This video is part of a sponsored series with Lumafield. Learn more about these scans at: www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-to-head-comparison-apple-thunderbolt-amazon-basics Apple Thunderbolt 4 cable: app.lumafield.com/project/fedc9b09-b696-4a7f-8270-95762abd1d1d Amazon Basics USB-C cable: app.lumafield.com/project/a0fd9731-994a-403f-9710-a03aa2f31cc1 $5.50 USB-C cable: app.lumafield.com/project/f6ec539a-2775-44d1-a9e3-54a118093b69 $3.90 USB-C cable: app.lumafield.com/project/3c087b61-34e3-4836-9d2d-38b1f14b9bf3 How industrial CT scanning is used: ua-cam.com/video/-eesZBRW4u0/v-deo.html
@@ThreeDigitIQ they didn't want to tell the reality that apple is greedy as hell and has cultists for customers, OWC is good quality but they don't have huge manufacturing power behind them (so their cost is high), Anker is high quality and has huge manufacturing cost behind them.
Why not compare a non apple Thunderbolt 4 cable with Apples Thunderbolt 4 cable, y'all tested USB-C against Thunderbolt 4 and they aren't the same thing.
Instead of comparing Apple's cable to USB 2 cables, it would be more interesting to compare Apple's Thunderbolt 4 cables to an equally capable $60 Thunderbolt 4 cable (Cable Matters, Anker, OWC, Plugable, or Belkin for example) to see how similar or different the Apple cable is for twice the price.
I agree. I was having a problem with this as soon as I saw it. They are not really comparing USB Type C cables, they are comparing as you mentioned TB4 vs standard Type C cables. That's not "Apples to Apples" (See what I did there) These are cables for different purposes. The standard Apple cable as used on iPhones and iPads are crap. I also would mention that Thunderbolt is not an Apple invention, It is an Intel invention.
The scans are fantastic in their detail, and provide great non destructive information. However, these are not interchangeable cables and the non- Apple ones were never intended to be "imitations". They may have the same end connector, USB-C, but they conform to very different specifications. The Apple cable they is to Thunderbolt 4 specification, where as the others are to other USB specifications. This makes it seem that Apple is doing crazy engineering in comparison. It would be better to compare a different brand of Thunderbolt 4 cable to it. Then compare Apples $19 dollar USB C phone cable to the other USB cables for fairness. (Edit- added a combined response to a few comments below as a reply to this one) (Edit 25/10/23 @2006 UTC Not sure if the tested pinned comment has been edited to show that this is series sponsored by Lumafield or am I just misinterpreting/ misremembering it. If it is Lumafield then Apple got an advert out of it for free. Still doesn't change although the science was cool this video was poorly received by a fair few of us due to the way it was framed/described/thumbnailed and the way the cables were described as imitators or alternatives)
I think this is non-obvious to most people, since the cables mostly look the same. People know how to distinguish cables by connector, but to tell them apart by spec or standard is for the tech-savvy
While I appreciate the time and effort that went into the production of the CT scans, this feels like an Apple advertisment all over the place. I would've LOVED to see a fair comparison between the $130 TB4 Apple cable, a mid-range competitor and a budget TB4 cable. Then make a comparison with a full blown 20Gbps USB4-Cable. Just because the cables have the same end termination (in this case USB-C as a standard for both USB AND Thunderbolt 3+4), doesn't mean that they're produced to the same spec.
true but it not an apple standard, apple only using because the where pushed by the EU, but why an apple verion in $130, it hopefully going to be made better, but as the without to much effect, one can got $5, version that nearly every phone, pad, etc, and and do use, $10+ cable, where's $120, gone?
FAR too much advertising on this channel lately. FAR too much. Even the "fun" interviews with the mythbusters former producer was basically just a sneaky advert for his new tv show.
@@camsta_ Yes. But in the video they are actively comparing quality-price between those 'different' cables. What's the point? If you are comparing quality-price, Shouldn't it be between the same cables?
@@helenHTID I feel like this is a valid point, if I were shopping for a sports car and I went to the dealership and they only pull out one sports car next to some station wagon telling me how much better it is in every way compared to the wagon. I would ask to see other sports cars to make a more informed decision.
@@helenHTID but they are the “same cables” in the sense that they’re both usb-c. that’s the point of the video, to show why two usb-c cables are engineered totally differently even if they look similar. i don’t get why the comments are asking for a “fairer comparison” just because the apple cable is seen more favorably
@@camsta_ They are both USB-C connector type and the ports are cross compatible, But they are built different! Thunderbolt is capable of much faster data transfer. Those guys are comparing quality vs price of 2 types of cable that have been built different to start with, It makes no sense! USB-C vs USB-C and Thunderbolt vs Thunderbolt is the correct way to judge quality and price. This is common sense, Not some dummy throwing because of Apple lol
important thing to note, you are comparing a thunderbolt 4 cable against a usb cable. These have totally different requirements. The comparison is unfair and should've been between expensive/cheap thunderbolt cables
Yup, "here we have two cars, a Golf Diesel and a Ferrari - Oh Gosh! The expensive one is faster and have more technology in it😮" But then again, that's how commercials are done: "compared to this much simpler thing, our thingy is more advanced " 😂🤦
And it was a cheap straight thou direct wired to pins usb-c cable you be lucky if it will even do rapid/fast charging or lucky if data works (don't believe data works on these cables) the high-speed/100w capable usb-c ones I normally buy have a chip in them like TB4 cable (I usually have issues with the non chip usb-c cables)
Exactly this.. would have preferred to see a fair comparison. There are much cheaper thunderbolt cables out there that do the same job as the apple cable for a lot less money.
And a lot more valid / meaningful. Just like comparing a $30K car to a $300K car, you're going to get big quality and performance differences. So what? (As long as the customer knows what they're getting re the marketing, published specs, etc).
@@rogergeyer9851 you are correct. 30k vs 300k is nonsense, but it would be better to see 200k vs 300k and see if any of the fancy things in the 300k is actually good or just fluff
It would have been nice indeed, perhaps this would help convince them to make a follow-up video. I wonder how much it cost them to get the CT scan... in both time and actual dollars.
UA-cam dislike browser-add on helps to safe you from watching this video. This video has around 45% downvotes. Clearly a waste of time. Install ad blockers and return youtube dislikes!
