Personally, I don't care about it. However, IMO the reader should not be stuffed with such painfully detailed original research into the wording of original specifications, or speed calculations as a "proof" of something they would most likely not care about, either. Especially in the lead section.
The editor has no User Talk page, regretfully, although it would be ideal to discuss WP editing policies with them on Talk. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the following comments by user RayWiki519

@RayWiki519: Please wait for my answers to your over-the-top (too many, too many intermingeled aspects, ..) remarks below. I see so many wrong assumptions and misunderstandings, it will need a lot of educating time to answer them all, which I do not have at the moment. For the common reader's sake, please stay patient before worsening the whole mess. Thanks. --- 08:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We can use more granular talk topics sure. Do you want me to start a topic for every change (topic wise) you made after my initial changes that I believe to be very wrong? Or do you agree that some of them are wrong and you will start topics for which there continues to be disagreement? RayWiki519 (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw your most recent changes and created discussions for every topic of change in them that I think is simply wrong or there is disagreement on (I might not have caught all of them, but the majority).

Should now be split into the separate topics. You may ignore the original 2 topics.

Mind you, you could have looked at my initial discussion topics that I posted before I made my first change, before reverting my changes without comment or opened new discussions for topics on which there clearly is disagreement. That looked to me as if you were not interested in any discussion, had no good reasoning and went away.

Also, you removing multiple sections has left the article in a bit of a inconsistent mess. Subsections in history that do not belong there, & in USB versions, and a relatively pointless cable compatibility section that you have not provided any argument against (especially since the last changes you made to that table before removing it now). Also section on Power Delivery, which I integrated into the USB4 port overview I wrote is gone in its entirety. RayWiki519 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@ZH8000: Btw, is there a timeframe in which you intend to at least bring this article into a consistent state (i.e. fix what you broke by removing without reading) and start articulating any of those "many wrong assumptions and misunderstandings"? I would very much like to not leave the article in a broken state. And if you claim that I am wrong, I need to know how to improve or fix it. Or need to know your argument to know if it is wrong and ignore your objections resulting from that.

Because the last technical changes you made were "Spec compliant USB 3.2 Gen 1x1? cables", which is just completely wrong, without any articulable reasoning. And in your bulk-removal you even left my explanation of why you were wrong in the article. Can I consider that as an admission that you were wrong on the one technical point you articulated?

At this point, I really do not expect you to have any major valid points on the technical side. And whatever outcome on the discussions about formalities that do not touch the actual content of the article, we could at least leave up a version of the article that is not wrong on technical stuff in the meantime.

And if I am to fix stuff like the table you broke, I can only put the table into state that I have argued for is better and you have repeatedly not provided ANY argument or explanation for what you are trying to achieve (but failed to fully realize). RayWiki519 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I waited long enough without any estimate and an article that contained wrong information and broken tables and sections. I have now tried to fix what you left broken (for which I created discussion topics here).

I also think I added detailed reasons for my changes wherever they conflict with your changes and tried to find compromises where ready. RayWiki519 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarity in spec versions and what they mean

It is a common misconception, that the spec version of DP, USB etc. can be equated to the speed a particular port or product supports. With the multitude of different protocols and speeds we have now this confuses a lot of casual readers. It is my interpretation that USB4 and the USB-IF purposefully moved the spec version, that does not matter to the consumer, away from the main version (4, distinguishing from concurrent USB standards like USB3 and USB2) to reduce confusion. As well as defining logos that do not even mention the main version anymore.

Can we find a common way of writing / referencing spec versions that furthers this understanding for the casual readers (disincentivizes the misunderstanding that a spec version implies a specific speed)? What the article says in this regard is not wrong. But I fear many people take wrong things away from that. Examples:

