USB 4 2.0 Announced! With 80 Gbps Speeds!

[Sandy Bridge]

The USB Promoter Group has announced the next version of USB, which will be backwards-compatible with USB 4.0.  Rather than the names you might expect, such as USB 4.1 or USB 5.0, it will be known as USB 4 Version 2.0.  You can read the official announcement at https://usb.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/USB-IF USB 80Gbps Announcement_FINAL_v2.pdf

 

The marquee feature appears to be 80 Gbps operation, including over existing 40 Gbps passive cables.  It will also be possible to configure a 120 Gbps/40 Gbps asymmetric mode.

 

Anyone chomping at the bit to upgrade?  Or perhaps to lobby the USB Promoter Group to adopt a better naming scheme?  I don't think it's quite as bad as the Generation I/Generation II confusion with USB 3.1/3.2, but I'm sure there will people mistakenly buying USB 4.0 instead of USB 4.0 Version 2.0 in a few years...

[IamTechknow]

1 hour ago, Sandy Bridge said:

I don't think it's quite as bad as the Generation I/Generation II confusion with USB 3.1/3.2, but I'm sure there will people mistakenly buying USB 4.0 instead of USB 4.0 Version 2.0 in a few years...

Yeah, this new USB version reminded me of USB 3.1 Gen 1/USB 3.2 Gen 1 which much worse. I'm going to guess that the new version is not called 5.0 because it is backwards compatible, but I would have preferred 4.1.

 

I'm sure we will be waiting for 1 or 2 years to see USB 4.0 2.0 devices and ports released, right?

[jaybee83]

6 hours ago, Sandy Bridge said:

The USB Promoter Group has announced the next version of USB, which will be backwards-compatible with USB 4.0.  Rather than the names you might expect, such as USB 4.1 or USB 5.0, it will be known as USB 4 Version 2.0.  You can read the official announcement at https://usb.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/USB-IF USB 80Gbps Announcement_FINAL_v2.pdf

 

The marquee feature appears to be 80 Gbps operation, including over existing 40 Gbps passive cables.  It will also be possible to configure a 120 Gbps/40 Gbps asymmetric mode.

 

Anyone chomping at the bit to upgrade?  Or perhaps to lobby the USB Promoter Group to adopt a better naming scheme?  I don't think it's quite as bad as the Generation I/Generation II confusion with USB 3.1/3.2, but I'm sure there will people mistakenly buying USB 4.0 instead of USB 4.0 Version 2.0 in a few years...

 

actually, havent they already changed the whole usb naming scheme to just list the speed? the usb 4 v2 moniker is supposed to just be for internal developer reference. consumer facing theyll just list Gbps:

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/usb-if-says-goodbye-to-confusing-superspeed-usb-branding/

 

in any case, i juuuuust got my first 40 gbps (usb 4 / tb 4) ports in with my new desktop build and wham heres the next gen already 😂 quite insane if you think about it: 40 gbps is already sufficient to saturate external PCIe 3.0 x4 drives, with the new 80 gbps doing the same for PCIe 4.0 x4 drives, craaaaazy

[Sandy Bridge]

16 hours ago, jaybee83 said:

actually, havent they already changed the whole usb naming scheme to just list the speed?

Yes, and thankfully this will likely fit into that quite nicely.  I for one welcome this new speed-based branding.

 

And yes, 40 Gbps is quite fast.  Full speed external PCIe SSDs, it's a crazy world we live in.

 

I think I have a 10 Gbps port as the fastest on my desktop, but it might be 20 Gbps, I'd have to find the box to look it up.  I don't have an external device that's fast enough to figure it out by testing.  I have no idea what my laptop maxes out at, other than it's at least 5 Gbps.  If they'd introduced the speed-based labeling a decade ago, I'd know for sure how fast my ports are.

 

21 hours ago, IamTechknow said:

I'm going to guess that the new version is not called 5.0 because it is backwards compatible, but I would have preferred 4.1.

But hasn't USB always been at least mostly of backwards-compatible, as long as the connector shape is the same?  Plug a USB 2.0 device into a USB 3.0 port, or vice versa, and most of the time it works just fine.  I think there was some backwards-compatibility with 1.1 as well, though I'm less sure about that.