It has been done elsewhere. What you end up with is understanding why the Apple cable here is the only cable of this sort that offers this performance over this distance on the market. It costs what it costs for a reason. It is a much simpler problem (relatively) to meet the spec at a shorter distance.
Knowing Apple and history of putting chips in cables, it would not surprise me if is not compatible with non-Apple devices, or does scale back to USB2.
@@jamespeirce2582 99% of Monoprice's higher quality cables (not their cheapest ones) are able to perform like Apple's cables and usually run about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost and some have lifetime warranty. Unless your Apple device is making you money (professional photographer or something along that line) most people could get by with a quality Anker or Monoprice cable. Much better than the "Great Quality" cables Frys used to sell.
I'm disappointed that they didnt work their way through the market instead of looking at the most expensive cable and the the cheapest. As with most things there is usually a good quality product that is below the cost of the premium.
problem is that they compared a THUNDERBOLT cable to a regular type-C cable. Expensive vs. Cheap type-C would have been good to see. This is just an advertisement for Apple's thunderbolt cable. Since Apple is not familiar with Type-C, they might need to be educated that a thunderbolt is different from a regular charging type-c cable.
but then that will go against their paid shilling that apple products are the end all be all... 60-100$ will get you a great alternative if you get one with similar specifications. but hey... clearly adam savage [the guy who for years taught people not to believe everything they hear use their brain to think] is willing to think of his viewers as idiots who don't know there is more to specs than just "shared plug size/shape" for the right price.
Would have been nice to see a comparison between Apple’s £150 thunderbolt 4 compared to Anker’s £25 version, to see the real difference in QC & the apple tax on top ? It’s also Pointless comparing 40gb thunderbolt with a cheapo usb-c! Consumer advise needs to be better !
_That_ would have actually provided useful information. And if the Apple product is genuinely superior, would still have functioned as an advertisement (like, "Look, we know it's expensive but it really IS [much] better than the [much] cheaper _actual_ competition").
@@anonymes2884 100% what i was insinuating ☺️✌️ if the engineering is this excellent then trashy tired meme’s have no place. I think proper investigation is apt !
I've gotta say it is good to have a critical viewing audience. It makes me happy inside that so many of Adam's viewers recognize that this is really a lopsided comparison and are calling that out. I mean, I get the point of "hey, look at how these cables are wildly different", but I think the title and the premise of how the video was handled do a disservice to that point. Hopefully Adam listens to the feedback from his viewers and takes this into account for the next go-round.
@@the_algorithm Lumafield is the scanning company. They could've shown off their scanner when comparing a more realistic range of cables. In fact, it would've been a better show for the tech because they could've shown how their machine picks up enough detail to see the small differences in what are really rather similar cables.
uggh i still remember plugging my updated ipod into the charger i had, it starting from 0 and STOPPING as soon as it turns on because it realised it wasnt their expensive apple crap. YOU WERE CHARGING 2 SECONDS AGO. hhhhhh
USB-C and Thunderbolt are two different types even though they share the same male standard. Try comparing to a real off-brand thunderbolt cable. Thunderbolt is designed to carry more than a standard USB-C, which is why the look different on the inside. With that being said, I would never pay 130 for any cable.
My guy, there are cables out there that are worth more than your car. Depending on what you are doing and what you want, you WILL pay that much for them.
@@sujimayne Full 5000ft spools of solid copper conductors used in high amp applications (large scale solar fields for example) are only a few thousand $. If you buy cables that cost more than your car, I have a couple bridges to sell you.
@@ZyxlianIt's not the big spools of thick conductors that are expensive. It is the multi-stranded, multi conductor, high data throughput, harsh environment cables with special connectors on the ends that cost a bunch of money. We have paid thousands for a single undersea cable.
@sujimayne the gold spun fiber optic wiring on the space shuttle was probably up there but doesn't mean Apple needs to charge a bunch for junk...that wiring probably cost more than your cave...keep riding that apple 🍆 tho....
I agree, this is like comparing apples with oranges. There are Thunderbolt cables that cost like 25 to 50 dollars/euros, instead of 5 or 10. Which is still like 5 to 2,5 times cheaper than what apple is doing. I would agree that seeing the engineering behind it is impressive, but you would be a fool to think you need a cable of 130 euros/dollars for everyday stuff. (An Apple a day keeps your money away.)
Comparing a USB 2.0 cable, designed for 480Mbps, to a Thunderbolt cable designed for 40Gbps feels disingenuous at best. They should probably have stated that these cables, while using the same connector (USB-C), are targeting different speeds/generations explicitly. IMO.
Which is to a large degree why the EC's mandate to use a USB-C connector is relatively meaningless. The USBIF _could've_ specified that a cable's capabilities be imprinted on the cable end, but that would've increased the cost and would've produced an amazing assortment of fraudulent specifications for the cables, so instead they punted.
From my knowledge, they will perform pretty much the same. What you will notice is that the Anker cable is going to be a lot shorter. Having a longer TB4 cable can get crazy expensive due to the extra components needed to keep bandwidth up to spec at both ends. But since it's Apple, a good chunk of the price difference does come from the Apple product tax lol.
Unless I'm hugely misunderstanding how this works, it seems like having a Thunderbolt socket on the side of your laptop is like having an external PCIe slot that dodgy folk can use to connect hardware to read and write your computer's memory, bypassing all the operating system security.
Neat, but you're comparing a 'Thunderbolt 4' cable to 'USB-c'. They might look the same, and thunderbolt can do usb-c functions, but its a whole different class of thing. Cheap thunderbolt 4 cables are usually closer to $30 anyways. Serious lack of research and understanding here.
Yes! It would be more reasonable to compare only standard USB-C cables and/or to also include thunderbolt cables from other brands. This is comparing apples to oranges.
as far as I know, usb type c cables, doesn't come with basic specs, because there are none, even as far as pd, they are not the same, because there are some without pd functions correct me if I'm wrong
I would have been really interested to have seen a comparison between the Apple cable and another, cheaper thunderbolt cable with the same advertised features. I'm sure you don't intend to mislead, but it feels like a weighted test in Apple's favor.
Mislead?? They compared two different cable standards against each other, WTF kind of researched are they doing here? My 13yr old knows the difference...
