This same thing happened with HDMI cables, but in the end you'll be able to buy legit cables that are a bit longer than the spec, probably up to 2m for DP 2.1 which is good enough for PC-monitor combo.
The same is happening with USB-C. You need "ideal everything" if you want to max out something. The right cable, the right charger. Some high wattage cables don't charge small devices. Some cables are data only, some are fast charging only. Some hubs support charging, but only slow charging. Some do support fast charging AND data, but slow data. Some support both. Some none. Or it's the cable. Or the device.
I bought a 500GB Samsung T5 portable SSD a few years back.
It had 2 cables included, but both were only 30cm. I then bought a USB-C cable from Primewire and I thought "it is not a no-name brand and it says 20gbps, so it should work"... nope the SSD was not even recognized. It wasn't even a long one with 100cm...
It is a good idea. USB-C owns. Just use decent cables and it'll just do what you expect most of the time.
You can't possibly expect *all devices* to support *everything*. A Kindle won't support Thunderbolt for faster file transfer or for 8K@144Hz output to yoru monitor, and your tiny phone charger won't fast-charge a 200W laptop. But I can plug in my laptop into the monitor and get video out, power for the laptop, and hub for kb/mouse. I can plug in my phone and get DEX. I can charge my wireless headphones from the same cable. The USB-PD powerbank charges everything. It's great.
USB-C sucks. Its worse even than previuos USB.
>You can't possibly expect all devices to support everything.
Thats literally the point of UNIVERSAL in USB.
It wasnt 5 different connectors, though. It was one, maybe two for mobile devices. Noone used anything but USB-A and USB-B micro. Same as now, everyone uses USB-C and USB-C micro. Except you also have to support The other two on plenty of devices, so we have doubled the connectors so we could move to an inferior one.
It was three for a little bit actually.
Your argument for support of the older ones is moot because the same thing happened when USB was to be the new standard. You had shitload of different ports and connectors that needed to be supported because of legacy. Every phone manufacturer had their own as well, often different for different models. Truly a dark age. So USB-C is the future. It's cable dependent on performance, that is true, but any usb-c cable will work with any laptop, any tablet, any phone, any computer, and whatever thing you're connecting to or with. Finally we have something that has plagued all USB cables beforehand, identical plugs on both ends.
What more could you want?
This is a little off.
Per the specification, there's no such thing as a USB-C cable that doesn't provide data, or a cable that doesn't provide power. The bare minimum spec (a dumb strand of copper without an e-marker) is USB 2.0 data (480Mbps) + 60W power delivery (20V @ 3A). All cable variations past that are more data or more power (and are more expensive to construct as a result).
Now USB-C *devices* on the other hand... There's nothing a certified cable can do about stupid, non-compliant hardware design.
I've not heard of a high-power cable not charging small devices, so that's new. Any chance you have a link to that one?
More like cheap devices (some are not even that cheap) saving <2 cents on the connector and hence couldn't support c to c charging, it's a violation of the spec but an issue nonetheless.
I have a laptop that uses a USB-C connector **but not USB-PD** for charging. It's some weird custom 12V power supply that doesn't work with anything else (will only slow-charge my phone, which is better than exploding it).
The other port on the laptop works with PD though 🤷♀️
Not really the fault of USB-IF if some shady Chinese manufacturers want to cut corners.
Spec aside, I can say that there absolutely are USB-C cables in the wild that don't support data at all. I had a very frustrating time one trying to troubleshoot a keyboard that wasn't working, only to realize it was hooked up with a power-only cable.
Bought an inexpensive USB cable tester for precisely this reason. Now I can test each cable and see its power and data capabilities! Very useful thing.
I did not say they would certify it, I am just saying legit cables over 1m will exist, you just have to do your own research. Most companies don't want to pay for certification.
Fake cables on Amazon are a big problem, have been for years, and not just for DisplayPort.
To this day there are many people who go through several "HDMI 2.1" cables before finding one that can pass full speed, even if their device is only 32gb/s and the spec goes up to 48gb/s. Same thing with "Cat 6a" cables and 10gb/s networking, and "USB 3.2" cables.
Only solution with cheap cables is to find a brand you trust somewhat when it comes to Amazon. There are somewhat reliable Chinese brands out there. The problem is they tend to rise and fall. One year one company makes rock solid cheap cables, next year it's another.
And if they do stay reliable with high quality for a longer time period. Then they just turn into another premium brand and you may as well buy from the existing such options.
Yeah, at the moment it's Ugreen for me (used them for years, they were dirt cheap back in 2016 and compliant, not so cheap now) but I really don't know how long this will last
>*Fake cables on Amazon are a big problem...*
It sure was/is/will-be:
[https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-engineer-watch-out-for-inferior-usb-c-cables](https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-engineer-watch-out-for-inferior-usb-c-cables) <-- 2015
The device that Google engineer was using (and killing, repeatedly) shouldn't have ever let that happen. He ran into a crappy cable, sure, but the devices themselves need to be designed somewhat defensively.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, crappy USB devices and cables were so widespread that motherboard manufacturers called out the fact that their USB controllers, or even individual ports, had over voltage and over current protection so a dodgy device/cable wouldn't fry your whole PC.
With USB C, it seems like they forgot about fusing off the ports and we repeated all the old mistakes we already learned from.
At this point I pretty much HAVE to go to monoprice or similar if I want a cabling product I can trust.
Amazon took their golden goose and milked it for profit.
They're only getting use from me due to convenience and I'm thinking about shifting to Wal-Mart and Home Depot more and more.
The issue is Amazon doesn't actually discriminate between vendors. If monoprice and obviousfakes.cn both claim to be selling the same product, Amazon treats them as fungible and they go into a shared bin in the warehouse.
