Explaining USB 3.1

[@Zanzubaa]

These videos are fantastic. I like how he just keeps it real with no BS. The subtle humor is well delivered too.

[@ExplainingComputers]

Thanks.

[@RealGengarTV]

06:16 I could recommend making a virtual RAM disk that you copy from. That ought to help fill the bandwith

[@nzoomed]

Who remembers when USB 2.0 used to be fast? lol

[@ExplainingComputers]

:)

[@Lord5oth]

I remember when my pc had no usb to begin with lol

[@MrDegsy69]

Who remembers when file sizes were smaller, processors less powerfull and video graphics less intensive? Its all horses for courses.

[@cyiabsalon9720]

I remember when USB-0 was all the rage, and when displayed publicly for the first time, it failed big time. Why do I remember such stuff? Cuz' I had to go change my shorts and do some laundry, I was laughing so hard.

[@charlesjsescoto]

Until this current moment it's still fast, u just treat your mind because there is something faster, then the other one is slower now to u

[@breebw]

3:11 PCI slot color matches the new 3.1 USB plug color. Conspiracy intensifies...

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Breen Whitman Brilliant spot! Or maybe we were not supposed to realize . . .

[@awakejake9296]

+ExplainingComputers DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUU

[@NicolSD]

+Breen Whitman The is more to USB 3.1 than just the USB-C port or the color of the port. You also have to make sure you are using both a GEN 2 USB 3.1 port and card and a GEN 2 USB 3.1 cable. The first generation of USB 3.1 had the same speed as USB 3.0.

[@doublebubleguy12]

+Breen Whitman On my ASUS Hero VIII motherboard the built in 3.1 slot is actually red.

[@Jupiter__001_]

+ExplainingComputers Insert X-Files theme tune here.

[@sinsaru]

My newest addition to my sub list. Currently here - been binging Chris’s channel from video #1 for a week now ;) how I didn’t find this years ago is beyond me! Loving the subtle humour and straightforward presentations

[@ExplainingComputers]

Welcome aboard!

[@sinsaru]

@@ExplainingComputers thank you sir. 700k+ subscribers and you find a moment to welcome me. Truly appreciated!

[@stevesedio1656]

USB3.1 is a rev of USB3.0. Gen 2 is 10Gbs, Gen 1 is 5Gbs, USB3.0 no longer exists. USB3.1 applied to the Standard A, Standard B, and microB, Type C came later. USB3.1 did not increase power. USB Power Delivery is what provides the higher current. Rev 1 and 2 weren't accepted by the market. Rev 3, which was based on the USB Type C connector, has been accepted. USB Type C is the latest USB connector. Both ends are the same (no A & B side) and there is no top and bottom on the plug. USB Type C also allowed alternate protocols, and has been adopted by DisplayPort, rev 1.4, Thunderbolt, Rev 3, and HDMI is in the works. The design goal was for USB Type C to be the universal cable. The full feature Type C has 4 high speed channels, that supports 2 USB3.1, each requiring a TX and RX, or all 4 channels of DisplayPort. Those high speed pairs are specified for 20Gbs, which is why Thunderbolt 3 can operate at 40GBs, or a future USB 3.1, Gen 3.

[@johnm2012]

@ateb3 And it got even worse with USB 3.2. It seems they're trying to avoid the same kind of nonsense with USB4.

[@danieldc8841]

Your videos are very 90's in their style which is pretty amusing, but they're very informative and concise nonetheless. Thanks for sharing! I'll have to look for this on motherboards when I build a new PC. =)

[@yussef961]

Daniel Turner yes they sound like a BBC documentary lol I like that

[@glimpsofreality]

the reason you can't see much difference between USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 in your setup because SATA connection bottle neck at 6Gbps which means even USB 3.1 has 10Gbps connection speed you will only get maximum of 6Gbps.

[@ExplainingComputers]

You are in theory right, but in practice SATA is clearly not the bottleneck here, as neither transfer is close to 6Gbps

[@djrokz61196]

I'm not sure why, but your transitions and channel music remind me of the early 2000's educational videos I watched in grade school.. its weird but I kinda like it. :P

[@XenoContact]

Imagine all the pc components screaming Come on ! You can do it ! at the USB 2.0 port and data bus.

[@ExplainingComputers]

+XenoContact Fantastic! :) I will always imagine that now.

[@mrnebbi]

This comment kept me entertained for ages :)

[@lordofthecats6397]

Im sure in my computer their throats will be dry from screaming at my printer

[@zyborg47]

I think you have proved the point that it is not really worth spending the money on 3.1 at the moment. Sure if buying a new motherboard then getting 3.1 on is fine, but not really worth getting a 3.1 card.

[@ExplainingComputers]

+z I think that you are right! :)

[@TheDude50447]

A USB connector going in both ways ... witchcraft I say.

[@trixiepettman-south8500]

I BELIEVE IN WITCHCRAFT.

[@herik63]

After some years of lighting connections...

