All Things USB 3.1 And USB Type-C: An Explainer

35

Over the last year or so, there have been many developments in the USB space, and although the official specifications haven't changed, we've consolidated and explained all the helpful information around USB 3.0, both versions of USB 3.1, and the USB Type-C connector.

When USB 3.1 became common knowledge last year (even though it was actually released in 2012), there was some confusion. USB 3.1 was gaining attention about when the USB Type-C connector first appeared, so it's easy to understand how the two would be conflated. However, they're not the same thing. One is a data transfer protocol, and one is a type of connector. Another way of thinking of it is that Type-C is the pipe, and USB is (one of) the things that can flow through the pipe.  

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

Seth Colaner previously served as News Director at Tom's Hardware. He covered technology news, focusing on keyboards, virtual reality, and wearables.

  • WyomingKnott
    Three comments

    First, I wonder when the first USB C Displayport video cards and monitors will come out - if ever.

    Second, while a universal connector is a great idea in theory, there's an advantage in having a DVI cable that will only connect video to video. People will inevitably try to connect incompatible things and be puzzled when they do not work.

    Third, I absolutely love the idea of USB Power Delivery, where the host, the device, and the cable negotiate the amount of power desired / possible. But I foresee many cheap cables that don't implement this properly, and possibly more non-standard standards like the one Apple created.

    There will be problems.
    Reply
  • scolaner
    Three comments

    First, I wonder when the first USB C Displayport video cards and monitors will come out - if ever.

    Second, while a universal connector is a great idea in theory, there's an advantage in having a DVI cable that will only connect video to video. People will inevitably try to connect incompatible things and be puzzled when they do not work.

    Third, I absolutely love the idea of USB Power Delivery, where the host, the device, and the cable negotiate the amount of power desired / possible. But I foresee many cheap cables that don't implement this properly, and possibly more non-standard standards like the one Apple created.

    There will be problems.

    First -- I don't know about video cards, but monitor support is a must, particularly for power delivery. Fortunately, there should be some Type-C hubs landing on the market sometime in the not-too-distant future.

    Second -- Confusion is going to be rampant, yes. That's in large part why we wanted to write this piece. Just getting some clarifying information out there so consumers will be more informed.

    Third -- Totally agree, PD is a huge deal. Cables will need be USB-IF-certified. So, look for that branding. That should help weed out the pretenders.
    Reply
  • 3ogdy
    Great article!

    WHAT A language redacted MESS! What a language redacted mess! Then there's the optional branding...like....What thelanguage redacted?!?! OK, we're fitting this board with 3.1 Gen 2 10Gbps Type-C that also has Power Delivery of up to 100W, but we ain't gon' mention it...'cuz...why would we, right? RIGHT? Who cares about all those details? Nobody, right?

    Dumb language redactedshould be banned from creating standards, from causing the entire planet headaches and some need to pay with their lives for it. This is unacceptable. Yet, somebody gets paid to come up with this. There's definitely a special place in hell for these people. Hopefully in front of a camera so we can see them "enjoying themselves", them pieces of language redacted.
    Reply
  • atheus
    Thanks for this article, although I must say I'm heavily displeased that I need an article like this to really understand that the term "USB 3.1" has become basically meaningless. It's pretty much too late, but it sounds to me like they should just give up on the term USB 3.1 and call it USB 3.2 already. Everybody is used to calling these standards by their version numbers, so suddenly expecting everyone to start saying "It's Super Speed 10 GEE BEE PEE ESSS" or "USB 3.1 Gen 2" is a brush with insanity. The logos aren't all that helpful either, since much of the time these features will be listed in product descriptions on amazon and newegg with unsatisfactory detail.

    At the end of the day I think what will actually happen is that nobody should use the term "USB 3.1" when they mean Gen 1. That's just confusing. It's fine if engineers use the term internally, but for marketing that's just asking for trouble. That seems to be the way the motherboard manufacturers are going anyway.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    It is ironic how USB started because Firewire's six wires cable (TX pair, RX pair and power pair) was considered "too complex and expensive" and now we have Type-C USB which has two high-speed pairs in each direction, the legacy pair for USB1/2, a few extra wires for miscellaneous signaling and yet another pair or two for options.

    Type-C is going to be lots of fun when you end up needing a dozen different Type-C cables because each supports different options.
    Reply
  • 2Be_or_Not2Be
    I think the USB-IF should have required the logos on any device utilizing the Type-C connector, not just for product packaging. Usually people don't keep the package, but they obviously will have the device. That would be very helpful when later down the road, someone wants to help you troubleshoot why their USB port doesn't act the way they thought it would.
    Reply
  • SteelCity1981
    this whole article just exposed how dysfunctional usb 3.x standard are. so usb 3.1 gen1 is the same 5gb speed as usb 3.0 with added features. and usb 3.1 gen2 is everything usb 3.1 gen1 has but with 10gb speed instead. so now you have to look carefully when you buy usb 3.1 to make sure it has the + next to the superspeed for usb 3.1 gen2 and not just superspeed for usb 3.1 gen1.
    Reply
  • fedrik456
    Great article!

    WHAT A FRUCKING MESS! What a f(r)ucking mess! Then there's the optional branding...like....What the fruck?!?! OK, we're fitting this board with 3.1 Gen 2 10Gbps Type-C that also has Power Delivery of up to 100W, but we ain't gon' mention it...'cuz...why would we, right? RIGHT? Who cares about all those details? Nobody, right?

    Dumb mothercrackers should be banned from creating standards, from causing the entire planet headaches and some need to pay with their lives for it. This is unacceptable. Yet, somebody gets paid to come up with this. There's definitely a special place in hell for these people. Hopefully in front of a camera so we can see them "enjoying themselves", them pieces of sheet.

    Are you ok, man?
    Reply
  • Eggz
    Very useful information!

    I have four questions that I hope you can answer.

    First, will there exist a Type-C cable that supports ALL the top features? For instance, the max data rate for cables under the spec is 40 Gbps, but that's only by using active optical cables. Does using light (viz. optical) preclude full 100 w power delivery? It would be great to know which features have compatibility issues.

    Second, what exactly does "alt mode" do to the other functionality? That is, would a monitor running a DisplayPort signal through a Type-C cable still be able to provide 10 Gbps of data throughput, or does the DisplayPort signal cut into that bandwidth? Would the answer change using a higher bandwidth cable?

    How does the throughput get channeled internally? People will need to know, for instance, whether connecting new USB devices could cause their graphics cards to switch down from a PCI-e x 16 link to an x 8 link. I'm assuming these throughput levels will require PCI-e because they exceed SATA, but correct me if I'm wrong.

    Last, will there be an easy empirical way see which type of USB connection you are actually obtaining despite lack of labeling or technical specifications? For instance, Task Manager will tell you the link speed of your network connection if you don't know it (e.g. 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, etc.). Even though you have a 1 Gbps NIC, you might run at 100 Mbps because the router or sever is using 100 Mbpg rather than 1 Gbps. In the same way, the weakest link theory for USB link speed negotiation will yield various actually connections, despite specs of individual components. Are consumers going to be able to just check like this for new USB standards using something like Device Manager or Task Manager?
    Reply
  • targetdrone
    A single connector sounds awesome on theory until the reality that is Apple or it's wannabe cousin Samsung take it upon themselves to mess things up with a new proprietary connector or out of spec Type C connectors with the wrong number of pins.
    Reply