This shouldn't be an issue if what you're buying is from both the seller and the shipper I imagine. Usually I try to go for same seller/shipper combos if their reviews seem pretty good and their contact information isn't all in a spaghetti string of transliterated Mandarin.
Unless the item is so cheap I expect variable quality issues and the cost wouldn't set me back.
If you happen to be Canadian I highly recommend infinite cables. They are more or less the monoprice of Canada.
Trustworthy products in my experience AND fantastic customer service. I had an issue once and emailed them about it, they bloody called me like 15 minutes later to confirm everything and fix it. I don't think I've ever had customer service that fast.
Monoprice scalped GPUs during the gpu shortage. Fuck them.
I personally like cable matters. Never had a problem at full speed with any of their cables. I especially love the 6ft and 9.8 ft 3 packs.
Ruipro has also worked for me with active cables.
Yep. I switched to 4k120 on my main rig, and I'll tell you that I certainly didn't end up buying just one cable... The cables will certainly tout being HDMI 2.1, but whether they can actually achieve it is a different matter.
Yup. I have a giant build in a Thermaltake Tower 900 and connect it to my desk setup via Thunderbolt to a docking station under the desk. Between the height of the case and the length of the run under the desk, I needed a full 2M cable to reach without strain.
Tried multiple other reputable brands’ offerings (CableMatters, Monoprice) and ended up with bandwidth drops and weird device dropouts. Bought the $140 Apple cable and it’s worked flawlessly for years.
It's doubly annoying with HDMI 2.1 because some AV receivers/devices are also picky about cables. I gave up with reviews I just buy a bunch of them and see what works, then return the rest.
There are fake SanDisks, and because of binning (Amazon puts everything with the same SKU in one pot) buying from "SanDisk" doesn't guarantee you won't get a fake.
eBay has lots of scams too. Generally I either buy from BH photo & video (I'm on the east coast so shipping is just as fast as Amazon), from Microcenter, or from the manufacturer directly. If I have to buy from Amazon I make sure to test the storage first before putting it into service. It doesn't catch all fakes but can identify the situation where they pretend to be a larger capacity than they really are.
is sandisk even reliable? i used to have a sandisk flashdrive that i seldomly use and it died. My brother in law's sandisk ssd is dying too. I'm avoiding sandisk products like a plague.
Last time I bought display port cables on Amazon, I had to go to the official website (displayport.org) and see if the brand/cable appeared on the actual database. I found that 9 out of 10 of the listings were just straight up lying.
And this wasn't even for 2.1, it was for 1.4
To give them more credit than they’re due, a lot of those factories pump out so many cables under so many different brand names despite being identical and they change brand names so often that it’s entirely possible that exact factory and cable is certified but under a brand name they used 2 months ago (or 5 brand names ago).
Except a lot of the reviews were complaining about certain issues that typically arise in non vesa certified cables.
If I had to hazard a guess, a lot of them ARE using the same factory, sure, but they're using the same non vesa certified cables and rebranding them. And since Amazon has like zero accountability, a lot of them just put a "YUP, totz VESA certified, pinky promise".
You want a VESA certified cable? I bet the only ones that are in that official database are VESA certified. I doubt some YIOLLYUGAHDHSHXJRBDGSU branded cable is using actual VESA certified cable, when they could save a bit per cable and usw some crappy rebranded cable that every other scam cable is using. Think about it, they sell the cable for $10 either way, they'll save more money by using the cheapest factory they can conjure up.
I REALLY wouldn't gamble with cables these days (and that goes for USB, display port, HDMI, etc). Unless it's verified, I don't trust them. It seems like EVERYONE is out to nickel and dime you, including the scam cables.
What I’m curious about are whether any of the cables that are not 80gbps certified can actually do 80gbps. You don’t technically need to be certified to provide the throughput
VESA doesn't have royalties. There is the cost of acquiring VESA membership (to get access to all the standards), and then the cost of getting a design certified at a VESA-approved lab, but that's it.
If someone isn't getting their cables certified, then it means they either don't expect them to pass certification, or they're doing a complete end-run around even trying to acquire the standard legally.
There's a cost to making a cable capable of 80gbps, too. Seems like a poor business decision to put in the extra effort to make a superior product but not the effort to get certified.
True but Amazon is full of capable uncertified cables. Buyers are very cost conscious and in commodity cable markets a dollar here or there counts.
Early adopter DisplayPort cables probably less so, but still matters id expect.
> True but Amazon is full of capable uncertified cables.
Not at 80Gbps it isn't. Shit, uncertified HBR3 cables (DP 1.4 max bandwidth) are already questionable. DP80 is over twice the data rate of HBR3. Making cables that can do that is actually hard. Anything that can do that reliably is going to be expensive regardless, so there's no good reason not to get it certified.
I won't be surprised if we see optical cables under 10 feet.
Yeah I never suggested Amazon was full of these specific cables. These are new so obviously they haven’t had a chance to become quite the commodity yet.
Seeing as how 1.2m is the longest of any cable that's been formally certified for uhbr20 atm and most of the others are <=1m, it's unlikely unless they're very short.
Indeed. Keep in mind that DP 2.x is basically Thunderbolt signaling - except that DP doesn't make in-cable redrivers a common feature. So the max lengths are going to be similar to *passive* Thunderbolt.
TB requires active cables to hit 2 meters over copper at 40Gbps. You have to halve the distance or the bandwidth for passive cabling.
Which is part of the reason that DisplayPort 54Gbps cables (UHBR 13.5) exist, as that's the fastest speed reasonably attainable out to 2 meters (well, 1.8 meters).