Came to the comments to say the same thing. Amazing scans but really would have been nice to show a cheaper thunderbolt cable to maybe help illustrate the differences with the apple cable (if any). Disappointed.
Of course they are shilling for apple no person with tech knowledge about this would compare a basic type c usb to a thunderbolt 4 rated cable thats like comparing a regular passenger plane to air force one.
You’re always going to pay more for Apple compared to reputable 3rd party manufacturers but there’s also a lot of 3rd party manufacturers that cut corners. Like anything if you’re a casual user, not a big deal. But if you’re a pro, time is money so the savings may not be worth the risk.
I don't see this as an advertising but an explanation of the state of the art and why the attention to detail must be at the level it is or the efficiency would not exist.
I do lament FireWire 800 downstream is so very difficult to adapt to more modern computers. This does help me understand why docking stations are or can be so expensive.
yeah.. probably no one would buy it unless they are connecting some professional tools that requires constant fast and accurate data transmission to their computer
Did anyone notice that the testing did not include any testing? How did those cables perform? Was the $30 cable 13 times better? was it any better at all?
USB-C signalling is backwards compatible with USB-2. So you can get a USB-C to USB-2 cable, without any chips. Just 4 wires. BUT, this will be limited to USB-2 speeds. This is what the cheaper cables carry. Just USB-2 signals. You're not going to be running a monitor off one of these cheaper cables. But, that's ok, most of the time you just want it for connecting to a mobile phone anyway...and perhaps you don't want to buy a $120 cable just to teather your internet...that $120 cable isn't going to be as thin and light as a cheep cable! BUT, if you want high speed....really high speed, enough to carry multi-display signals, or (in theory) eGPU's, you're going to need a cable that will handle it.
Also there's a difference between "testable" and "actually matters." So in terms of data transfer, most transfer protocol already has some type of error-checking build-in. As for electricity - it's just electricity. An electron is an electron and it doesn't care how and what "quality" it arrives.
1:43 BGA stands for ball grid array, which refers to the mechanism by which the IC is attached to the PCB (an ARRAY of solder BALLS in a GRID pattern). It does not mean "ball gate array".
He made several mistakes and/or glossed over how a lot of the electronics worked in the Thunderbolt cable. For instance, he mentioned differential signaling but what he chose to point out about it was that there were two wires involved and they were twisted together. Well, that's not really the important part of differential signaling. Also, all USB data uses differential signaling since version 1. They also didn't mention the rather glaring difference that the Apple cable is Thunderbolt 4 and the others are just USB C. Just because they share the same connector doesn't mean they are anything alike either in spec, construction, or intended use case. At the end Adam complains that there could be different markings to show what does what. And while I do think there could be better markings to differentiate different specs of USB C cables, showing the cables next to each other at the end showed very clearly that the Apple cable was marked with a Thunderbolt logo and the others were marked USB. Fun fact, the first generation of USB C iPhones are only capable of USB2 speeds. So, if you are buying that $130 TB4 cable just to plug in your iPhone you are going to be sorely disappointed.
Рік тому
The iphone 15 Pro can transfer at 10Gbps using USB-3, the standard iphone is limited. Makes sense I would say considering the use-cases@@drumguy1384
At my work we have over 100 employees, we are not a huge company but we almost all exclusively use Thunderbolt cables every day, day in, day out (I work in I.T.) These are not Apple cables. They cost nowhere near $130.... We have never had one fail or cause us any issues. The thunderbolt docks have caused us issues but the cables themselves, never do. Our users are not gentle or careful. We don't have issues. This Apple cable is massively overkill for almost anyone. I'm sure its a very, very well made cable but who needs it in reality? Also, as others have said, at least make comparisons to other Thunderbolt cables. Not Type-C cables it's a very flawed comparison.
Right? This is more like military grade hardware rather than consumer. Way too overkill for what it does. Apple doing what they've always done - offer a simple concept at an exorbitant price.
We use these cables in the film industry for transfering very huge files and real time playback for raw video formats. This cable might not be for everyone because of its price but yeah we use it haha.
@@Direkarenz Yeah, I know that some people will use it. The question is and maybe you have tested this or someone else has. Does this actually give you any tangible benefit Vs a regular thunderbolt 4 cable in reality.
First off, the scans are super cool. And I loved seeing them. Good job. But as other people have said, I am a bit annoyed by the misrepresentation of what these cables are. Showing an Apple TB cable and comparing it to a USBC cable and saying, "wow look how good Apple's engineering is, it's obviously worth the price" is like comparing a Tesla roadster to a bicycle. Is the Tesla faster than the bike? Yes. But if you just need to get from A to B, you could buy a Prius, be a lot happier, and safe a ton of money. And the Prius might actually be more durable. PS: Apple's strain relief has always been sub-par in my experience. The decision to have the cable run straight into the end without a flexible relief collar is done purely for aesthetics as far as I can tell, and is an inferior design. So in this case, I do believe you could get a more durable cable that performs just as well for less than half the price. This probably comes off as me just being an Apple hater, and full disclosure I do dislike them, but my biggest concern is that a video like this adds to the public perception that "Apple is just better" which is not true and is harmful to consumers who could get a lot better deal and have more ownership over their own devices by choosing an alternative.
Very well said! I totally agree. This whole video just came off like one big Apple infomercial. I am really disappointed by Adam and Tested for this video.
My old usb-c to my samsung phone was great, full speed and all good but it broke when i dropped my phone and the cable maanged to take up all the force from the fall and the weight of the phone. That cable was 3.5 years old and was working 100% still.. until i dropped the phone by accident.. A replacement usb-c did cost me 4$ i think.. and i got the same specs and quality.. We all do our own choice in life and if people buy the "usb-c" cable made by apple that have the "Apple tax" that make them cost a fortune its their choice and they have to deal with the bad sides of their choice. Its not hard to change brand or manufacturer of a phone or tab so its no big deal and change if you want. I like adam but he did make it look like the cheaper cables would break after a month.. its not really true to reality..
This would have been fairer and more interesting if you had compared the Apple thunderbolt cable to the USB C cable that Apple supplies in the box with devices for charging. And also if you had mentioned that they serve different purposes. That one also only runs USB 2 speeds.