[@AndyMcGeever]

There are micro USB leads that go in both ways. I don't know why all micro USB leads aren't like that.

[@EnzoFoove]

You are so British and so 90's but also very informative! Love it!

[@GregHuffman1987]

:)

[@lawofaverages5373]

I'd suggest So 70s even :-))

[@herik63]

The best part of British, i had britons colleagues and bosses, and I didn’t liked them so much, the last one fired me after 29 years of service.

[@jdmxxx38]

I really appreciate your videos. They sort out so much of the confusion that derives from never ending evolving technology of pc's. Thanks for your work.

[@supremelawfirm]

Chris, another very clear presentation of USB options. In the future, you might expand your USB presentations by adding a discussion of the "frame" improvements that occurred between USB 3.0 and USB 3.1, which were very similar to the "frame" improvements that occurred between PCIe 2.0 and PCIe 3.0. USB 3.1 adopted what is known as the 128b/132b "jumbo frame", which transmits a block of 16 bytes with the addition of 4 more control bits: 16 bytes @ 8 bits = 128 + 4 = 132 binary digits per frame. Similarly, PCIe 3.0 adopted the 128b/130b "jumbo frame", which transmits a block of 16 bytes with the addition of 2 more control bits: 16 bytes @ 8 bits = 128 + 2 = 130 binary digits per frame. The prior PCIe 2.0 and USB 3.0 standards still retained the 8b/10b "legacy frame": 1 byte @ 8 bits + 1 start bit + 1 stop bit = 10 bits per byte. These comparisons can be important, particularly if USB 3.1 hardware is not controlled with a software driver that supports the new 128b/132b "jumbo frame". I believe the 128b/132b "jumbo frame" is defined as a USB 3.1 "option" i.e. it's not a mandatory feature of the USB 3.1 specification. Given the obvious bandwidth increase that results from increasing the clock from 6G to 10G, it's quite strange that SSD manufacturers have not at least adopted PCIe 3.0's 8G clock and 128b/130b "jumbo frame". This one change would increase MAX HEADROOM from 600 MB/second (6G/10) to 984.6 MB/second (8G/8.125). And, when PCIe 4.0 becomes standard, then MAX HEADROOM increases again to 1,969.2 MB/second (16G/8.125). Instead, storage vendors are steering consumers to the M.2 form factor and the NVMe protocol. Hope this helps.

[@ExplainingComputers]

Thanks for this info. :)

[@aloharay]

Thank you for making an informative video. Also, thank you for NOT making it an hour long just to get to them important parts. Straight to the point.

[@RicardoCooper]

To add to the confusion: USB 3.0 is also known as (rebranded) 3.1 Gen 1 and USB 3.1 is also known as 3.1 Gen 2 USB C also comes in 2.0 and 3.0/3.1Gen1 flavors as well.

[@kght222]

6:09 use a ram drive if you need something faster for file transfer testing, like in this instance.

[@kght222]

6:43 3.0 is 5mbit, sata 3 is 6mbit. you just measured around the difference in percentages if not numbers

[@shmookins]

Can someone please explain to me how USB 2 has a transfer speed of 480Mbps and USB 3 even faster but all I ever get when using them is something around 25 Mbps or so at best? I transfer data between an external HDD and my PC. Even at his own test at 6:39 USB 2 only shows around 25 Mbps....

[@ToadRoach]

I know that this is a bit late, but Would it make any more of a difference if you were to remove SATA out of the equation and copy to an M2 ie Samsung 960 EVO

[@ExplainingComputers]

Probably not, as the transfer speed attained is well below that of SATA-3.

[@Bodragon]

(7:40) - Wow, That USB 2.0 is sooooo sloooow I would love you to now copy the same file(s) over USB 1.0 Go on, Chris. You know you want to...

[@wavemaker54]

Great job as always. Your channel has become my favorite source for information about computers and hardware, thank you for your contribution. I wish I found your channel earlier but now that I have I am having fun digging in and checking out all of your fine videos. Thanks again!

[@gerarddresch712]

Glad I found this for I have a 64 year old brother who said it is not worth worrying about 3.0 that it is not faster even though the PC I built him has 3.0 and 3.1 he will watch this even if I have to stand over him -- Thanks -- Also First 65 or Older

[@tentimesful]

europe needs suing illigal anyway, usb is garbage alwas breaks like hdmi sand in the middle.... europe for superior interfaces. like the old interfaces more sound interface, any company practically sueable in american copany

[@tentimesful]

train does get tracks of getting bigger in summer and winter smaller, does usb really fit..

[@tentimesful]

60 usb interface broken, just like tht...

[@Novashadow115]

tentimesful Dude, your English is severely broken. No one here understands what you are trying to say

[@persona83]

It seems he just doesn't like USB interfaces.

[@JTManuel]

I like how unboxing and product placements are smoothly integrated without missing a beat.