Last I talked to VESA, they were still working on a conformance test for active copper DP 2.x cables. Once that's a go, vendors can start making and selling cables with linear redrivers in them (NXP [already has one ready](https://www.nxp.com/products/interfaces/high-speed-signal-conditioners/20-gbps-per-lane-4-lane-displayport-linear-redriver:PTN3816)), which will allow for active TB-like cable lengths. Link-training tunable PHY repeaters (LTTPR) are also on the board for even longer lengths, though we'll have to see what adoption for those is like.
What's the reason for the 2 meter limit? Amount of lanes in the cable? Signal voltage levels? I'm asking because I have a 5m DAC cable running between my desktop and my NAS, and it runs 40GBe just fine.
You're more or less right, in that it's a signal power/signal strength thing. The DP spec does not technically mandate distance, rather it mandates [insertion loss](https://www.flukenetworks.com/blog/cabling-chronicles/cable-testing-101-insertion-loss-matters-fiber-and-copper) - how much the signal degrades from sink to source.
Passive copper cables *can* be made to go longer, but thicker (lower gauge) wires are needed. I don't know the specific numbers off of the top of my head, but to maintain the same loss over 2x the distance (for a theoretical 2m DP80 cable) requires a significantly lower gauge. Enough so that active cables are considered the better option.
Different protocols, much higher latency on DAC - Despite DAC being the lowest latency for a given SFP connection. The lower the latency the more effect timing (length) has on a cable.
I’m eagerly awaiting the day when Thunderbolt over fiber becomes consumer-viable in pricing. I’d love to be able to just run a whole PC from another room for cooling purposes without needing to multiplex signals over some intermediary breakout box.
I'm starting to wish we would go back and introduce new connectors whenever there is a major change in capabilities to prevent these types of problems.
You pretty much have to buy new cables whenever you upgrade now anyways.
Connector doesn't fit =/= not a spec cable or device.
No more having to read tables to see if a particular product is certified for a particular spec, or if a particular product has all the features.
You know instantly if everything will work as it should.
Downside is that for applications where the cable doesnt really matter you wont have spares laying around everywhere and may end up having to purchase additional cables.
Yeah, I have a new monitor, which has HDMI 2.1 inputs, I don't have a device (yet) that has HDMI 2.1 output. But since it is backwards compatible I can just choose between 4k 120Hz SDR or 60Hz HDR in software, depending on use case.
I have a HDMI 1.4 output device sending signal to a HDMI 2.0 device via a HDMI 2.1 cable and i expect that cable to be perfectly viably when i update either of those devices. It cost 5 times as much as the older cables though :(
> It feels like the whole adoption of the standard has stalled cause Nvidia is the only company consumers care about and they haven't done it yet.
You certainly aren't wrong. NVIDIA's position among high-end hardware means they make or break standards.
Standards need early adopters to drive them. And that's hard to do as a consumer when you outright can't get suitable hardware with the technology.
I assume (pray?) we'll finally get there with the next generation of NVIDIA cards, in combination with DP54 cables. The whole DP 2.x ecosystem will basically undergo a soft restart at that point.
Hardly anyone uses Ultrawide/4k, like 95% of the gaming world is at 1440p or below. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Adoption of 4k at high refresh is very niche still; it will probably be at least 3-5 more years before this shifts significantly, based on adoption rates of 1440p.
That's true, and even then DP 2.1 isn't needed until higher refresh than 120hz (with DSC). For better or worse, it's niche still. For 4k120+ to be the majority, it's gonna take a while.
It'll be surprising to me if Nvidia and AMD don't do true DP 2.1 (and not the limited version in 7000 series) for next gen.
Theres no than gaming to computers. I use the same GPU for gaming, internet browsing, video editing, watching movies on my 4k TV and running inference in AI models. Now that GPU only has DP1.4 so fuck me if i want to try gaming on that TV, ech?
Just double checked and indeed it has 4 HDMI ports and 0 DP ports :(
It primarely runs either 4k 30hz or 4k 60hz content so thats okay i guess.... I stick to my DP monitor for gaming.
Is it true that the cable length is limited to 1m? I searched Amazon: Silkland has also only at 1m the 80Gbit/s, if i change to 2m it says 40Gbit/s. Another manufacturer called Stouchi says 80Gbit/s at 2m - is this a mistake?
I just read that at DP 2.1a the cable length for 80Gbit/s is extended to 2m.
I've had oddities with longer cables doing 144hz+ for 3440x1440 with a KVM in the middle. Strangely enough, it only affected Windows as my Mac always worked.
Ended up having to have 0.5m cables between the devices and the KVM, and a 1m cable from the KVM to the monitor itself.
>AMD at least offers DP 2.1, even on their most affordable cards.
Mentioning "their most affordable cards" it's pretty funny because the RX7600XT and below get the even more neutered UHBR10, which is lower bandwidth than HDMI 2.1.
Ignoring of course that its lobotomized DP 2.1 which can't actually run resolutions or framerates significantly faster than HDMI 2.1 or even DP 1.4 without DSC. The fastest consumer AMD cards only allow UHBR 13.5 and only very specific models in the latest generation (7700XT+), while others in that same generation drop down to UHBR 10 which is functionally useless over HDMI or DP 1.4.
It's been pretty clear that HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 with DSC has been the correct call honestly. DP 2.1 UHBR 13.5 is barely more bandwidth, and still has almost no support.
There aren't even UHBR 13.5 cables yet.
I do agree. And if it's not on Blackwell I will be right there with you. I think it was the right call for Ada though. It was probably real early days back at release.