Oh my god. So friend of mine, told be that this praised new iPhone type-C cable only is capable of usb 2 speed. Now, I guess, I've learned that it's meant to be used only as charge cable and not data cable? You bought our overpriced phone, now go buy our overpriced cable.
remember this whole episode is an ad sponsored by Apple. They hired Adam to make this video so people wont rage at apple for a $130 USB-C cable. Or at least make apple users feel like they are getting a super great thing. This is all marketing.
Apple lost the battle to keep their proprietary lightning cable. So they make their USB-C ports not work as efficiently unless you're using their proprietary USB-C cable.
That's not it, USB-C and Thunderbolt are different, most Thunderbolt cables don't cost a days wages though, so this seems like a stealth add since the only Thunderbolt shown was Apples.@@TheValorious
I was expecting that new EU USBC cable they released. Thunderbolt was designed to be powering like monitors and external hard drives at fast speeds. It definitely was not made to be a 'USB-C' cable, which is normally used for like phones and tablets. It's like taking a fiber connection and comparing it to gigbit. Yeah they both transfer data but one has a very narrow use and is why it costs so much more.
@@AdamHarteyes, to most, an USB-C cable is just a cable for charging your phone. Thunderbolt cables are not your usual USB-C. They are for fast data transfers between devices that utilize Thunderbolt spec'ed cables that so happen to have the USB-C connector. This video is just an commercial for overly priced Apple cable. You can get better Thunderbolt cables for much much cheaper then what apple is selling.
To be fair to the AmazonBasics cable, they sell it as a USB-C cable, not a Thunderbolt 4 cable. Thunderbolt 3 and 4 use the same connector as USB-C, and have backwards compatibility with USB-C (using the same port but only requiring a few of the pins be present) but it is a different standard used for high speed data transfers between external drives/drive arrays and computers. It requires much more precise timing especially at 3+ foot lengths. I would love to see the difference between an Apple USB-C charging cable like they sell for a MacBook power cable and see how comparable it is to the AmazonBasics one. (And I 1000% agree with Adam's rant about USB-C cables being a dumpster fire of compatibility. Is that 3.1 Gen 1 or Gen 2? Does that have Alt-DP capability on this cable or not? Horrible lack of standards in naming on it.)
I think this is actually the USB2 Amazon USB C cable (asin B01GGKZ1VA). USB2 is 5 wire (power, ground, 3 data) while USB3 is 10 wire. This is clearly 5 wires in the CT scan.
Been using Thunderbolt cables for YEARS in our office with Lenovo's and the Thunderbolt docks. Gen1 through to Gen4. Apple re-inventing the price I see. Lenovo cables are about AUD$50, and I'd argue they'd be as good (if not better) than the new kid on the USB-C block.
Definitely feels like an ad for apple. Comparing a $130 thunderbolt cable to cheap basic charge cables or cheap data cables where the people using it don't care about massive transfer speeds seems so off. Comparing this cable to other premium yet cheaper cables should have been what's done here.
They should have at least included something more comparable considering they’re comparing a Thunderbolt / USB4 cable to effectively USB2 cables. But at the same time, a LOT of people see the same connector and think they’re the same thing and that one is massively more expensive cause “it’s from Apple” Just look at all the comments saying it being from Apple is the only reason it’s so expensive. People just don’t get it. And they have to understand USB-C is just a connector and the cables arent the same thing before they’ll understand more nuanced differences between more similar cables.
I mean it was exactly what the angry people of Twitter were doing, so some people clearly don’t even understand that much. This is for them if you will.
@@Sircivus they literally walked through the obvious differences. They didn’t say anything about Apple as a company or anything that’s not evident by the actual build of the cables. The worst they did was not include another Thunderbolt/usb4 cable to compare to.
Would have been nice to see a like cable comparison and actual transmission results. Instead we got a data cable vs a couple of charging cables and a cat scan.
The irony is macs don't even tell you transfer rate. It's so dumb and stripped down because apple thinks people are babies and goes out of their way to strip useful stuff.
Might as well have compared the thunderbolt4 cable to a 20 year old Micro A. That’s how relevant the comparison of standards you guys did here. Sure, the CT of the cable was reaaaaaaally interesting and fun to see, but the way you guys advertised it from the get go was something like “buyer beware” expectancies to the public and was the one thing that wasn’t delivered here, I feel.
It felt really deaf tone to me, the whole thing. They could have grabbed someone that knew a more about microelectronics from the Tested crew itself or someone from outside that knew more than those. I’m willing to give in that they might have thought by themselves that it would have been just plainly interesting to see without a second thought and decided to just roll with it off the cuff but it feels disappointing to me. Much like the cruiser Princess something or another he made a series of videos awhile ago. Sure, there are several advanced engineering problems that were solved in interesting ways but he would scratch the itch a lot more if he saw how something that people can’t get a view at all being made such as bulk cargo and container transporting ships first. He would probably have given a wider berth of access too compared to a passenger cruiser too. In Japan at least, Mitsubishi Heavy and Imabari often give turns to their shipbuilding facilities to both local schoolchildren and international visitors if asked with enough advance.
They wen't for the click-baity "Apple blah blah blah". But the point was: not all USB-C cables are the same. Thunderbolt 4 is always gonna be more expensive that 480mbps, which is more expensive that charge-only. it'd had been nice to make it clearer from the start. But well, the scans are cool
As others have said Thunderbolt is not usb and comparing a usbc cable vs a thunderbolt cable isn't apples to apples . Compare apples 120$ cable to a 40$ cable mate intel certified thunderbolt 4 cable.
@@AdamHarteno. It compared a USB-C cable to a Thunderbolt 4 cable. Same connector but otherwise completely different purpose. Comparing an Apple TB4 cable vs a cheaper TB4 cable would be a fair comparison. This was not.
@@thomassynths what good is a comparison of two cables that are designed for two completely different purposes? Of course Apple’s cable is going to have more complexity.
