Is lack of USB c on a new monitor a dealbreaker?

Orafus

Orafus

Orafus

Associate
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Posts
89
Location
Dunwich
The forthcoming 38" LG monitors dont have it. It seems unlikely that this would be an oversight so what's their thinking. Would lack of USBc put you off and could this limit the longevity of said monitors?
Thanks
Chris
 

Orafus

Orafus

Orafus

Associate
OP
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Posts
89
Location
Dunwich
Ok. Thanks guys.
You have to appreciate that I last bought a PC in 2008 and am still using that machine so my apparent level of thickness is not to be underestimated!
 

nomadd

nomadd

nomadd

Associate
Joined
27 Sep 2008
Posts
1,380
Orafus said:
The forthcoming 38" LG monitors dont have it. It seems unlikely that this would be an oversight so what's their thinking. Would lack of USBc put you off and could this limit the longevity of said monitors?
Thanks
Chris
Click to expand...

Orafus said:
Ok. Thanks guys.
You have to appreciate that I last bought a PC in 2008 and am still using that machine so my apparent level of thickness is not to be underestimated!
Click to expand...

I feel for you, Bro. I've just been through all this, having recently done a PC upgrade for the first time since 2012. :)

The first thing to understand is USB 3.1. So do a bit of reading up. The second thing to understand is that the USB-C type connection does not mandate a specific version of the USB 3.1 specification be implemented on it.

The USB-C ports on newer devices now tend to implement USB 3.1 gen 2; some older USB-C devices will implement USB 3.1 gen 1. The USB 3.0 devices (you know, the blue with type "A" ports) tend to implement USB 3.1 gen 1 (yes, that does sound silly, but that's USB renaming for you.. :))

So, the chances are that a newer USB-C hub/port/device will actually (although not mandatorily, so do check ) currently use the faster USB 3.1 gen 2 implementation.

What this means in real life to you depends on what devices you are connecting. I my case, I have a Samsumng T5 external SSD drive. This uses a "USB 3.1 Gen 2 - SATA III bridge chip". If I plug it into the USB-C port on my computer (which uses USB 3.1 gen2) it hits 520MB/sec transfer rate. If I plug it into the USB3-A ports on my computer (which use USB 3.1 gen1) it hits 460MB/sec transfer rate. So, even in cases where you are using older SATA-based devices and connecting them via USB, there can be a performance difference - it just depends on what implementations the port types (C and A) are actually using.

If you are using a newer device, say an external NVMe-based drive (or some similar high speed device), then you would want to plug it into a USB-C port supporting USB 3.1 gen2 or better.

And once you've got your head around all that, then you can hit USB 3.2!!! This won't matter much for now, as you are unlikely to see many devices advertising it. Here goes: USB 3.0, will become USB 3.2 Gen 1. USB 3.1 Gen 2, will be renamed to USB 3.2 Gen 2, and the new 20 Gbps standard will be named USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. Again, none of this implies a specific connection type, although most new devices will use USB-C type connections.

Confusing, isn't it. :)

TL;DR: If you do decide to go with someting using USB-C type connectors, do check what those ports are actually implementing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom