• @ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      244 months ago

      Can it use others, and is there a benefit? USB C makes a lot of sense; lower material usage, small, carries data, power and connects to almost everything now.

      • @BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        524 months ago

        I believe USB-C is the only connector supported for carrying DisplayPort signals other than DisplayPort itself.

        The biggest issue with USB-C for display in my opinion is that cable specs vary so much. A cable with a type c end could carry anywhere from 60-10000MB/s and deliver anywhere from 5-240W. What’s worse is that most aren’t labeled, so even if you know what spec you need you’re going to have a hell of a time finding it in a pile of identical black cables.

        Not that I dislike USB-C. It’s a great connector, but the branding of USB has always been a mess.

        • strawberry
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          would be neat to somehow have a standard color coding. kinda how USB 3 is (usually) blue, maybe there could be thin bands of color on the connector?

          better yet, maybe some raised bumps so visually impaired people could feel what type it was. for example one dot is USB 2, two could be USB 3, etc

        • jaxxed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          I think that the biggest issue with dp over usbc is that people are going to try to use the same cable for 4k and large data transfers at the same time, and will then whine about weird behaviour.

        • @ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          Yep, very true. I didn’t understand this until I couldn’t connect my Mac to my screen via the USB C given with the computer, I had to buy another (and order it in specifically). Pick up a cable, and I have no idea which version it is.

        • cum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          Yeah I have multiple USB cables, some at 30w, and some at 140w. Get them mixed up all the time! More companies need to at least brand the wattage on the connectors.

        • @Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          Dont forget the limited length. I cant remember exactly but usb c delivering power has a max length of arpund 4 metres

        • @Freestylesno@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          04 months ago

          This is the big issue I have with with “USB C”. USB c is just the connector which can be used for so many things. What actual is supported depends on things you can’t see, like the cable construction or what the device supports.

      • @frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64 months ago

        There’s some really high bandwidth stuff that USB-C isn’t rated for. You have to really press the limits, though. Something like 4k + 240Hz + HDR.

        • @ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          That doesn’t even seem so unreasonable. Is that the limit though? My cable puts a gigabyte a second down it so I wouldn’t imagine that would hit the limit.

          • @frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            USB-C with Thunderbolt currently had a limit of 40Gbit/sec. Wikipedia has a table of what DisplayPort can do at that bandwidth:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

            See the section “Resolution and refresh frequency limits”. The table there shows it’d be able to do 4k/144hz/10bpp just fine, but can’t keep above 60hz for 8k.

            Its an uncompressed video signal, and that takes a lot of bandwidth. Though there is a simple lossless compression mode.

          • @GeniusIsme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            It is trivial arithmetic: 4.52403840*2160 ≈ 9 GB/ s. Not even close. Even worse, that cable will struggle to get ordinary 60hz 4k delivered.

            • @pirat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              4.5 × 240 × 3840 × 2160 ≈ 9 GB/s

              It seems markdown formatting ruined your numbers because of the asterisks. Whatever is written between two of those turns italic, so they’re not ideal for multiplication symbols here on Lemmy (or any other place that implements markdown formatting).

            • @ABCDE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              I think the maths got a bit funky there. I don’t think a cable capable of such speeds would struggled to do 60Hz at 4K, it surely doesn’t need close to a gigabyte a second?