[@0menadds]

The method of the disk format will create a difference in the speed Disk part Fat32 with a unit size of 4k will a bit different to NTFS with a unit size of 16k

[@MrMoonpie001]

Excellent Chris as always! You answered every question I could have had. It was great to see the test done in a real world environment. What the consumer wants to know is "Will this work for me?" and "what kind of results can I expect?" You answered both questions with great skill and knowledge! My only question would be if you were using typical hard drives instead of solid state would the transfer be slower? I am stuck for now in the world of 2.0 just because I don't have any hardware that requires anything better yet. I do use external hard drives but I am not moving large data to them at this point, however this would be a perfect arrangement to do a backup on with the use of an adapter cable. Thanks again, you got me thinking which is a good thing. So are you retired from teaching yet? I know you were going in this direction, I didn't know if you are full time now on your other goals? I appreciate all you do! Rich

[@ExplainingComputers]

+MrMoonpie001 Thanks Rich. If I used a hard drive rather than an SSD, it would be slower -- the SSDs (one borrowed from another system, one about to go into one) were the fastest things I had available. I have now left the University of Nottingham as an employee, though am back teaching there freelance from next week for a few months. But basically, yes -- I am now full-tie on being freelance.

[@MrMoonpie001]

Good luck and God bless in your new venture, I look forward to seeing your handiwork! Rich

[@paulgrimshaw6301]

Nice intro, but a little misleading in places. The problem is the suggestion that 100W power and USB-C connectors are part of USB 3.1. They aren't. USB-C is just a new connector. USB 3.1 is a signalling standard. 100W power delivery is part of a new power delivery standard USB-PD. All are independent. So for example a device using a USB-C connector doesn't have to be running USB 3.1, and indeed there are already devices out there with USB-C connectors running only USB 3.0, or even just USB 2. In fact USB-C isn't confined to USB signalling at all. Other protocols such as DisplayPort or the new Thunderbolt 3 can also run over USB-C connectors. Also USB-PD isn't confined to USB-C connectors, or devices using USB 3.1. A device can use USB-PD to supply 100W over a USB-A standard connector to a device with a USB-B standard connector (e.g.: a printer) at the other end of the cable, as long as both devices support USB-PD. Note however that there are restrictions - USB-A can only be a power source compared to bi-directional power via USB-C, and also USB Micro-A and USB Micro-B connectors are restricted to 60W. Bottom line is that for any device you have to consider separately (a) what connector is it using, (b) what signalling standard(s) does it support, and (c) what power delivery capability does it support. All very confusing for the typical consumer. Even more so when you consider that the cables between the ports are also different, particularly when using USB-C connectors. The cable itself may introduce signalling or bandwidth limitations, even to the extent of no signalling support at all in a dedicated USB-C power delivery cable. One other point - testing USB 3.1 using SATA devices doesn't effectively test USB 3.1 as SATA has rather lower signalling bandwidth (6Gb/sec compared with 10Gb/sec). Hence you don't get much improvement compared to USB3.0 with SATA. It's only when you used with something much faster than SATA that USB 3.1 throughput can fully be exploited. A currently available example might be a USB 3.1 device that contains two SATA disks striped together (RAID 0), such as the SanDisk Extreme 900 series. The conclusion still stands though - devices not limited by a single SATA connected disk are still rare and so the benefits of upgrading to USB 3.1 are limited. The benefits of USB-C and/or USB-PD are perhaps more useful, an example being using USB-C with USB-PD to connector a monitor to a laptop whilst charging the laptop (no USB 3.1 involved!).

[@anthony_k_harvey]

Because a friend of mine keeps asking me to explain USB 3.1 Type C compared to Thunderbolt, which also uses a type C connector, I would love to see you do a video explaining the relationship between the two and why you can use USB-C devices with Thunderbolt. That way, when he keeps asking after I've already explained it, I can just keep sending him to your video.

[@zephyfoxy]

I was happy to see this because I recently just built a new super-high performance rig with a motherboard that came with USB 3.1, and until I got the motherboard, I had no idea it existed! I was even happier to see that the adaptor you got was ASRock, because that's who I got my motherboard from! It came with two USB 3.1 slots in the back, but I don't have any devices that can use them, yet. I think I'm most excited that finally we have a mini-USB that is reversable! No more playing guessing games with which way to plug it in.

[@TalesOfWar]

+Zepher Tensho There are a few pretty decent quality drive enclosures that use it for 2.5" SATA drives and there's a couple for M.2 that I've seen too. The M.2 one will make far better use of the connection, assuming it's the 10Gbit compliant connector of course. SATA is kind of wasted on modern SSD's, they easily saturate the bandwidth.

[@joblessalex]

Magnetic connectors please! It takes about 6 months usually to kill those tiny ass connectors. At least my 3.0 connector lasted pretty long.

[@cyberp0et]

Always enjoying your videos, Chris.

[@3D_Printing]

3:24 or a small piece of Blue Tack on the screw head to hold it on

[@TEKMOTION]

You might want to compare a 3.1 C Thumb Drive vrs M.2 NVME drive.