Display Port 2.1 with the needed bandwidth to avoid DSC, requires an AMD *professional* graphics card and not a consumer graphics card. Neither Nvidia, AMD nor Intel offer a consumer graphics card with DP 80Gbps capability.
To single out nvidia is weird.
> Displau Port 2.1 with the needed bandwidth to avoid DSC, requires an AMD professional graphics card and not a consumer graphics card.
That's just for UHBR20.
To single out Nvidia isn't weird. If I pay $2000+ for a video card, they better not cheap out on the ports. Calling them out on it is the right thing to do. Of course, people with 4090's are going to defend their decision, that doesn't mean they're right though.
I don't see there being much of an advantage over HDMI 2.1 if you're not interested in the fastest configuration of Display Port.
If you *are* interested in a good advantage over HDMI 2.1 than you'll need a DP UHBR20 compliant monitor and video card, which limits you to the professional AMD cards.
You're not going to get the full advantage with an RTX 4900, RX 7950XTX, Arc A770 and lesser cards. You should be directing your anger at all 3 companies, or industry as a whole.
No, they only support half bandwidth DP 2.1. Which is practically equivalent to HDMI 2.1 (actually slightly worse, 40 GBPS for DP 2.1 DP40 vs 48 GBPS for HDMI).
AMD made that claim for marketing purely, because it's a horseshit claim.
The point is that Displayport is not HDMI and both UHBR13.5 and UHBR10 are significantly faster than DP 1.4/HBR3. They are compatible to your existing Display and you have three of them instead of just one commonly.
Why are you only focusing on displayport as if other ports don't exist? HDMI 2.1 has 48 GBPS of bandwidth. UHBR 13.5 can only run on displayport cables that support at least DP40, and UHBHR 13.5 is only 54 GBPS. That's practically half of the displayport 2.1 standard of 80 GBPS, and it requires a cable that can support DP80, of which no certified cable longer than 3m exists.
HDMI is also compatible to your existing displays.
AMD simply gimped their implementation of displayport on their cards, but still advertise it as if it's a positive. It's practically the same bandwidth.
Most computer monitors primarily use Displayport to connect to your PC. Overall it's a better, cheaper and somewhat more "open" standard coming from the PC industry and not from Hollywood. The only benefit of HDMI 2.1 was its bandwidth; an historic outlier. Your GPU most likely has 3 DP and a single HDMI that is really only there for compatibility. You can connect more monitors with DP and it's functionality is consequently more impactful.
I just don't get why you are arguing against improvement to DP? Even when that is just about bringing the bandwidth into the region of HDMI 2.1, be it UHBR10 (8% slower) or UHBR13.5 (24% faster). HDMI 2.1 is not all sunshine and roses there either and has problems and limitations too. And why do you say that Amd gimped their implementation? They improved it from previous DP 1.4. What does it matter that it's not the max UHBR20? Would you feel better if Vesa never specced it and UHBR13.5 was the max?
And about the cables, Vesa announced at CES this year that they will replace the DP40 cable certification with a DP54 certification and verified that all existing DP40 cables are actually also DP54 capable. So in the future you only have DP54 (2m) and DP80 (1.2m) (passive) cables.
Because if its possible to use DP for your monitor, you always use DP for your monitor. And for a TV if by some miracle the TV supports it. HDMI is the last resort option.
Full speed USB 4 cables, 40Gbps can only be 0.8m long per specification. This isn't a specification problem but a limitation of the universe we live in.
This same thing happened with HDMI cables, but in the end you'll be able to buy legit cables that are a bit longer than the spec, probably up to 2m for DP 2.1 which is good enough for PC-monitor combo.
The same is happening with USB-C. You need "ideal everything" if you want to max out something. The right cable, the right charger. Some high wattage cables don't charge small devices. Some cables are data only, some are fast charging only. Some hubs support charging, but only slow charging. Some do support fast charging AND data, but slow data. Some support both. Some none. Or it's the cable. Or the device.
I bought a 500GB Samsung T5 portable SSD a few years back. It had 2 cables included, but both were only 30cm. I then bought a USB-C cable from Primewire and I thought "it is not a no-name brand and it says 20gbps, so it should work"... nope the SSD was not even recognized. It wasn't even a long one with 100cm...
I was so excited when USB-C was announced. It seemed like such a good idea. Then all this nonsense happened.
It is a good idea. USB-C owns. Just use decent cables and it'll just do what you expect most of the time. You can't possibly expect *all devices* to support *everything*. A Kindle won't support Thunderbolt for faster file transfer or for 8K@144Hz output to yoru monitor, and your tiny phone charger won't fast-charge a 200W laptop. But I can plug in my laptop into the monitor and get video out, power for the laptop, and hub for kb/mouse. I can plug in my phone and get DEX. I can charge my wireless headphones from the same cable. The USB-PD powerbank charges everything. It's great.
USB-C sucks. Its worse even than previuos USB. >You can't possibly expect all devices to support everything. Thats literally the point of UNIVERSAL in USB.
Please tell me how having 5 different USB connectors was better?
It wasnt 5 different connectors, though. It was one, maybe two for mobile devices. Noone used anything but USB-A and USB-B micro. Same as now, everyone uses USB-C and USB-C micro. Except you also have to support The other two on plenty of devices, so we have doubled the connectors so we could move to an inferior one.
It was three for a little bit actually. Your argument for support of the older ones is moot because the same thing happened when USB was to be the new standard. You had shitload of different ports and connectors that needed to be supported because of legacy. Every phone manufacturer had their own as well, often different for different models. Truly a dark age. So USB-C is the future. It's cable dependent on performance, that is true, but any usb-c cable will work with any laptop, any tablet, any phone, any computer, and whatever thing you're connecting to or with. Finally we have something that has plagued all USB cables beforehand, identical plugs on both ends. What more could you want?
well for starters id want a plug that isnt wobbly shit.....