@@AdamHarte Except the title was "Why is Apple's USB-C cable $130?" Then they proceeded to "prove" that it was worth so much because it was soooo much better than these other cheap cables that also have a USB-C connector. They didn't prove that the Apple cable was worth $130 so much as illustrating why a TB4 cable costs more than a USB cable. They didn't compare it to a cheaper TB4 cable to see why Apple's might be worth the premium. They compared it to not even mainstream USB-C cables, but one spec'd for USB 2 data and one for USB 2 charging only. It's not a fair comparison and doesn't come anywhere near answering the question in the video title. A more honest title would be, "Why are some USB-C cables more expensive than others?" Then they could point out that the Apple cable is TB4, which has a USB-C connector, but is much more complex under the hood, etc. As it stands, they just called them all USB-C cables and suggested that Apple's was worth the asking price because it was so much better than the worst crap they could find. They could have at least thrown in a low-end TB4 cable or higher-end USB cable to show a wider range of difference.
I would have loved if this was labelled more along the lines of Thunderbolt 4 vs USB-C phone charging cables. Giving apple credit for a standard that intel patented I feel is disingenuous. I LOVE engineers talking about this and the complexities needed for such a high spec cable. This was just released on the tail of apple going to the USB-C port on the phone, but not implementing anything besides USB 2.0
Not to mention they're just comparing the cheapest cables against the overpriced cable. The mid-priced cables would be unfavorable towards the Apple propaganda because they're not far off in terms of quality but a much more reasonable price considering that they're made by machines with less than $5 of parts.
Apple contributed nearly a quarter of the engineers in the certification process, so I don't think it's fair to call it disingenuous. Also, a theory about Apple only using USB 2.0 speeds on the non-pro versions is that the A16 SoC was not designed with USB-C in mind and is not reliably compatible with higher speeds. Chances are the next generation of phones will all be full speed.
The iPhone 15 pro has usb 3.0 10Gbps, not sure where you got the idea that they "didn't implement" it. The base iphone got last years "pro" chip which only supports usb 2.0.
It should be pointed out that the Apple cable is Thunderbolt while the other three are just USB. Thunderbolt can move up to 40Gbit/s. In order to get those speeds over any significant distance, you need active transceivers in the connectors. Which you can see on the Apple cable. The other three cables are USB 2.0 cables, despite using a type-C connector. Notice that they only have five conductors - power, ground, one differential twisted-pair and a sense line (used as a part of power negotiation). These can be much simpler because they have a maximum data rate of 480 Mbit/s - nearly 100x slower than the Thunderbolt cable. It would have been interesting to see what a third-party Thunderbolt cable looks like, compared to the Apple cable. Also to compare a short (
So what you saying is, USB-C is backwards compatable with USB2.0 on the hadware level and provides only so much speed when hardware is sending USB-C speed ranges? So I can rewire my 2011 iMac USB2.0 ports to USB-C just as simple as that?
So what you're saying is, 3 smart guys look at cool CT scans, and keep saying 'impressive', fascinating', and 'amazing', mumble about the huge price difference, without realizing these are different types of cables?
@@crisgriffin3042 - "So what you saying is, USB-C is backwards compatable with USB2.0 on the hadware level and provides only so much speed when hardware is sending USB-C speed ranges?" Not quite - USB 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 4, etc. are data transfer standards/protocols - they set the limits and expectations for transfer speeds and included features. USB Type-A, Type-B, Type-C (and all the Mini/Micro variants of A and B, and that one that only printers use) are _connector_ types. There is no such thing as "USB-C speeds", because USB-C is a connector, not a transfer protocol. A USB-C connector that supports USB 4 could have speeds upwards of 40Gbps, but a USB-C connector that supports only the 2.0 standard will be limited to 480Mbps. Similarly, a USB-A connector could have speeds of up to 10 Gbps, because there are Type-A connectors that support the USB 3.2 standard (you may recognize the Type-A ports supporting USB 3.x as the ones that are blue). Which was kind of the OP's point here - the video is comparing multiple cables with USB Type-C _connectors,_ but one of them is a Thunderbolt cable (comparable to USB 4 standards) while the others are all basic USB 2.0 cables that happen to also be using Type-C connectors. This is also the root of the issue Adam started ranting about, though I'm not sure if he knows exactly _why_ it's an issue - cables that share connectors but support different protocols is very annoying. It's why you can connect your phone to a wall charger and have it charge very slowly, but swap out what looks like the same cable but now it can fast-charge with the power-delivery standard. The first cable is using the same connector type, but doesn't implement the PD feature, so it operates at default USB 2.0 charging specs. If the USB people had mandated that all USB-C cables are fully 3.0 compliant, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but they didn't do that likely because then cables would be much more expensive, even if you only need it for basic USB 2.0 transfer speeds. edit: so to answer your question - you could rewire your 2011 iMac's USB 2.0 ports which presumably use Type-A connectors to instead use Type-C connectors, sure, but it will still be a 2.0 port, it won't suddenly get faster, because Type-C is a connector, and USB 2.0 is a protocol. You could also just use a Type-C to Type-A adapter dongle thing for the same effect.
There's a lot to be said for having a "charging only" cable. If you're plugging into a public USB port, it's nice to be certain that no malicious payload can be transferred to your device.
I agree. I want to be able to transfer data when it's between two devices I own, but if I'm plugging in to charge up at the airport I want to know I'm only getting electricity into my battery and no data transfer. But, along the lines of what Adam said in the video, it would be nice if cables meant for charging only indicated that and cables meant for data indicated that. It would be nice to tell the difference easily at a glance when we're packing multiple cables.
@@JoshuaMichail0 Totally agree. The Thunderbolt cable does at least have a Thunderbolt symbol on it. It would be great to have a standardised colour/symbol scheme to indicate the capabilities of a cable. There is some level of colour coding on ports, though it's certainly not universal. USB 3 ports are generally blue, and fast charging ports are generally red. I'd quite like if charging only cables had red connectors, with the number of amps they carry printed on the plug. However, manufacturers lie, so you'd probably still need to test cables to verify they match their advertised capabilities.
There are dongles for USB-A that only allow charging so you don't have to carry an extra cable, I assume there must be similar dongles for other cables
The other danger is when you have a rental car and you don't want data transferred to it. I saw a UA-cam video about how customer contacts were left in a rental car's entertainment system.
It would be more interesting to see a cheaper thunderbolt cable compared to the apple thunderbolt cable. The only similarity between these cables is the connector. The cheaper ones are not "imitations" as you say.