[@TheSeko2323]

You're making high quality content. Keep doing that !

[@markfalina9160]

Does this card have any limitations? For example, will it go into ANY motherboard's x4 slot or just one capable of something in particular?

[@ExplainingComputers]

A x4 PCIe card will work in any x4, x8 or x16 slot.

[@pierre5325]

Dear Explaining Computer, thanks for an excellent explanation. pierre from New Mexico

[@ExplainingComputers]

+pierre5325 Many thanks. :)

[@lordjim1985]

SATA 3 is 6Gb/s. That translates to theoretical 768 MB/s. I wonder if Your adapter is the bottleneck for the SSD. Maybe do a video on comparing different USB 3.0/3.1 disk adapters? Did some testing myself a while ago and the difference between adapters can be up to 50-100MB/s. Great video as always :)

[@thomascott7425]

A very good presentation. SOlid facts without the fluff that some manufacturers try to throw in. Whenever I tune in I always find something interesting to learn and enjoy on your channel. I look forward to your upcoming videos no matter the subject. Thanks.

[@balkenkreuz2063]

So who decides what color each USB type should be? As far as I know black was the "standard" for 2.0, blue for 3.0 and I've seen some companies utilize red as the standard for 3.1. However, that's not the case with all manufacturers.

[@ExplainingComputers]

You are right -- black for 2.0, blue for 3.0 -- as set by the USB Implementers Forum, but not always adhered to . . .

[@balkenkreuz2063]

I know, right? Some times it is confusing.

[@azdinator]

Hello again, Quick question : As you know the USB-C specifies DFP and UFP ports.DFP is the host port. UFP is the device port. This is confusing. In a usb-hub, the upstream port is connected to the host whereas the downstream port is connected to the device. Do you know why ?

[@ExplainingComputers]

I cannot answer this I'm afraid. I guess it depends on point and view and the expectation of how much data will travel in each direction in terms of defining "upstream" and "downstream".

[@azdinator]

No problem. You already helped me. Thanks a lot

[@AssetMalik]

Because you have 8GB of RAM you are able to create a storage for 3GB file directly in RAM , so you can compare r/w speed of (RAM to SATA or RAM to USB)

[@j5892000]

so with the c connector on one end the usb 3.1 male is on the other end right? what use is that can you tranfer data from one pc to another that way?

[@paoloesquivel8728]

great video man. im an IT from the philippines and i love your videos. keep it up!

[@ExplainingComputers]

Thanks. :)

[@arafetkanso1405]

now i have 3 different questions , Why the usb-c A connector is still not reversible like the B connector ? - do there is already monitors that can be powered and connected by only 3.1 cable ? - if we connect 2 SSD using usb 3.1 can we mirror them or raid them anyway ?

[@ExplainingComputers]

I imagine the A connector is not reversible due to maintaining compatibility. In theory a monitor could be connected and powered via USB 3.1, but I do not know of one. It is theoretically possible that you could RAID or mirror two SSDs connected via USB 3.0/1. However, such functionality is usually embedded in a drive controller in a motherboard or dedicated device (eg multi-drive USB external enclosure), and I am not aware of any software for achieving this. :(

[@robertgaines-tulsa]

Since the USB 3.x has more data pins, is it technically a parallel connection? What do the extra pins do?

[@Dragoslav_MD]

Not really :) Two bigger pins between V and ground are still used for USB2.0 protocol. Out of the other five smaller pins, middle one is signal return ground, while other four are transmitter and receiver differential pairs.

[@deadadam666]

can you do a video explaining the disconnect between usb 3/3.1/2 and connectors A,B and C .... for eg how does a usb 2.0 work when using a C type connector and is there an easy way to tell how it is wired ?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Now that would be a video -- and a rant! I may indeed attempt this.

[@deadadam666]

I would greatly appreciate it - thanks for your hard work

[@ExplainingComputers]

I have included some content on the mess that is USB 3.x standards in my video for next Sunday (3rd Nov). :)

[@Kenzo9063]

I have bought a similar card to fit onto my ASUS Z87 motherboard but the USB 3.1 card I got has external power connection which is always more ideal since it's more stable and can take advantage of USB-PD for compatible devices. Plus it has front panel connectors too for extra non power heavy devices like card readers, flash drives and dongles

[@andraslibal]

I'm just wondering that with a small form factor that the USB-C has, how much thermal issues are with delivering 100W at 5A and 20V. Even 2A micro usb connectors sometimes have problems at 2A, so I imagine some problems arising at 5A. Also, another question, since the USB 3.1 has to be downwards compatible, how does it switch to the 20V mode? I'm assuming it stays in the 5V mode unless it recognizes a specific 3.1 device and knows it can switch to 20V. So if I simply want to power something off the 3.1 port with 20V I can not do that with just a cable - I need to do the software handshake to get it into the 20V mode. Is the USB-C also compatible with this 5V mode or is it already 20V by default?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Very intereting thoughts indeed. On the voltage, I understand it, the USB-C spec includes a standard called USB PD (power delivery), which defaults to 5V unless two USB PD compatible devices are connected, at which point higher voltages can be used (eg to charge a device). There is a very interesting, related article on power and the USB-C (PD) standard here: www.androidauthority.com/htc-10-lg-g5-breach-usb-type-c-spec-688558/