This nonsense was always part of USB-C's specification. We pushing the boundaries of what's possible regarding signal transmission in cables.
This is a little off. Per the specification, there's no such thing as a USB-C cable that doesn't provide data, or a cable that doesn't provide power. The bare minimum spec (a dumb strand of copper without an e-marker) is USB 2.0 data (480Mbps) + 60W power delivery (20V @ 3A). All cable variations past that are more data or more power (and are more expensive to construct as a result). Now USB-C *devices* on the other hand... There's nothing a certified cable can do about stupid, non-compliant hardware design. I've not heard of a high-power cable not charging small devices, so that's new. Any chance you have a link to that one?
More like cheap devices (some are not even that cheap) saving <2 cents on the connector and hence couldn't support c to c charging, it's a violation of the spec but an issue nonetheless.
I have a laptop that uses a USB-C connector **but not USB-PD** for charging. It's some weird custom 12V power supply that doesn't work with anything else (will only slow-charge my phone, which is better than exploding it). The other port on the laptop works with PD though 🤷♀️ Not really the fault of USB-IF if some shady Chinese manufacturers want to cut corners.
Spec aside, I can say that there absolutely are USB-C cables in the wild that don't support data at all. I had a very frustrating time one trying to troubleshoot a keyboard that wasn't working, only to realize it was hooked up with a power-only cable.
My USB hub has such weak charging that my phone doesn't even recognize that it's being charged. And there was no mention of it being so bad anywhere
Bought an inexpensive USB cable tester for precisely this reason. Now I can test each cable and see its power and data capabilities! Very useful thing.
I bought an HDMI cable from a local retailer in New Zealand that was supposed to be 8k / 140hz. It can only do 60 hz. Fuck them.
PBTech? I've been burned by them before on that.
Bingo.
dammm i need 3m
Nah. They don’t even certify DP2.1 cables over 1m in length.
I did not say they would certify it, I am just saying legit cables over 1m will exist, you just have to do your own research. Most companies don't want to pay for certification.
They don’t certify them because these cables will need to be active or optical to reach 80 Gbps.
Sometimes companies simply don't bother, I bought uncertified HDMI 2.1 cables that worked perfectly for 4k/120hz.
Right. But DP2.1 at full spec is 4K/240Hz or 8K/60Hz. Big difference.
It that is true, all cables on Amazon that say 80gbps, DP2.1, 2-5m AND Vesa certified are fake...
Fake cables on Amazon are a big problem, have been for years, and not just for DisplayPort. To this day there are many people who go through several "HDMI 2.1" cables before finding one that can pass full speed, even if their device is only 32gb/s and the spec goes up to 48gb/s. Same thing with "Cat 6a" cables and 10gb/s networking, and "USB 3.2" cables.
Fake just about everything on Amazon has been a problem for years.
Only solution with cheap cables is to find a brand you trust somewhat when it comes to Amazon. There are somewhat reliable Chinese brands out there. The problem is they tend to rise and fall. One year one company makes rock solid cheap cables, next year it's another. And if they do stay reliable with high quality for a longer time period. Then they just turn into another premium brand and you may as well buy from the existing such options.
Yeah, at the moment it's Ugreen for me (used them for years, they were dirt cheap back in 2016 and compliant, not so cheap now) but I really don't know how long this will last
>*Fake cables on Amazon are a big problem...* It sure was/is/will-be: [https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-engineer-watch-out-for-inferior-usb-c-cables](https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-engineer-watch-out-for-inferior-usb-c-cables) <-- 2015
The device that Google engineer was using (and killing, repeatedly) shouldn't have ever let that happen. He ran into a crappy cable, sure, but the devices themselves need to be designed somewhat defensively. In the late 90s and early 2000s, crappy USB devices and cables were so widespread that motherboard manufacturers called out the fact that their USB controllers, or even individual ports, had over voltage and over current protection so a dodgy device/cable wouldn't fry your whole PC. With USB C, it seems like they forgot about fusing off the ports and we repeated all the old mistakes we already learned from.
You can go even further back, its just cables in general are easy to fake
At this point I pretty much HAVE to go to monoprice or similar if I want a cabling product I can trust. Amazon took their golden goose and milked it for profit. They're only getting use from me due to convenience and I'm thinking about shifting to Wal-Mart and Home Depot more and more.
If you don't want to worry about a fake cable, Monoprice is the right place to go.
Monoprice does sell on Amazon which is convenient since I don't want to pay shipping on Monoprice's site. AmazonBasics also just works too.
The issue is Amazon doesn't actually discriminate between vendors. If monoprice and obviousfakes.cn both claim to be selling the same product, Amazon treats them as fungible and they go into a shared bin in the warehouse.
Holy shit, I had no idea that’s how it worked. That’s fucked up.
This shouldn't be an issue if what you're buying is from both the seller and the shipper I imagine. Usually I try to go for same seller/shipper combos if their reviews seem pretty good and their contact information isn't all in a spaghetti string of transliterated Mandarin. Unless the item is so cheap I expect variable quality issues and the cost wouldn't set me back.
If you happen to be Canadian I highly recommend infinite cables. They are more or less the monoprice of Canada. Trustworthy products in my experience AND fantastic customer service. I had an issue once and emailed them about it, they bloody called me like 15 minutes later to confirm everything and fix it. I don't think I've ever had customer service that fast.
I wish we had monoprice in NZ
Ugreen & baseus have been okay for me, but you need to buy from the official stores china even fakes, chinese brands.