• I'd want to clarify that "USB 4.0" or "USB 4.2" are wrong, even if they are more common then I'd like. ("erroneously called USB 4.0")
• I'd like to make an effort to split the main version / family from the precise spec version wherever possible, mirroring the achievement of USB4. For example that "USB4v2 specifies tunneling of USB 3.2" I'd write as "specifies the tunneling of USB3 of up to 20 Gbit/s connections referencing the version 3.2 of the specification".
• "Tunneled USB 3.2 Gen 2x1 (10 GBit/s) I'd drop the sub version entirely, because it is utterly irrelevant to this table. In the context of "USB3" Gen 2x1 is completely unique and allows no confusion.
• "Name vs. Old Name USB 3.2 vs USB 3.1": I also really do not like it being described that way. but that is sort of off-topic for USB4 anyway and could fit better in a more generic USB article. If it is to remain here, I'd like to be more explicit that this is not a normal name change (sth. like defined since USB 3.0 under name "Superspeed". Introduced as "Gen 1" under new "Gen " naming-scheme since USB 3.1)

RayWiki519 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 I am aware that USB2 and USB3 are abbreviations and do not follow the format that the original specs themselves use. I use those to refer to the principle of "USB3 protocols" when the spec version is irrelevant.

As you noticed, the core of this topic, the USB4 spec itself does this as well. And as represented in this very article, the comparable version of USB4 has been moved as far away from the main name, because in most situations where the full USB 3.x version is mentioned, it is actually not needed. This can be seen by many occasions in which the "version x.0" suffix of USB4 is omitted without loosing clarity.

Because for example USB3 Gen 1 describes specific things that have existed from USB 3.0 up until USB 3.2. It is still a unique reference that largely describes the same thing, no matter in which of those documents and if you call it SuperSpeed 5Gbps, USB 5 Gbps or USB3 Gen 1. Of course, when we want to reference the locations in the spec or details from the specs, it matters which precise document. And you have sources about critical changes in the meaning of Gen 1 from the USB 3.1 to USB 3.2 spec you might have a point. Actually, if one needs to be so precise, the revision of the document needs also to be mentioned. Since the entire USB2 spec only ever had Version 2.0 but multiple revisions and even if there was a new USB 2.x version, we would not expect it to add breaking changes to existing topics that have been defined in the spec for over a decade, I likewise see no value in using the more verbose name. But at least here, it is not wrong and will likely never change.

If you simply mean to refer the concept of 20 Gbps USB3 connections, you will likely always want to refer to the newest version of the spec and explicitly writing USB 3.2 everywhere simply means you'll have to persistently update that reference on any number change, even if nothing of value or concern actually changes. For non-immutable articles such as Wiki I see much less value in this than in the spec (which still refers to the concept as USB3). But I understand the argument that 2 different formats USB3 and USB 3.x can also lead to confusion and believe that USB3 and a footnote or sth. would be overall easier to understand. But I have also no objection to USB 3.x, where ".x" is to be used, whenever it is not actually meant as a reference to a specific document, but only in that format to keep consistent. And of course the full spec version should be used, for every reference into the actual document.

Regarding the feature support table:

We show in the USB4 article, that there are consumer-facing marketing names. Those are the logos, those are what consumers are expected to notice and understand. Manufacturers are actually discouraged from using the technical details for marketing purposes. So my goal was to make the table that lists, which features are guaranteed, use the officially consumer-facing names first, while still also referencing the technically precise name as well. Sadly, the world is blurry here, by many manufacturers straight up ignoring the rules of the specifications, leading to complaints all over that USB4 and USB-C is too complicated to understand. With the logos and names I used being the official names and logos that show certification and compliant equipment, I believe it to be willfully misleading to hide these labels from the customers and to instead only use the technical and in practice extremely irrelevant and outdated Gen3x2 notation (You cannot express Gen4 in that same notation, as I already commented and you removed without reason and in practical applications you will not find any use of non x2 USB4, so stuffing this academic distinction into every crevice does not further understanding but obstructs what is actually happening and the first steps to understanding how USB4 works. Nobody figuring out what speeds there devices and cables support, needs to understand that there is a transient state in establishin the connection. Sure, we can explain that somewhere, but I do think this is much more of an detail that should not complicate the more base-level explanations. And the only reason I use "Gbps" instead of Gbit/s is because that is what the official name, label and logo of the spec and products is, as we show in linked images.

Regarding me splitting 3:1 an 1:3 modes: These are separately optional. a host may support 3:1 without supporting 1:3. My goal in splitting them in the table was to make it intuitively clear to readers, that these do not both need to be supported at the same time. You failed to make this detail clear in other ways. And I do not think saving that line of space is relevant when it makes this harder to understand.