[@supremelawfirm]

Also, Mr. Malik has made a good point. A better benchmark is to run ATTO separately on a 6G SSD, a USB 3.0 drive, and a USB 3.1 drive, and/or to READ from and WRITE to a ramdisk using all 3 devices. Then, you can compare the efficiency of each device, as compared to its maximum theoretical bandwidth: "efficiency" is the percent of MAX HEADROOM that is actually achieved. With a 6G SSD, MAX HEADROOM is 6G/10 =600 MB/second. With a USB 3.0 "legacy frame", MAX HEADROOM is 5G/10 = 500 MB/second. With a USB 3.1 "jumbo frame", MAX HEADROOM is 10G/8.25 = 1,212 MB/second. The latter divisor of 8.25 is calculated by dividing 132 bits / 16 bytes = 8.25 bits per byte in the 128b/132b USB 3.1 "jumbo frame". You might try repeating your tests, but instead substitute a fast ramdisk for your Samsung SSD: in that way, your results won't be hampered by the Samsung SSD. Lastly, you can extrapolate your results to future PCIe 4.0 SSDs that utilize a 16 GHz clock instead of an 8 GHz clock. Thus, a standard M.2 NVMe SSD now uses x4 PCIe 3.0 lanes. At PCIe 4.0, x4 lanes @ 16G / 8.125 bits per byte = 7,876.9 MB/second; and, we can scale up from there with RAID-0 arrays using multiples of these PCIe 4.0 SSDs. p.s. There are a few ramdisk freeware programs available now e.g. DATARAM is one (the free version is limited to 1GB of RAM): www.dataram.com/

[@1nakey1]

i have a next bit robin with a type c port. got to tell you, the charging time when you give it 2 amps from a wall socket is heroic.

[@capt.proton5041]

Chris what if you tried copying from an NVME PCIE SSD via USB 3.1 into another NVME PCIE SSD? And what do you feel are the real world speeds of these connectors?

[@ExplainingComputers]

I imagine the constraint here is the USB 3.1 implementation on the PCIe card.

[@fredneedle123]

yes transferring data from disk to disk is limited by the speed of the discs and not by the USB three point one port and all that but could you run say two screens from one USB port? so if you had a laptop with the new standard and wanted to add a couple of USB to HDMI ports for some screens would it be fast enough?

[@Soyerz]

Awesome, I have been enjoying your regular videos. Tech websites have been very focused on the Type C connector, and I didn't even know there was a traditional 3.1.Do you think the traditional formed USB 3.1 plug will get much attention?

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Rory S Thanks for this kind feedback. The Type A 3.1 plug and socket are physically the same as 3.0, though have to have different hardware behind them to deliver improved speed (and in some instances, more electrical power for charging/etc). But I suspect that they will not get that much attention as you imply.

[@harrkev]

Can those tiny contacts in the new "type c" actually handle 5A? I have my doubts about that.

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Kevin Harrelson Me too, but that is the spec. Remember it is only at a low voltage.

[@harrkev]

+ExplainingComputers Voltage only matters for how thick the insulation has to be. The size of the metal itself determines how much current can be carried. According to the calculator linked below, you need at least #20 wire to reliably carry 5A. However, the point contact resistance of a connector can be significant. circuitcalculator.com/wordpress/2007/09/20/wire-parameter-calculator/

[@m3chanist]

Somewhat ambiguous and misleading opening chart. USB3.1 (gen1) = USB3.0 at the same 5mbs, as it's the same thing, merely renamed. Only USB3.1(gen2) goes to 10mbs

[@Bert0ld0]

what's the difference between the two 3.1 ports?

[@infolearner9058]

Mr Barnatt!! Could you please make a video about thunderbolt (types, generations)? Finally, I would be grateful if you could mention 1) the different connections between thunderbolt cables-ports and mini displays cables-ports and 2) the different connections between thunderbolt cables-ports and usb type c cables-ports. Best regards, Stavros

[@AlexanderAntonopoulos]

The video was very nice but 2 comments: 1. A detail about usb 3.1 gen1 and gen2 should be mentioned because it's a marketing thing. 2. Maybe if you tried a motherboard with onboard usb 3.1 would be different from the add-in card. Again nice video, keep up the good work!

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Alexander Antonopoulos I take your points. I'm sure a USB 3.1 motherboard would be faster. On the gen1/2 thing, I did consider delving into this, but I fear I would have driven away much of the audience. There is always a difficult balance to strike on how much content to include.