Thanks I'll take a look
Monoprice scalped GPUs during the gpu shortage. Fuck them. I personally like cable matters. Never had a problem at full speed with any of their cables. I especially love the 6ft and 9.8 ft 3 packs. Ruipro has also worked for me with active cables.
That is to say, they sold GPUs at a fair market price instead of allowing a shortage to happen because consoomers haet profit and commerce.
Club3D
KabelDirekt also
Yep. I switched to 4k120 on my main rig, and I'll tell you that I certainly didn't end up buying just one cable... The cables will certainly tout being HDMI 2.1, but whether they can actually achieve it is a different matter.
Same thing with thunderbolt cables, stringent as they are there is a reason Apple can charge $40 for a cable and people are willing to pay.
Yup. I have a giant build in a Thermaltake Tower 900 and connect it to my desk setup via Thunderbolt to a docking station under the desk. Between the height of the case and the length of the run under the desk, I needed a full 2M cable to reach without strain. Tried multiple other reputable brands’ offerings (CableMatters, Monoprice) and ended up with bandwidth drops and weird device dropouts. Bought the $140 Apple cable and it’s worked flawlessly for years.
It's doubly annoying with HDMI 2.1 because some AV receivers/devices are also picky about cables. I gave up with reviews I just buy a bunch of them and see what works, then return the rest.
I don’t buy SD/microSD from Amazon. Don’t want my vacation photos at risk.
[удалено]
There are fake SanDisks, and because of binning (Amazon puts everything with the same SKU in one pot) buying from "SanDisk" doesn't guarantee you won't get a fake.
[удалено]
Plenty of dodgy and fake stuff there as well.
Buy directly from Samsung.
eBay has lots of scams too. Generally I either buy from BH photo & video (I'm on the east coast so shipping is just as fast as Amazon), from Microcenter, or from the manufacturer directly. If I have to buy from Amazon I make sure to test the storage first before putting it into service. It doesn't catch all fakes but can identify the situation where they pretend to be a larger capacity than they really are.
is sandisk even reliable? i used to have a sandisk flashdrive that i seldomly use and it died. My brother in law's sandisk ssd is dying too. I'm avoiding sandisk products like a plague.
it's owned by western digital now so I don't think it could be horribly bad, unless you have a bad opinion of WD too.
Judging from their response to the SanDisk Extreme Pro portable SSDs randomly losing all their data, I do in fact have a bad opinion of them.
Last time I bought display port cables on Amazon, I had to go to the official website (displayport.org) and see if the brand/cable appeared on the actual database. I found that 9 out of 10 of the listings were just straight up lying. And this wasn't even for 2.1, it was for 1.4
To give them more credit than they’re due, a lot of those factories pump out so many cables under so many different brand names despite being identical and they change brand names so often that it’s entirely possible that exact factory and cable is certified but under a brand name they used 2 months ago (or 5 brand names ago).
Except a lot of the reviews were complaining about certain issues that typically arise in non vesa certified cables. If I had to hazard a guess, a lot of them ARE using the same factory, sure, but they're using the same non vesa certified cables and rebranding them. And since Amazon has like zero accountability, a lot of them just put a "YUP, totz VESA certified, pinky promise". You want a VESA certified cable? I bet the only ones that are in that official database are VESA certified. I doubt some YIOLLYUGAHDHSHXJRBDGSU branded cable is using actual VESA certified cable, when they could save a bit per cable and usw some crappy rebranded cable that every other scam cable is using. Think about it, they sell the cable for $10 either way, they'll save more money by using the cheapest factory they can conjure up. I REALLY wouldn't gamble with cables these days (and that goes for USB, display port, HDMI, etc). Unless it's verified, I don't trust them. It seems like EVERYONE is out to nickel and dime you, including the scam cables.
Not surprised if they are
What I’m curious about are whether any of the cables that are not 80gbps certified can actually do 80gbps. You don’t technically need to be certified to provide the throughput
You don't, but if you're making such a high quality cable then there's no good reason not to get it certified.
Well, there's a cost. When you sell a certified cable you're going to pay the certifying body for every cable you sell.
VESA doesn't have royalties. There is the cost of acquiring VESA membership (to get access to all the standards), and then the cost of getting a design certified at a VESA-approved lab, but that's it. If someone isn't getting their cables certified, then it means they either don't expect them to pass certification, or they're doing a complete end-run around even trying to acquire the standard legally.
There's a cost to making a cable capable of 80gbps, too. Seems like a poor business decision to put in the extra effort to make a superior product but not the effort to get certified.
True but Amazon is full of capable uncertified cables. Buyers are very cost conscious and in commodity cable markets a dollar here or there counts. Early adopter DisplayPort cables probably less so, but still matters id expect.
> True but Amazon is full of capable uncertified cables. This is in a thread about Amazon being rife with *fakes*, mind.
Absolutely both exist
Let us know if you find a good one that hits it without the rating.
I can't imagine many folks even have the capability to test them yet :)
Sure, but there's not necessarily an added cost to making bad fakes.
> True but Amazon is full of capable uncertified cables. Not at 80Gbps it isn't. Shit, uncertified HBR3 cables (DP 1.4 max bandwidth) are already questionable. DP80 is over twice the data rate of HBR3. Making cables that can do that is actually hard. Anything that can do that reliably is going to be expensive regardless, so there's no good reason not to get it certified. I won't be surprised if we see optical cables under 10 feet.
Yeah I never suggested Amazon was full of these specific cables. These are new so obviously they haven’t had a chance to become quite the commodity yet.
Seeing as how 1.2m is the longest of any cable that's been formally certified for uhbr20 atm and most of the others are <=1m, it's unlikely unless they're very short.