And why did you remove the native USB3 modes I added to the table? You are aware that tunneled USB3 and USB3 directly available from the port are separate? The table in the format you reverted it to does not show that at all. Yet the table shows other native outputs such as DP Alt mode, which is clearly inconsistent. Any reasoning behind this change?

Regarding you adding 3.? to some cable types: you are aware that cables are not specification documents? A USB-C cable sold for USB3 5 Gbps speeds, if spec-compliant when sold, is still spec compliant with the newest spec. It can be labeled "USB 5Gbps" since those new names were introduced. That is why for example the spec defines this cable type as "CC3G1" irrespective of the USB3 spec version that was the newest whenever the cable released. As such, the cable, has no "spec version" to speak of. At most you may argue that you want to keep the naming style, in which case you could write "USB 3.x" if you must. And I would argue that adds nothing of relevance over the more concise "USB3" I used, but if I am outvoted on this, I am also fine with 3.x.

Also, what does ANY OF MY or YOUR changes have to do with your change-note that "discrpancy between USB4 first version and 2.0 is still not yet clear"? RayWiki519 (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In 'transfer mode table', what's the basis and purpose behind the GB/s column?

It seems to me, the value is supposed to be the total data rate with encoding overhead removed. But it also seems it is just a /8 from the Gbit/s column. Is this supposed to closer to data rates the user understands? Then it probably should be GiB/s (base-1024 instead of base-1000). Although this stops working for USB4 Gen 4, where I have no idea how we got to 9.6 GB/s Do we know the math behind that number? Or is that simply, wrongly assuming 128b/132b encoding overhead even though it is PAM3 with different overheads? Also, what other overheads should be subtracted? Gen 4 requires error correction, so useable values would be less than just removing signal encoding overhead. The actual baud rates for Gen 4 or not an even 40 GBit/s. That already includes rounding. And the USB4 connection manager abstracts all this away by always assuming only 90% of the bandwidth the standard calls it, is useable. So whenever it comes to guaranteed bandwidth (DP for example) the actual usable bandwidth after overhead is mostly irrelevant, because the connection manager will do its math with 90% of the stated data rate (which would be 40, 80, 120 Gbps, independent of different encodings and different required overhead). And most real world examples of user transferring data (network, storage, DP) are far more limited by other limitations. So no user will likely be able to make direct use of a "nice GiB/s" number to estimate what they can do with USB4 NVMe disk or USB4 networking or display output.

It could also make sense to indicate the "Lane Rate" in Baud instead (in trade for the current GB/s column), where we can quote the exact number from the spec. RayWiki519 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:ZH8000

You changed the description to "raw data rate GB/s" without changing the numbers.

As noted previously the numbers had encoding overhead already removed.

In my understanding of signaling rate / raw data rate, this means the physically transferred number of bits.

So in my understanding you worsened the problem, because now the column name does not even fit the other values that I did not mark as wrong. And you also changed the somewhat undefined "lane rate" to "signaling rate". As I mentioned previously, I find that "signaling rate" does not fit with giving bit/s for a signal that does not transfer bits on the medium. Although I do not necessarily mean that "Lane rate" would be much better. That is why I asked about Baud / symbol rate, which is clearly defined for all cases, it just would be 25.6 GBaud/s for Gen 4 and require some other place to mention the rounded Gbit/s number that people know it as. The standard refers to "Gen 4" this as "speed" of 40 Gbit/s, avoids using the description "signaling rate" and calls the collection of all wire-pairs "(raw) link bandwidth". And uses "available bandwidth" to denote useable bandwidth after removing most (all? unsure) overheads. RayWiki519 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to other alterations that made the GB/s column even more wrong, I have now replaced it with "net data rate", including a footnote clearly denoting that this is raw data rate minus encoding overhead. Consequently, I have put this in GBit/s so it is comparable to the raw data rate (where it can be used to compare encoding efficiency, but is clearly not useable / intended to estimate useable bandwidth in user-facing situations).