[@AlexanderAntonopoulos]

+ExplainingComputers Thanks for the answer. I will check the rest of your videos :)

[@paranoidrodent]

Have you done more recent videos on USB 3.2 and USB4? Not to mention the atrocious naming convention chaos that accompanies both?

[@AvoKupelian]

Since USB 3.1 can carry current up to 20V@5A. Could it possibly power a 3.5" SATA Hard Disk Drive through the SATA to USB adaptor you are using?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Through the adapter I have, no. But potentially a USB-C connected DATA adapter could in theory connect and power a 3.5" drive. A very interesting thought!

[@lsatenstein]

Hi Chris, Your presentations are awesome. I have an older Linux system (circa 2010 with DDR2 memory). I have some external backup 7200 rpm spinner disk drives (WDigital) that are marked as Sata 6. Is adding the PCIE card for USB3 worthwhile if installing and switching to use the backups via that USB3.x if the drives are 7200 spinners? I would not ask that question if my backup drives were SSD's. I am of the opinion, the 7200 spinners are the items limiting backup and recovery transfer speed.

[@ExplainingComputers]

It is certainly worth upgrading to access any HDD or SSD over USB 3.x rather than 2.0 if you are going to be backing up any quantity of data, as it should be 5 to 7 times faster. It will not be your drives limiting transfer speeds. So if you are regularly moving, say, 10GB or more, worth doing.

[@lsatenstein]

Chris, Thank you for the very prompt reply. I am in Montreal, where the temp outside is -21C (-13C) in the sun. In the past two days, 30 Inches (80cm) of snow fell and which has to be shovelled. I chose to forego the snow shovelling to watch your videos. I believe I have my priorities right.

[@ExplainingComputers]

:)

[@vannakkeo7453]

I love your presentation and the way you explain! Very informative for a new tech guy like me

[@Kevin-wo3kp]

A very useful tutorial, thank you. As my (twisted) logic and learning goes, inserting another pci-e card in a slot shares the bandwidth, even when it's not being used and so the 'cripple' to the system for me is not worth the upgrade of saving a few seconds. Also, if I were to use a pci-e slot in this way, I think I'd go for M.2 or U.2. If you have any chance, Chris, to test out M.2/U.2 against SSD, I'd be very interested because this would mean much faster bootup times etc, if the claims are to be believed. Finally, I wonder why it seems pci-e is not hot-swappable? This would allow us to configure the base unit exactly as we need it for each session. Thank you again for a great video! I hope you have a great week!

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Kevin H Hi Kevin! You are not always right here on the PCIe slot bandwidth thing -- and I will be doing an PCIe video sometime, probably March. Right now, I agree that USB 3.1 is not worth the cost or hassle. But I made this video because my "Explaining USB 3.0" video is my most popular on this channel (750,000+ views!), so I thought it was worth seeing if an update may be popular too! :)

[@Kevin-wo3kp]

+ExplainingComputers Ah! I did wonder, as I've seen conflicting information. As always, I look forward to your video in due course! Thank you for your early "heads-up"! Thanks for your reply!

[@patrickf6120]

What powers up the usb ports on the motherboard? I ask because my pc case doesn't have usb 3.0 ports but my motherboard has usb 3.0 and 3.1 built in on the back of the board. I only have a usb 2.0 wire connected to my motherboard but my usb 3.0 and 3.1 ports seem to work okay. But would they work better if I had a 20pin usb 3.0 wire plugged into my board header instead of the 2.0? It has me a little confused.

[@Giratina143]

Can you make a new video for 3.2 and usb c?

[@w.rustylane5650]

What is PCIe? Does it mean PCI express? I could not find a place to stick it in my Raspberry Pi 3. I think my old Sony Vaio has a PCI slot somewhere on the mother board, but I´m not sure about a PCIe slot. Thanks again for another great video tutorial. Cheers, mate. :-)

[@georgerushrush4668]

What happens when you plug usb 2.0 male to 3.1 or 3.0 female ( what happens when you plug diferent usb ports to each other?)

[@ExplainingComputers]

It will work fine. The USB 2.0 plug has fewer connections internally, so there is nothing to make contact with the new/extra connections in the USB 3.x port.

[@datapro007]

How about running Crystal against the SSD? Perhaps benchmark the same SSD connected via USB 3, 3.1 and SATA might be revealing.

[@photelegy]

Is it possible to connect 2 computers via a USB-C cable (and when what kind? Thunderbolt?)? So that I could transfer files like on to a ext. harddisc. Or to maybe even combine the processing power of the two (e.g. when I have Adobe PremierePro on both, to render with the processing power of 2 (or more) computers at once. Is something like that possible in a way? Thank you very much

[@BhaskarJoshiCR7]

It was so informative and helpful . Please do continue your videos! Thank you

[@Kermis3D]

A USB mini 3.0 connector also exist! I've got an external 2.5 Inch Sata Drive enclosure that is bus powered by a Mini USB 3.0 connector that is the same size and fits in Mini USB devices. Though my Alcatel OT 808 shuts off by just inserting a Mini 3.0 cable, even if it is not attached on the other end. It is the same shape as the USB Mini 2.0 B connector but has extra pins on the upper inside. So maybe the layout is somehow not totally compatible like the Micro 3.0 and full size 3.0 are that have their additional pins next or on top of the main connector where a legacy USB 2.0 can't touch it in any way being fully compatible. It is however still a pity USB Mini 3.0 is't mentioned on sites like Wikipedia etc.

