USB4 v2 is also 120 Gbps
Does anything else use PAM3? PAM4 is all over the place (PCIe 6.0 from this winter, 25&#x2F;100&#x2F;200 Gbe, GDDR6X, I forget who else but more), but PAM3... apparently once was used for 100BASE-T4[1]. That&#x27;s 100 mbit, not Gbit, not 1000Mbit, 100 mbit.<p>Just so excellent that the USB4 nee-Thunderbolt tunneled&#x2F;packet-switched architecture means that, if we do get a speed bump, that boost is a win for displays, storage, egpus connected via displayport, thunderbolt, what-have-you. (Not necessarily for those devices, but the % of throughput they consume diminishes respectively). The leap to USB4 is a huge shift, but tunneling&#x2F;packet-switching has so many downstream benefits.<p>I&#x27;m sure to be downvoted, but- grasping the third rail here: does anyone else tire of every time USB being mentioned, the thread turning into a mudslinging festival? I find repetitive, almost never constructive, usually incredibly poorly defined (my dock didn&#x27;t work-- ok, how? at all? doubtful) complaints repeated ad-nauseam, and there&#x27;s such limited energy to refute the waves of negativity from the sore &amp; aggrieved. I want there to be room for these voices, but the mere mention of USB is a magnet for misery. I can &amp; apparently should write some blog posts on why things are they way they are, how incremental evolution happens, and how progress isn&#x27;t always smooth. But to the larger phenomenon of muck raking being the popular activity at every mention: it&#x27;s definitely not just USB, in online communities this vocal persistent complaint about topics is a social condition that, so far, has no remedy, no redress. Systemd had to deal with this, Kubernetes, react, rails; so many have had their time on the planet of being targetted subjects. It just happens again and again and again, and the world doesn&#x27;t deserve to have only the negative so amplified. It&#x27;d be so nice to redirect these energies to more focused gathering places, and to let the actual news &amp; events be discussed in peace.<p>To add a usb naming joke, and to build constructively &amp; consistently on the past, this would obviously be USB4 2x12. Two channels of of 60 Gbps (5Gbps * 12). The previous USB4 2.0 would be 2x8. There, I fixed it for you.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pulse-amplitude_modulation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pulse-amplitude_modulation</a>