I left out the USB2 number, because I am not familiar enough with USB2 to be sure (only that the previous number showed no encoding overhead, which is even contradicted by the encoding listed in that same row) and it is also out-of-scope for this article.

I have calculated the raw and net data rates for Gen 4 and put the formula in the footnotes. Maybe there is a good reference for that. The USB4 spec itself does not calculate the resulting raw data rate, because with PAM-3 this is an abstract and hypothetical number with PAM-3 that plays NO role in the actual implementation.

If somebody finds these new numbers too irritating, we could change the columns descriptions to closer align with the USB specs, so that we can use the quoted numbers instead. But then we also need to drop the net data rate, as that is higher then the common quoted data rate for Gen 4, which would not make sense to anyone.

(to be clear, the encoding overhead for Gen 4 is in 11b/7t encoding. Where you encode data with 2048 different values into 2187 different representation in tertiary system. But since the output runs at 25.6 GBaud, at no point will there be a signal with the raw data rate) RayWiki519 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Mode vs. Speed

I would agree that we can call sth. like Gen3x2 from the USB4 standard a "mode of operation" or "mode". But it does not make sense to call a cable a "mode". Because that all wires are present for example is already defined by "Full-Featured". Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 3, Gen 4 here describe more the speed / signal quality the high speed wires are qualified for. A Gen 3 cable can be operated in USB4 Gen 3x2 mode. Or in USB4 Gen 3x1 mode. Or USB3 Gen 1x2 mode. You would never buy a Mode 2 cable. At best, if for some reason, that has not been stated yet you do not like speed, then it would by "Type". I believe that speed is still a more descriptive way of describing it, because it implies the backward compatibility. That usually, a higher-speed cable will also be valid for slower "modes" and be as good has lower speed cables. This relation is not as implied with type. But I can live with "Type / Speed" if we must. The change to "mode" will be reverted if no argument is provided. RayWiki519 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:ZH8000: adding you, so that you actually READ my arguments on why speed is correct depending on the context. Since you asked me to wait for you disputing my points, I think it is extremely inconsistent to just revert changes for which I made a clear argument (under a very specific topic no less).

The USB specs call Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 3, Gen 4 a speed when referring to a single wire-pair, transmitter. You only need to look at the glossary of USB4 p6f:

Gen 2: Refers to speeds of 10 Gbps (USB4) and/or 10.3125 Gbps (TBT3-Compatibility Mode).

Gen 2 Link: A USB4 Link that is operating at Gen 2 speed.

Gen 2 Router: A Router that supports a maximum of Gen 2 speed.

Gen 3: Refers to speeds of 20 Gbps (USB4) and/or 20.625 Gbps (TBT3-Compatibility Mode).

Gen 3: Link A USB4 Link that is operating at Gen 3 speed.

Gen 3 Router: A Router that supports a maximum of Gen 3 speed.

Gen 4: Refers to a speed of 40 Gbps.

Gen 4 Link: A USB4 Link that is operating at Gen 4 speed.

Gen 4 Router: A Router that supports a maximum of Gen 4 speed.

I would say:

• "This transmitter is operating in Gen 3 mode" is still ok.
• "This transmitter is operating at Gen 3 speeds" is slightly more descriptive.
• "This lane is running at Gen 3 speed" is totally fine.
• "This lane is being used in Gen 3 mode" I'd say is not actually wrong but its just awkwardly worded.
• "The connection runs at Gen 4 speeds", like the USB4 spec does and is understandable to most
• "This DFP is in Gen3x2 mode". (here I think only mode is appropriate. Because we are talking about the combination of speed and lanes/rx/tx)

So, please, finally argue why speed is not a more descriptive term for when describing a single lane or wire-pair. Given that a bit rate is always associated with each of them and they clearly have an order and a sum (for total bandwidth) that mode just does not imply. RayWiki519 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Signaling Rate and USB4

User:ZH8000 Well, so you did ignore any of my statements on this and reverted it, even though there was a clear dispute and I provided arguments? Then here as a standalone topic: The definitions of signaling rate often refer to "signal" changes. For binary transmissions, this may match the bit rate. But for non-binary transmissions such as Gen 4, it does not. That is why I do not like it and want to use alternative descriptions that avoid the word "signaling". Because USB4 includes some signaling where it perfectly fits and some where it does not. That is what I did. I do not have the universal definition of signal rate, but to me it sounds like it needs to be related to the Symbol Rate, which would not be 40 Gbit/s for Gen 4: Bit rate, Data signaling rate. Since the articles provide synonyms which they do not define based in signals or symbols, pick any one of them. My suggestions was "raw bit rate". RayWiki519 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Version Number Fetishism why?

I tried to go over this in my #Clarity in spec versions and what they mean. But at your request a new topic specifically: Why do you need "USB 3.2" all over the place? For instance I describe the "Hub topology of USB3". Yes, a reference to the current, newest version of the USB3 standard is not wrong, but its unnecessary. The specific reference to USB 3.2 is still all over the place in this article. Including citing the exact document. Unless you want to make a specific point (with references) that the Hub topology on the abstraction level I am describing it changed over the different versions, I think this just makes the page less readable. But I am not fixated on "USB3" specifically, what I am looking for is a short, readable term that signifies "any USB3 version, because it is irrelevant to this sentence which version". Because spamming unnecessary versions all over the place just means you have to change all of them if there is a new version and it is less readable. I agree that there is value in clarifying up to which specification there is support. Because anything newer than that would be undefined. I tried to do that and am fine with any changes towards that goal.

Otherwise you are doing this just out of formalism, simply because there are only 3 names to pick from (3.0, 3.1, 3.2) and of those only one is correct. But I do not think, this is useful here. We need to clarify, that there is a family of protocols "USB3" or "USB 3.x" if you like. And within that family there is only one newest specification and one that was current at the release of the current USB4 standard. But it is also separate from USB2 and USB3. You know, how the Wikipedia article is still called "USB 3.0" and contains subsections for 3.1 and 3.2. What we actually need in describing it accurately to people is a name for the collection (and cannot be just "USB", because there are 3 families of standard coexisting) separate from the single versions. And USB-IF was not smart enough to provide that back than, but clearly agrees with that concept, as they are doing exactly that for USB4. And you do not do treat USB4 the same. USB4 also always has a version. But USB-IF made it harder to write the full version (because it is irrelevant. "Gen 4" is unique. It describes a concept. The version is only needed when trying to find an exact quote from the spec or if there are actual differences between the versions.) If you are of the opinion, that it is vital that the version needs to be mentioned in every single line, then you are being inconsistent not doing this for USB4. And we have proof all over the Type-C spec that distinguishing the USB4 versions is absolutely not needed. It works just as well as "USB 3.2" and we should not need to be bound by some kind of obligation to stick with an out-dated naming-scheme as long as improving it does not add more confusion and actually simplifies it.

My goal with this article would be to explain it to people that do not read the spec themselves, which includes some simplifications and reducing formalism (using the full, official name every single time). And why do I care that much about not mentioning the full version? Because historically, it has confused tons of people on the USB3 standards. That think that USB 3.2 denotes a speed and USB 3.1 a different speed. Or that USB 3.1 Gen 1 and USB 3.2 Gen 1x1 reference different concepts. And it is my belief that quoting the version where not necessary and having to change it later leads to more of this confusion, even compared to using something like "USB3" and defining it in a single place to reference the specific version for when it comes to text-disputes (between different versions). Even this article did it referencing to "USB 3.1" as an old name for "USB 3.2".

The spec is designed to be forward compatible. A device built according to the 3.1 spec using Gen 2 speed is meant to be compatible to a product built according to the USB 3.2 spec using Gen 2x1, because 99% of it is identical in its actual definition. The definition was just expanded so that there could be dual lane operation and the difference had a name. Otherwise the spec would be very broken and not compatible. In the abstract, what matters is that Gen2x1 (in the context of USB3) devices according to the spec work soo similarly that they can interoperate. And unless you are also working on section about how there are compatibility issues there, I think you have to agree that the minute differences between USB 3.1 and 3.2 are mostly not of interest for an article about USB4.

But, as I said it is not technically wrong, just completely needlessly more confusing in my opinion. So it will take other people than you and me to assemble a majority. But also, USB3 is used that way inside the USB4 spec, where the version does not matter at all. So that should still be matched whenever those things are referenced.