[@saeedabulhusn4625]

Up to 100 Watts of power sounds good, but wouldn't the USB 3.1 expansion card (in this case) need some sort of separate power connection (for example 6 or 8 pin PCIe power connection, as used on some graphics cards) to be able to meet 100 W of demand?

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Saeed Abulhusn Correct -- the USB 3.1 card here certainly could not deliver that level of power. 100w (via the 20 volt max at 5 amps) is the maximum USB 3.1 can deliver in power delivery mode -- eg a charger connected to a laptop or tablet.

[@demonetizeddemonetisedinmy1890]

Can it be put in PCIe 16x and work? Is it compatible with USB 3.0/2.0?

[@TOURduPARK]

Did you test the transfer speed using the USB-C interface? I would imagine it should be identical to your USB 3.1 test results but I'm not one to assume. Also it's worth noting that though USB 3.1 has a max transfer speed of 10GB/s, the max speed for SATA3 is 6GB/s. Great videos by the way.

[@datapro007]

Thanks for your response. Your results seem to indicate the your eSATA port is SATA 2, not SATA 3. Is it?

[@ExplainingComputers]

+datapro007 There is no use of eSATA here -- the SSD is connected to a standard SATA 3 port. I suspect that the PCIe USB 3.1 card may not be performing to the potential of the USB 3.1 spec.

[@beimarticona8895]

Is necessary a device (SSD o other) 3.1 for work properly?

[@cillin4821]

how about a video on the different types of cards...PCI, PCIe, and others....and the differences and uses for them...how can to tell them apart.

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Cillin C Great idea -- this is in fact already in the list! :) Expect it probably in March. :)

[@logicalfundy]

What I'm really looking forward to with USB 3.1 is the reversible connector and the larger power supply ability - the speed is actually secondary to me. Although I do wonder if my gaming PC could do a better job at pushing out enough performance to saturate the connection.

[@danielroibert5631]

Hello, Thank-you for this Nice video. What is the real trueput of the sata adapter ?

[@motogee3796]

I have seen your vid on USB 3.0 and then this one. Theres a significant improvement in your presentation, video quality and in making the video interesting. However in both vids you have added in a PCI card which got me thinking; why dont they make USB with max PCIX16 bandwidth and be done with it (USB_Z)?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Thanks. My videos have indeed changed over the years! :)

[@woodsmokeWS]

Are the micro size USB 3.1 C plugs capable of the same 5A/20v power transfer as the A plugs?

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Neil Gordon Yesm the Type-C plugs can deliver 5A/20v (on the right systems!).

[@woodsmokeWS]

That's impressive, thanks.

[@LomnaRudom]

Isn't SATA's theoretical bandwidth 6Gb/s less than USB 3.1's 10Gb/s which shows that the bottle neck in the test is actually in the SATA Bus?

[@remyfammm]

if I connect a usb 3.1 male to a usb 3.0 female , is this possible? Any changes in speed ? Like my MacBook Pro 2015 has a usb 3.0 , and a Samsung T3 external ssd with usb 3.1 , can both of these run together ? Not a tech guy , sorry for the stupid question !

[@ExplainingComputers]

Yes, you can connect as you say above no problem. The external SSD will run at USB 3.0 speed -- which is still pretty fast! :)

[@joshuasmith1215]

Why does the data transfer so slow compared to what they say read/write speeds are for these drives? I'd assume they are around 500 MB/s. My first question was to find out if the SSDs were a bottleneck to USB 3.1 gen 1 and 2 since 10 Gb/s is 1.25 GB/s, which is a much higher rate than the 500 MB/s SSDs. I guess the more I try to learn the more confused I get.

[@ExplainingComputers]

You are correct, the drives here should do c.500 MB/s. The bottleneck here will be the USB 3.1 implementation and the motherboard architecture. All hardware manufacturers have to make tradeoffs in their designs, so very often theoretical speeds are not achieved.

[@davidkeys4284]

Only one port for each type on that riser? Thought they would include more ports..

[@kwinzman]

I believe the micro-USB port with extra pins can also carry USB 3.1 10Gbit/s signals?

[@rasmysamy2145]

No, it carries USB 3.0 at 5Gbit/s

[@kwinzman]

Are you sure it is unable to carry USB 3.1 at 10Gbit/s? Can you cite a source for that?

[@rasmysamy2145]

kwinzman The USB standard. The only reduced size usb 3.1 port is the USB Type C.

[@TheRhinoking27]

Seeing those USB 2.0 speeds made me cringe because I only have a laptop with USB 2.0 on it >.