Yep, they are being sold to idiots who need to replace a crapple cable that was lost/damaged/stolen and are desperate to just CHARGE their $1k soon to be brick.
a cheaper thunderbolt cable will perform identical to the apple cable since thunderbolt is a protected name and can only be used when the cable meets spec in exhaustive tests.
At least there is something to be learned here. Many people wouldn't have realized how different the interior of the cables can be. There's no doubt that the apple cable is actually well engineered, while still being too expensive.
To be fair, Thunderbolt is entirely different than just a USB-C cable used for charging. Would have been great to see competing Thunderbolt cables, as I'm sure there are some at lower price points. Or just compare to Apple's normal USB-C cable which I'm sure is still expensive. Using a fancy Thunderbolt cable for a USB-C only application will not use the benefit of all that fancy signal processing in Thunderbolt.
@@Gusfer-ze8lw I wouldn't agree with that. As John stated, a Thunderbolt 4 (TB4) cable, which uses the USB-C connector, is vastly different from a generic USB-C cable. TB4 cables come in active and non-active connections, with 40Gbps data and 120w of power (unsure of exact power specs). A USB-C cable could be rated at USB 2, USB 3, USB-3.1, Thunderbolt 3, or Thunderbolt 4, or could just provide power as some of those cables did. Both of Apples cables are the active Thunderbolt 4 spec, meaning it has those chips, but there exist those cheaper Thunderbolt 4 cables that if below 1m (according to the TB4 spec), do not need to be active to achieve those speeds and transmit that power. None of those cables tested were the cheaper TB4 cables, which theoretically do the same thing.
@@samw61 Yeah exactly, thanks for explaining it. I'm no fanboy for Apple, don't use their products. Just would have been nice to see a comparison between Apple and more reasonable cost ones of the same type. If anything, it would probably show Apple's isn't worth it.
Don't think I've ever seen a tested video with 46% dislike ratio (so glad there are extensions to bring that back). Not surprised either. this felt...not dishonest, but not what we'd expect from Adam.
I think the dislike ratio is even higher than that since UA-cam turned off the dislike api and the addon can only track its own users. But I might be wrong about that.
@@Johnny-Joseph It's because they are comparing two completely different products, and presenting it as a fair comparison. It's like comparing a high speed HDMI cable with a DVI, and pretending they are the same product.
As a Signal Integrity engineer, this is such a neat video but there is so much more to the story! Also all the amazing technology inside the Apple cable that was talked about is run of the mill technology and is no reason for the cable to be so expensive- that’s just corporate/Apple greed
Love the detailed CT Scan of the plugs and cables. But they are comparing completely different types of cables to justify a 130$ cable that probably has a production cost of a few bucks instead of cents. I will still always prefer a normal 3$ cable for charging and transferring some random data...
On top of this, thunderbolt bought out of apple will most certainly be cheaper but still have same requirements. Shame on you autors. It is a good approach from the market to standardize, and thunderbolt is product of that as is 3.0 USB. Apple always obstructed these agreements to get more money or control on their products, and now they play better because they produce this. Joke.
@@plotikaiyou're kidding yourself and buying the snake oil salesmen at play here -- did you happen to catch the explicitly defined reason why it costs 130? I sure didn't. The visuals and talking everything around this point, everything but the point itself, is the giveaway -- a sales pitch disguised in a 'friendly way'. Just get a decent cable if you're concerned. you don't have to spend 130 to get the name as always.
I don't care how much I like and respect Adam. There's no way they should be charging $130 for something that could be priced at $30 (or $40). That's just overpriced "brand" markup. Anyone who buys one of these is only focused on either "look at me and what I can afford"
Any chance that last cable was marketed as a charge-only cable? There are plenty of times you specifically want a charging cable that won't allow data transfer. Like any time you're plugging into someone else's USB port.
@@vpstateofmind No. The only thing he said, that cables like this exist. The user to whom you are answering seems like asked about auction from where they buy it, as they prolly bought it from place where it's pointed in title and description that it's charging only. This guy still was smarter in the room and knew at least some things, but IDK if they forbid them to talk about that, or he just said "whatever, I won't explain why someone would want that, because It's not just because it's cheaper".
What I find strange is that there was no discussion (maybe I missed it? I was listening in the background) of the actual results of all the extra complexity, just observation that it was there.
They are comparable, because they just compared them. I think you mean they are functionally different. Yes, ok, and what? This isn't a sales pitch, it's just a look into what's inside different cables. The presenters don't recommend a specific cable, but rather discuss what functions the different price levels provider. Don't be so triggered.
@chiphill4856 he's saying that instead of comparing an Apple Thunderbolt 4 to a generic USB-C, they should have compared an Apple Thunderbolt 4 to a generic Thunderbolt 4. You'll find all the same processors and chips that they are gushing about inside a generic Thunderbolt 4.
@@chiphill4856 This literally was a sales pitch. They're talking about how beautiful the wiring is and saying maybe the amazon cable wouldn't charge and maybe it'd hurt your data, maybe it wouldn't charge as fast. All those things are utterly false. And they would know better.
@@IdiomatickYou're completely correct. It's awesome that people are naturally coming together to tell the truth to those who might be manipulated into misleading choices for their families.
@@chiphill4856you have to be willfully ignorant to believe that no one in that room understands how media doesn't have to be explicitly a sales pitch to be effective as advertising. I just hope Adam and especially Zach got some additional revenue from Apple. Because this feels like work.
Agree. You can get an active thunderbolt 4 braided cable with the same transfer speeds and all the same bells and whistles for under $50. This is like comparing a HDMI cable to a DVI.
In addition to what everyone else was saying about how these cables aren't even intended for the same purpose, when your cat chews through yet another cable that you probably only use for charging, you'll be happy you spent $10 instead of $130. All these complaints about how a $3 cable will fail much more quickly, without mentioning that you can buy 43 of them for the same price.
Bingo, if my kid will destroy it in 6 months I'd rather buy two $12 cables a year than two $120 TB4 cables even if we did transfer data on the cable, I'll take a 5 minute vs 1 minute data transfer if the price difference is over $100. These guys seem to be drinking deeply of the Apple Kool-aid.