USB2 I care less about, because there is only one version and very unlikely to be another, so the confusion aspect does not apply as much. But also makes it tons more worthless to add .0 to everything. The USB4 spec does not even reference the USB 2.0 spec, so there is not even the argument that it has to be a specific version. And for that argument we would have to mention the Revision as well to make it 100% clear which document is being referred to without going to the references section. RayWiki519 (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

'USB commonly defines a "Lane"' was right

User:ZH8000 You do realize that the lane definition applied to USB from USB 1.x up to USB4? And that USB4 is the first version to add modes that break this concept? So I think narrowing my explanation down to ONLY USB4 is not adding anything. Why would you need to change that? And you did it inconsistently, because you forced the full-duplex explanation into it, but left "for all recent transmission modes" in, which only makes sense if you are looking at USB2 as well. RayWiki519 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

USB 3.2 Family makes no sense

User:ZH8000: You insist on changing every mention of mine of "USB3" to "USB 3.2". When I write "the USB3 family" this is meant to refer to "USB 3.x". When you insert a specific version, the "family" does not apply any more. RayWiki519 (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

split asymmetric Gen 4 modes

User:ZH8000 I have made the argument before, you ignored it, reverted it and tell me to wait for your arguments? The reason I split 3:1 and 1:3 into separate lines in a table of "modes" is because they are separate. A device can support one without the other. So both are optional and should be checked if you need to use them. Even if they are just mirrors of each other. I believe combining both into a single line in every table, gives the illusion, that both always coexist, which is not the case. Please respond to this argument, with why you insist on saving 1 clearly marked table row without making any other efforts to document the point I raised (If its not apparent from the tables that these are separate modes, it should still be clearly explained. I simply find the table the most intuitive way of doing it. And we can still share table cells if you find this too noisy). RayWiki519 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominal Signal Rate should be wrong for exact Gen 4 speeds. Raw Data Rate

I do not have the firmest of definitions of "nominal" in this context. But I would understand this as the advertised, labelled, rated speed. This matches up for all other modes, but not for Gen 4, where the nominal lane speed would be 40 Gbit/s, which is rounded. The table however includes the exact rate.

In fact, this column for Gen 4 speeds is "artificial information" as you noted on the net data rate column (which you also changed back to raw data rate. Go quibble with Bit rate on why you think their definition of Raw and Net is wrong and yours is correct.). In fact, the net data rate for Gen 4 is the one that is non-artificial. Because it is the number of bits/sec that are ingested into the encoder. Whereas a bit rate including encoding overhead does not exist anywhere in the system, because the symbol rate is actually only 25.6 MBaud and transfers trits. And also, what in the world has "since never reached" have to do with info being artificial? Neither is true. I think you may not understand what the meaning of those columns is that you are renaming.

Raw Data Rate: If its actually symbol rate vs data rate, this seems clear to me. I do not think in this context "raw" is needed at all and "raw" just makes me think of the rate including encoding overhead and I cannot find many sources defining it with the "raw". But as I also argue, signaling rate in bit/s only applies to binary signals, so not Gen 4. And Symbol Rate would be a different value that nobody has argued for yet, so the name had to be some "bit rate", because it seems we want to give a bit rate, even if virtual and decoupled from the symbol rate and then it becomes very difficult to make clear which is with and without encoding. In which case I would stick with "raw bit rate" vs. "net data rate" as defined in the Bit Rate article. RayWiki519 (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of native USB3 functionality from USB4 Feature Table

User:ZH8000 Why do you insist on removing native USB3 functionality? Do you misunderstand that that is something USB4 guarantees for hosts and other DFP? Then you better understand first before you delete a whole swath of my additions.

