USB Spectrum disorder

>>59137033
Also, does "USB 3.0" even technically exist now?

>>59137044
Nope. 3.1 Gen 1.

>>59137033
Judging by the fact that those "SS" USB logos don't have a little "10" by them, they're probably 3.0 or 3.1 Gen 1.

>>59137310
The manual says all the USB-A ports are USB 3.0 and that the type-C port is "USB 3.1"
I've never actually seen a USB-C device in my life so I have no way to test it

>>59137310
Is it superspeed10 or superspeed+?

>>59137332
The type C is probably 3.1 (Gen 2), then. If they use the terminology of "3.0", then that means referring to 3.1 is really just Gen 2.

>>59137350
I've only seen the superscript "10".

>>59137033
>Why don't manufacturers just say 5Gbps, 10Gbps, and Thunderbolt 3

It's probably because 99% of people don't actually care because you'd be hard pressed to saturate 5gbps with a USB device let alone 10-40gbps

I'm not saying it's good, but in terms of practicality, it's not really affecting that many people

>>59137033
RTFM?

Also the way non-autists do it: just plug it in and if it works it works.

>>59137456
Yeah but there are already external drives using 5Gbps USB, I'm sure it won't be long until that 10Gbps is a necessary spec consideration. I was looking at external SSDs and all I can find it 5Gbps max ones

Thunderbolts different, it's just way too good, 40Gbps, native DisplayPort and PCIe streaming, hundreds of watts of power supply, and a clear, unambiguous name (even if the port is ambiguous)

Good thing I don't have any USB 3.0 devices

>>59137268
And I though amd was bad at naming things

>>59137581
Nobody does, USB 3.0 doesn't exist anymore
If it did, then Apple would've been liars about the 2015 MacBook Pro.
"We can't have that happening can we?" ~USB Police

>>59137617

It's retarded, but it isn't that bad once you figure it out. 3.1 Gen 1 is just rebranded 3.0, 3.1 Gen 2 is faster (double the speed).

>>59137044
Yes... the difference between 3.0 and 3.1 gen one is power delivery and video output.

>>59137617

I think they just wanted to avoid confusion because 3.0 and 3.1 gen 2 are fully compatible.
So it's a no-brainer to just use any "3.1" port for any "3.1" device.

But as this thread proves it has the reverse effect and actually causes more people to sperg out.

>>59137717
Video output is not on USB 3.1, it's on thunderbolt. And USB "power delivery spec" isn't related to the data spec (after USB 3.0 and 1.5amps, all power delivery specs are optional) (except USB C must be 5amps 5-12v capable regardless of whether it's gen 1 or gen 2)
>>59137756
So why not call every single USB port ever made USB 1.0? It's all compatible and makes it less confusing right?

>>59137756
But those are actually original USB ports, not "USB 3.1 ports"
You're saying you're fine with USB 2.0 Type-C connectors? Because they do exist

>>59137895
Sorry, "true USB-C cables must support 5amps"
There's plenty of chinkshit USB C cables that are officially not even recognized as USB

>>59137756
But "3.1 gen one" actually isn't USB 3.1
Sure if it was compatible there would be no problem using the higher spec only, but the fact is that "USB 3.1 gen 1" isn't "USB 3.1"