These cables aren't meant for the average consumer anyway. They benefit professional environments where transfer speeds can mean the difference in getting a project out on time or late. These also work for display purposes as well so sometimes they may be a permanent fixture between the computer and monitor. The areas these cables are largely going to be used aren't going to have kids or animals wreaking havoc all over the place. For everyone else, including me, the $10-20 cables are just fine to suit our needs.
@@SaltNBattery It's not intentionally bad per se. It's that they refuse to change the design for aesthetic reasons. Yes they fray and fail worse than anything on the market. This has been going on since long before Jobs died. It goes back to Jony Ives, blame his "now on Sprockets" ass.
How much did Apple pay that guy to come on? He scoffed at even using the cheap cables for power and was like "not necessarily" when Adam said they won't damage your device.
@@sirensongss the apple product is the one that will break. i have cables that are over a decade old and still working perfectly despite heavy use. yet apple products break if you put them on a table wrong or forget to pray to their machine spirit and the omnissiah steve jobs, every time you use them. [40k joke, don't get panties in a twist over it]
When I think of expensive cables, I think of Monster cables in the 90s. A lot of audio/visual/home theater tech people would say Monster cables are overpriced. Something like $100+ for 21 feet of cable. I do some audio engineering as a hobby, so I bought three (guitar, bass, acoustic guitar optimized) cables with excess credit card points. They were more or less free with points so I splurged. Monster cables are marketed as having superior sound quality, but I don't think they sound any different, especially with modern active (9 volt+) powered guitar pickups like the Fishman Fluence Modern producing a very flat signal already. But, Monster's robust construction and lifetime warranty alone seem to make them a good deal. Cable construction quality might not matter in a home theater setup, but if you are touring doing gigs performing music, robust cable construction makes the difference between performing and not being able to perform. As far as Apple, they make proprietary and you pay for proprietary. In the audio engineering world, Apple's Firewire and now Thunderbolt is valued for its speed and low latency when recording audio signals. Apple back in the 90s-00s was probably a better deal than PCs because their systems were more stable and avoided the blue screens of death Windows PCs often suffered. Additionally, if I were recording live and had a lot of things going in and out at once in real time, I would insist on Apple even today. But for the prices Apple charges, along with the 5 year upgrade cycle typical of the tech industry these days, Apple does not seem worth it as much as they used to be. It is the same way with the "industry standard" digital audio workstation, Pro Tools. Why did this change for some of us? Windows PCs became more stable. Power users like me could build desktops that were expensive at outset, maybe $3,000+, but would last 10 years across 2 or 3 OS versions. Apple Power Macs would cost much more than this for lesser specs but increased stability and speed. Additionally, hobbyists were turning to open source software like Reaper that made Digidesign/Avid's Pro Tools running on Macs less relevant. I wish I had Thunderbolt connections instead of USB 3+ because of decreased latency. But I am also recording one instrument at a time. Extensive instrument samples make up the rest, so lots of RAM, SSDs, and stable software/hardware that doesn't crash is required. That said, with proper buffer/sample/bit rate settings, recording on a less expensive PC/Cubase/Cakewalk style system is a manageable solution for hobbyists with modest demands and expectations. PC/Windows recording is certainly not as much of a struggle as trying to record on a Linux system where there is very little pro audio software being developed natively for the OS.
BTW there is a marking standard for the cables. The lightning bolt ending in an arrow is a thunderbolt certified cable, the usb logo is USB2.0 certified, the usb logo with SS (super speed) is USB3.0 certified. A generic lightning bolt is supposed to mean usb charging only. And no label indicates they’re too cheap to get certification. And SS USB logo plus a little 10 is the new usb 4.0 logo (10GB/s)
ss usb logo with 10 is not usb 4 logo. 10Gbps is usb 3.2 gen 2. usb 4 connectors will just say 40Gbps or 20Gbps with a cable graphic underlining it... at least if USB-IF's guidelines on logo usage is followed properly. now you mention 10GB/s, which is equal to 80Gbps (difference between bits and Bytes) is usb 4 v2.0 and is signified on the cable as 80Gbps with the cables power rating written below it (for example, 240W) with the same cable graphic underlining the entire text block.
I can hardly express my shock that a large UA-camr would actually misrepresent the facts of something in order to sell a product for a large company. It's never happened before!
hahaha I think my favourite is when he starts to argue that a cheap USB-c cable can short-circuit your hardware - because it's not over-engineered with smaller and more brittle solder-points.. Unbelievable.
What I gathered from his statement is 5% tint. Sauter increases the impedance of the ultra low voltage, being transmitted in the cable. Whereas the precious metal, gold and silver have a ultra low resistance to the low-voltage thus keeping the voltage, consistent with the amount of Solder and the type of metal used to connected to connections.
What I would like to see is the apple thunderbolt 4 cable vs a cheaper $25 thunderbolt 4 cable. This was an interesting video but results were somewhat expected when you compare a cheap usbc charge only cable compared to a full thunderbolt 4 cable.
@@nnnnnn3647 Cable Matters has even one that’s 5 meters. And the 3 meter version costs less than half of apple‘s cable. Wait for a bit and you’ll get one for 20-25 bucks.
well most people dont know there is an actual difference. I didnt know how different it was, its apple so I thought it was just another piece of shit thats overpriced like every iphone past the 5.
This is like comparing a scalpel's blade edge to one from a hacksaw. They are both blade edges, but wildly different applications. One of these cables is for transmitting sensitive data at high speed over 2 meters. The other is for transmitting 5-9V DC. Very disappointing that a true comparison wasn't made. And the other two presenters DEFINITELY knew the differences between these two cables, but decided to take the Apple ad money over honesty.
You completely missed the point. It's a Lumafield ad using the incredible intricacy of the Apple Thunderbolt cable to demonstrate Lumafield's capability. They obviously discuss the differences in the intended use of the different cables, but you and a heck of a lot of other people were too busy being incredulous to correctly identify the purpose of the video.
@@jeremi96221There are plugins for various browsers that unhide them. The data is there, and UA-cam makes it public, they just don't put it on the actual page any more.
@@Sircivusyou forgot the fact they have to pay life insurance on all the kids who jumped out of windows at their factory because even death is better than making iPhones in a slave camp....
Even though they use the same connector ends, Thunderbolt and USB-C are completely different methods for transferring data. If you were to test a Thunderbolt cable on a PC that only has USB-C, you will not see any performance increase, and all that cool circuitry will not be used.