[@benja14xd]

TheRhinoking27 and i still have usb 1.0

[@Markinpuff]

My motherboard has a usb 3.1 rev 2 header. My case has a 3.0 blue header that connects two usb 3.0 ports on the case. I purchased a cable that plugs into the 3.1 r2 header and converts that to a blue 3.0 male. If I connect this to the 3.0 case header will this give me two 3.0 ports? Is it backwards compatible?

[@ExplainingComputers]

You should end up with two 3.1 ports.

[@Markinpuff]

ExplainingComputers 3.1, that’s unexpected. I’m just hoping it won’t damage my motherboard. Never really saw this configuration before, Case : cooler master 5t,. Thanks..

[@bunnywarren]

You won't be able to draw 100W from that card because the PCIe slot will be limited to 25W by the specification. My feeling is USB 3.1 is competing with Thunderbolt because they are both going for a headline speed but the 100W power limit would allow single point connection to peripherals such as monitor. Maybe not useful in a home setting but a display stand in a shop could find it useful.

[@ExplainingComputers]

+Bunny Warren Yes, I doubt there will be many occasions or setups when it will actuall deliver anywhere near 100W. :)

[@MrAsianadam]

Aahh this brings me back! I recall I may have found your channel by the video you did comparing usb 2.0 and 3.0

[@ExplainingComputers]

+MrAsianadam Yes, that "Explaining USB 3.0" video from many years back has over 750,000 views now, making it the most watched on this channel. So I did make this video with that very much in mind! :)

[@nicknarcowich5040]

What about MCSe to USB3.1 speed run? Isn't MCSe very fast?

[@ciprianwinerElectronicManiac]

Lol, I was scratching my head about why the hell my 3.0 external HDD connector is so large then I see in the video it's because it has to carry all the 3.0 additional data lines, I thought it was so large because it consumed more power so it needed more pins!. Thanks for clarifying all my confusions. Cheers :)

[@DrkTrx]

The extra pins is for the 3.0 mode (SuperSpeed)

[@rkflorida4355]

Wonderful video, thanks. A few thought on the unexpectedly small difference between 3.0 and 3.1. Since SATA maxes out at 6Mbs with standard SATA connectors and USB 31. is 10Mbs I believe you only saw the difference between 5Mbs USB 3.0 and 6Mbs SATA since USB 3.1 saturated the SATA port. This theory is supported by the near 20% increase in speed which is the exact difference between SATA 6Gbs and USB 3.0 5Gbs. It will take faster connections for SATA to see the true potential of USB 3.1. Perhaps a PCIe card for SATA?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Yes, you are right, I need something faster than SATA 3 to show the true potential of USB 3.1. However, I never got close here to the potential throughput of SATA 3, so this was not the limit in this particular test.

[@TechNoPhobiaGirl]

Great explanation and demonstration! Cheers!

[@SproutyPottedPlant]

I am so glad they invented the USB C connector, my backup drive has a worn out USB 3 connector and cable, not a very good backup at all :( Since it's only a little faster I am guessing it will work fine if I got a new drive and used it with the existing blue USB 3 ports?

[@itsGeorgeAgain]

"AS-Rock" dammit. never thought of that name, i've always called it like ass-rock...

[@ricande]

I always have, and always will say ass-rock :)

[@Telepuzique]

LOOOL! :)

[@DjRavix]

Nice little video … but one little thing Sata3 is actually only 6Gb so the difference between using 5Gb (USB 3.0/3.x Gen 1) and 10Gb (USB 3.1/3.x Gen 2) for it would only result in a 1Gb improvement

[@MrPsi4]

What I would enjoy seeing (cause I am too poor to test it myself) would be a software RAID 10 using 4+ SSDs hooked up via a single USB 3.1 port (would require a hub). In theory this would allow you to demonstrate more of the potential throughput as USB 3.0 wouldn't see as drastic of an increase as 3.1 would. This would also allow one to demonstrate the power difference as I'm not sure a 3.0 port can provide enough juice for 4+ SSDs.

[@pepijn_m]

so if i charge my mobile with the usb 3.1 it will will get 20v instead of the 5v it should get?

[@almmiron]

Type A usb 3.0 CABLE internal wires are same than USB3.1 CABLE internal wires? Can I use normal 3.0 cables on 3.1 hdd enclosures encountered on amazon? Or the extra power used requires another internal arrangement?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Yes, you can use the same cables -- the wiring in USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 are identical. But for peripherals with a very high power drain, new higher quality cables may be needed.

[@almmiron]

If the same wiring is used, Usb 3.0 external hdds wouldn't be, theoretically, able to have driver updates to support 3.1 speed?

[@ExplainingComputers]

Almir Canella Not true -- it depends how much the wires exceed the specification. As an analogy, most railway lines built for trains that travel at 50 miles an hour can accomodate trains travelling at 80 miles an hour. But yes, at some point, the speed would be compromised -- especially with longer cables.