It is also inconsistent with mentioning any Alt Mode such as DP Alt mode or TB3. As those are native outputs. There can be discussion over the table layout, splitting the table to separate stuff used when using actual USB4 links and stuff that does not use that or similar. But removing any mention of native USB3 support is plain wrong. I would not even know where to start to argue that to you, so please start out with explaining how you think there is no native USB3 support anywhere. What do you think, USB3 tunneling is mandatory for if there are no ports where you could access that functionality? Or how every diagram showing that a USB4 DFP switches between native DP, USB3 or USB4 modes is wrong. RayWiki519 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"USB3 Tunneling" is correct

User:ZH8000 This is solely defined by the USB4 spec. It is always called USB3 Gen X tunneling. It mentions, where needed, that the Link Layer shall be according to the USB 3.2 specification, so what goes through that tunnel is determined by USB 3.2, but the tunnel itself is not called that. So any possible reasoning to want to call it "USB 3.2" because that is what the standard says fails in this instance. RayWiki519 (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

USB4 Cable Compatibility

User:ZH8000 If you actually read the annotated sources, "USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification Release 2.3 | USB-IF". usb.org. USB-IF. p42, Tab 3-1. Retrieved 2024-08-05. "USB Type-C® Cable and Connector Specification Release 2.3 | USB-IF". usb.org. USB-IF. p261 sec. 6. Retrieved 2024-08-05.

you would see that the vast majority of the table is more or less straight out of the Type-C specification.

You may argue that I am going a little bit too far on the DP compatibility stuff (the stuff in footnotes), but not on cable compatibility with respect to any public USB standards. If you want to rip out all mention of more than "DP, exact speed unspecified", do that.

What basis do you have for it to be "too erroneous" for publication if you do not even look where that table and its contents are coming from? Why not use some annotations on the stuff you think is incorrect?

At the very least, if you cannot find any actual errors in that table, it would be ready now that I caught the 2 errors I fixed in that table after initial publishing wouldn't it? RayWiki519 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have now solved any reason to call the DP column OR and thus restored the newest version of the table.

And I would appreciate it if you did not just remove content on the basis of "maybe OR" while you tell us that you do not have the time to think about anything or even read through the table.

I am clearly responsive, seeking discussion and consensus and there are lesser methods of telling me to improve sth. than simply removing it in its entirety before you have the opportunity to check the references I had already provided. RayWiki519 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"USB4 as a Port" removal

User:ZH8000 The point and topic of this section was "features and functionality that USB4 ports provide / guarantee". It was to separate features that USB4 itself describes (USB4 connections) and features from other standards that already existed that USB4 mandates (USB2, USB3, DP). Because in practice, many people do not understand that most features of USB-C ports are optional and they need to check for them. And as we already know, not all of the possible features are mandatory. For example USB3 20 Gbps is not mandatory and so far as not been provided by most USB4 controllers.

I refer to products that have USB4 ports as described by the manufacturer or labels on said port and what those ports than offer. This runs a bit parallel to your "capabilities" table and tries to lay the groundwork for it, defining things.

If you manage to describe this more aptly in the headline, you are welcome to do so.

This section was never meant, and I do not think it said, that "USB4 is just a port" like you allege "USB as port is a very strong misunderstanding".

Especially, because you keep deleting any mention of native USB3 support, such a section is clearly needed, if even you have not yet understood that a USB4 port on a host will always include native USB3 functionality. I would expect engagement with the contents of that section and not with the headline. RayWiki519 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Regression in Lead regarding TB3 relation

User:ZH8000 You changed a sentence in the lead:

This passage read originally read

It also incorporates elements of the Thunderbolt 3 protocol

On August 4th, I changed this to

USB4 also incorporates elements of / shares elements and principles with the Thunderbolt 3 protocol

You made changes to all my other edits in that same edit after, but not this line. And now, in your hurry to remove about half of the content I added, you changed this sentence to

USB4 also incorporates the (for some kind of devices optional) Thunderbolt 3 protocol

So here you have significantly changed the meaning into sth. I think this talk page already agreed is incorrect. USB4 does not include ALL of TB3. It makes no sense, and we cannot even know that, because we cannot look at the TB3 spec and I do not think we have credible sources even alleging this. All I tried to do was add the little bit of info that "TB3 does other things very similarly" (which we can tell from the TB3 compatibility parts of the USB4 spec).

Here, you may disagree with my wording or that it is too confusing or unnecessary. But changing the entire meaning of this sentence to sth. that was agreed upon was wrong last year is just plain wrong. RayWiki519 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)