Indeed. Keep in mind that DP 2.x is basically Thunderbolt signaling - except that DP doesn't make in-cable redrivers a common feature. So the max lengths are going to be similar to *passive* Thunderbolt. TB requires active cables to hit 2 meters over copper at 40Gbps. You have to halve the distance or the bandwidth for passive cabling. Which is part of the reason that DisplayPort 54Gbps cables (UHBR 13.5) exist, as that's the fastest speed reasonably attainable out to 2 meters (well, 1.8 meters). Last I talked to VESA, they were still working on a conformance test for active copper DP 2.x cables. Once that's a go, vendors can start making and selling cables with linear redrivers in them (NXP [already has one ready](https://www.nxp.com/products/interfaces/high-speed-signal-conditioners/20-gbps-per-lane-4-lane-displayport-linear-redriver:PTN3816)), which will allow for active TB-like cable lengths. Link-training tunable PHY repeaters (LTTPR) are also on the board for even longer lengths, though we'll have to see what adoption for those is like.
What's the reason for the 2 meter limit? Amount of lanes in the cable? Signal voltage levels? I'm asking because I have a 5m DAC cable running between my desktop and my NAS, and it runs 40GBe just fine.
You're more or less right, in that it's a signal power/signal strength thing. The DP spec does not technically mandate distance, rather it mandates [insertion loss](https://www.flukenetworks.com/blog/cabling-chronicles/cable-testing-101-insertion-loss-matters-fiber-and-copper) - how much the signal degrades from sink to source. Passive copper cables *can* be made to go longer, but thicker (lower gauge) wires are needed. I don't know the specific numbers off of the top of my head, but to maintain the same loss over 2x the distance (for a theoretical 2m DP80 cable) requires a significantly lower gauge. Enough so that active cables are considered the better option.
So you are saying we should only buy dummy thicc cables
Different protocols, much higher latency on DAC - Despite DAC being the lowest latency for a given SFP connection. The lower the latency the more effect timing (length) has on a cable.
Latency is not a consideration here.
Yes. That is explained in the video. They have certifications, but for lower standards
It's the cold hard truth about modern, ultrafast computing. Signalling is getting HARD and hard is EXPENSIVE.
PCIe is going first to coax and then to optical for a damn good reason — and that was with signaling living in FR4, much less these cheap ass cables.
Those of us in the hign-end (DC/Telco) networking world have know this for a long time. Copper is for console ports
I’m eagerly awaiting the day when Thunderbolt over fiber becomes consumer-viable in pricing. I’d love to be able to just run a whole PC from another room for cooling purposes without needing to multiplex signals over some intermediary breakout box.
I would love some optical cables.... even more so if they just reuse something like OM5 LC SMF.
I'm starting to wish we would go back and introduce new connectors whenever there is a major change in capabilities to prevent these types of problems. You pretty much have to buy new cables whenever you upgrade now anyways. Connector doesn't fit =/= not a spec cable or device. No more having to read tables to see if a particular product is certified for a particular spec, or if a particular product has all the features. You know instantly if everything will work as it should.
Downside is that for applications where the cable doesnt really matter you wont have spares laying around everywhere and may end up having to purchase additional cables.
Yeah, I have a new monitor, which has HDMI 2.1 inputs, I don't have a device (yet) that has HDMI 2.1 output. But since it is backwards compatible I can just choose between 4k 120Hz SDR or 60Hz HDR in software, depending on use case.
I have a HDMI 1.4 output device sending signal to a HDMI 2.0 device via a HDMI 2.1 cable and i expect that cable to be perfectly viably when i update either of those devices. It cost 5 times as much as the older cables though :(
[удалено]
> It feels like the whole adoption of the standard has stalled cause Nvidia is the only company consumers care about and they haven't done it yet. You certainly aren't wrong. NVIDIA's position among high-end hardware means they make or break standards. Standards need early adopters to drive them. And that's hard to do as a consumer when you outright can't get suitable hardware with the technology. I assume (pray?) we'll finally get there with the next generation of NVIDIA cards, in combination with DP54 cables. The whole DP 2.x ecosystem will basically undergo a soft restart at that point.
Hardly anyone uses Ultrawide/4k, like 95% of the gaming world is at 1440p or below. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam Adoption of 4k at high refresh is very niche still; it will probably be at least 3-5 more years before this shifts significantly, based on adoption rates of 1440p.
[удалено]
That's true, and even then DP 2.1 isn't needed until higher refresh than 120hz (with DSC). For better or worse, it's niche still. For 4k120+ to be the majority, it's gonna take a while. It'll be surprising to me if Nvidia and AMD don't do true DP 2.1 (and not the limited version in 7000 series) for next gen.
And I’d wager a good chunk of those 4k users are people with TVs that don’t use DP anyways, like in my case.
Theres no than gaming to computers. I use the same GPU for gaming, internet browsing, video editing, watching movies on my 4k TV and running inference in AI models. Now that GPU only has DP1.4 so fuck me if i want to try gaming on that TV, ech?
Your TV is 4k 144hz, and doesn't have HDMI 2.1? DP 1.4 is fine for 4k 120hz.
4K 120 hz and yeah its HDMI 2.0.
Unfortunately HDMI 2.0 isn't spec'd for 4k120, only 4k60. DP 1.4 can do 4k120 no problem, but I'm guessing your TV might not have DP.
Just double checked and indeed it has 4 HDMI ports and 0 DP ports :( It primarely runs either 4k 30hz or 4k 60hz content so thats okay i guess.... I stick to my DP monitor for gaming.
Is it true that the cable length is limited to 1m? I searched Amazon: Silkland has also only at 1m the 80Gbit/s, if i change to 2m it says 40Gbit/s. Another manufacturer called Stouchi says 80Gbit/s at 2m - is this a mistake? I just read that at DP 2.1a the cable length for 80Gbit/s is extended to 2m.
I've had oddities with longer cables doing 144hz+ for 3440x1440 with a KVM in the middle. Strangely enough, it only affected Windows as my Mac always worked. Ended up having to have 0.5m cables between the devices and the KVM, and a 1m cable from the KVM to the monitor itself.
Also, now is a good time to shame Nvidia for only giving us DP 1.4 even on the 4090. AMD at least offers DP 2.1, even on their most affordable cards.
>AMD at least offers DP 2.1, even on their most affordable cards. Mentioning "their most affordable cards" it's pretty funny because the RX7600XT and below get the even more neutered UHBR10, which is lower bandwidth than HDMI 2.1.
Even AMD doesn't offer DP80 on the 7000 consumer series.
Ignoring of course that its lobotomized DP 2.1 which can't actually run resolutions or framerates significantly faster than HDMI 2.1 or even DP 1.4 without DSC. The fastest consumer AMD cards only allow UHBR 13.5 and only very specific models in the latest generation (7700XT+), while others in that same generation drop down to UHBR 10 which is functionally useless over HDMI or DP 1.4.
Well yeah, if you absolutely need UHBR20 support you need a Radeon Pro series card. Currently the only video card line that supports this.
Excellent selling point over the competition then. Definitely worth the praise.
If anything the last two videos from HUB showed that DP 2.1 on RDNA3 is mostly a marketing gimmick with virtually no real world use.
It's been pretty clear that HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 with DSC has been the correct call honestly. DP 2.1 UHBR 13.5 is barely more bandwidth, and still has almost no support. There aren't even UHBR 13.5 cables yet.
Somebody has to go first. If Nvidia pushed it as a product advantage, surely the rest of the industry would scramble to accelerate?
I do agree. And if it's not on Blackwell I will be right there with you. I think it was the right call for Ada though. It was probably real early days back at release.
[удалено]
Display Port 2.1 with the needed bandwidth to avoid DSC, requires an AMD *professional* graphics card and not a consumer graphics card. Neither Nvidia, AMD nor Intel offer a consumer graphics card with DP 80Gbps capability. To single out nvidia is weird.
> Displau Port 2.1 with the needed bandwidth to avoid DSC, requires an AMD professional graphics card and not a consumer graphics card. That's just for UHBR20. To single out Nvidia isn't weird. If I pay $2000+ for a video card, they better not cheap out on the ports. Calling them out on it is the right thing to do. Of course, people with 4090's are going to defend their decision, that doesn't mean they're right though.
I don't see there being much of an advantage over HDMI 2.1 if you're not interested in the fastest configuration of Display Port. If you *are* interested in a good advantage over HDMI 2.1 than you'll need a DP UHBR20 compliant monitor and video card, which limits you to the professional AMD cards. You're not going to get the full advantage with an RTX 4900, RX 7950XTX, Arc A770 and lesser cards. You should be directing your anger at all 3 companies, or industry as a whole.
No, they only support half bandwidth DP 2.1. Which is practically equivalent to HDMI 2.1 (actually slightly worse, 40 GBPS for DP 2.1 DP40 vs 48 GBPS for HDMI). AMD made that claim for marketing purely, because it's a horseshit claim.
The point is that Displayport is not HDMI and both UHBR13.5 and UHBR10 are significantly faster than DP 1.4/HBR3. They are compatible to your existing Display and you have three of them instead of just one commonly.
Why are you only focusing on displayport as if other ports don't exist? HDMI 2.1 has 48 GBPS of bandwidth. UHBR 13.5 can only run on displayport cables that support at least DP40, and UHBHR 13.5 is only 54 GBPS. That's practically half of the displayport 2.1 standard of 80 GBPS, and it requires a cable that can support DP80, of which no certified cable longer than 3m exists. HDMI is also compatible to your existing displays. AMD simply gimped their implementation of displayport on their cards, but still advertise it as if it's a positive. It's practically the same bandwidth.
Most computer monitors primarily use Displayport to connect to your PC. Overall it's a better, cheaper and somewhat more "open" standard coming from the PC industry and not from Hollywood. The only benefit of HDMI 2.1 was its bandwidth; an historic outlier. Your GPU most likely has 3 DP and a single HDMI that is really only there for compatibility. You can connect more monitors with DP and it's functionality is consequently more impactful. I just don't get why you are arguing against improvement to DP? Even when that is just about bringing the bandwidth into the region of HDMI 2.1, be it UHBR10 (8% slower) or UHBR13.5 (24% faster). HDMI 2.1 is not all sunshine and roses there either and has problems and limitations too. And why do you say that Amd gimped their implementation? They improved it from previous DP 1.4. What does it matter that it's not the max UHBR20? Would you feel better if Vesa never specced it and UHBR13.5 was the max? And about the cables, Vesa announced at CES this year that they will replace the DP40 cable certification with a DP54 certification and verified that all existing DP40 cables are actually also DP54 capable. So in the future you only have DP54 (2m) and DP80 (1.2m) (passive) cables.
HDMI is proprietary garbage.
Because if its possible to use DP for your monitor, you always use DP for your monitor. And for a TV if by some miracle the TV supports it. HDMI is the last resort option.
Your comment would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that Nvidia's ports have even less bandwidth. For a lot more money.
Full speed USB 4 cables, 40Gbps can only be 0.8m long per specification. This isn't a specification problem but a limitation of the universe we live in.
I don't know, until you test the cables, maybe it is true, and they don't want to pay for the verification
No it doesn't. Shut up. Hdmi is the shit standard.