USB-C is simply a connector. USB 1-4 is the technology. It's easy to misunderstand and most people (including myself) somewhat erroneously use USB-C to mean USB 3 with a C connection.
@@encycl07pedia- Im pretty sure thats exactly what it means, because USB-C comes with some standards and requirements. IIRC every fully featured USB-C cable supports at least USB 3.1, as well as ~25 watt for charging or so.
I think it would've been more interesting to compare this to a comparable cable. It's like comparing a commuter car to a rally car because they have the same lug nut pattern. It's a standard to make things easier and cheaper to produce. If you're going to show off cables with different uses, let's see how Apple has progressed, by sharing images of the original 30pin and a (surprisingly sitll relevant) lightning cable. Or at least show off a cable with an identical marketed rating and lower price.
@trekster9269 ok. Ok.. sure thing. Your post was meant for "encouraging" ✅️ very constructive ( see. Can put my very constructive in same quotes if you choose) /RT
I was hoping to see more than just the scans of what's inside and maybe a comparison of lower cost thunderbolt cables to the higher cost ones to see just how they compare for data transfer/etc. While it's good to see that many are just for power, it would also be good to see how performance compares between different comparable cables.
Your talking minutes to hours with cheap vs expensive. There ya go. 😂
Рік тому+2
I get what you want them to explain but I understand they have to compromise to one topic, I think the video is more about the physical differences because that is something you couldn't find in any other video while comparing speeds is a very common video to find here in youtube.
Totally agreed. At the end of the day, it is not how sophisticated the cable is that the users want, it is the performance as a cable for "charging and data transfer" that the users are interested in. The price of $130 is ridiculously high. Apple is aiming to making even more money from the USB-C cable than from the already expensive Lightning cable.
A more borning comparison, more informative yes but that doesn’t generate the views. People see “EXPENSIVE” Apple cable and wondered why. Thunderbolt cables have been around for a while but this one made headlines because Apple made it and priced it even higher.
Next do a CAT8 vs CAT3 cables to explain why CAT8 costs 10x the price. Also, make sure you pick up the most expensive CAT8 cable you can find with all the magic marketing pixie dust added in to make it closer to the comparison you did in this video. This really is bellow standards of what we've came to expect from @tested.
The scans and deep dive is incredible, but, as many people have said, they're comparing two entirely different cables and saying "look they're different"... Groundbreaking stuff.
Not connected pins aren't necessarily an indicator of bad quality, the USB-C standard is open to a lot of configuration arrangements (which is why not all pins are always connected to a cable), the problem is how companies are advertising what they implement and then there's material, build and design quality itself, with price not necessarily being its indicator but rather a ball park of it, but it can range by a lot, like these Apple cables, no way they cost so much, Apple just charges whatever they can get away with.
Phone manufacturers: "No, YOU'RE supposed to be the one that has connectors on both sides in case the cable is reversed." Cable manufacturers: "No, YOU!" 😆
@@fitybux4664 By spec, they both should. As long as one of them gets it right, everything should work fine. If neither of them gets it right, you are about to have a confusing day. Luckily I have only ever had both get it wrong once.
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrrthunderbolt 4 is different from USB 4 standard. thunderbolt 4 is Intel's implementation that supercede USB 4, not all USB 4 follows thunderbolt 4 specification. however if you are just charging, the 2 standard are identical: 100 watt.
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrr Thunderbolt 4 and USB4 are different, though Thunderbolt 4 must support USB4, the converse is not true. USB4 and Thunderbolt 3 are largely the same, aside from Intel validation. The Amazon cable is a USB 2.0 cable.
With the way the video goes, one would think Apple invented the USB C cable. Why don’t they compare out of the box cables from other leading Android brands . They scrapped the barrel on Amazon for the comparison
"Hi, today we're going to show a video on how a V8 is better than this 2-cylinder lawnmower engine, but we're gonna ignore the fact that one is supposed to drive a car really fast and the other is just supposed to mow your lawn! Wow, look at the difference!"
Actually, Apple did co-design and engineer the USB-C cable. A large chunk of the engineers for the standards group were from Apple. Apple was amongst the first adopters top - they got slatted for committing to USBC in laptops “too early”, before any PC laptop did.
This is recklessly misleading to those who don't understand the difference between thunderbolt 4 and a charging only type c cable. Wonder how much apple paid for this commercial>
It seems that a lot of misinformation in this video could have been clarified by looking up a wiring diagram for USB-C. I'd also have liked to see scans of USB-C 10Gbps cables, and lower priced thunderbolt 3/4 cables. The low-end ones just had power and usb 2.0 data (4 wires total). just-a-waffle
Agreed. If I remember correctly (never a ''given'), the USB Type C cable standard only requires a cable support a minimum of 3 Amps (current) and USB 2.0 data rates (480 Mbps). Such cables typically have a maximum length of 3~4m (10~13ft)? USB Type C cables that support higher current (up to 5A) and/or higher (USB 3.x) data transfer speeds (up to 4.8Gbps), will be thicker/stiffer (as 5A cables are thicker than 3A cables) and/or shorter, respectively (since longer cables are more susceptible to external EMI/RF interference and therefore are less likely to achieve the specified highest data speeds - maximum length limited to just 1m (3ft) in some cases). But ALL "certified" USB-Type C cables must support data transfer - at least at the slower USB 2.0 speeds. The main advantage of a USB Type C cable that only supports the slower USB 2.0 data rates is that it is cheaper and can be made much longer than a USB-C cable designed for higher data rates (all else being equal). If all you want to do is charge your phone, then those longer, cheaper cables are the obvious choice. Which is why they are often explicitly marketed as USB-C "charger" cables.
These are great scans and really cool to see how this is but it is like comparing a cat6 ethernet cable with the old 3 wire phone cable. Yes you can "get" a connection with that old 3 wire phone cable but it can't be compared to that cat6 cable and everything they have done to improve the cable (twisting of the cables is a very important aspect of these cables) At the end of the day, It is another comparison of "look how great apple is to justify the cost by showing it next to something that is obviously lower specs" They should have added in some mid level cables at least but probably couldn't find any that wouldn't put apple to shame
I think it would have been more interesting to compare Thunderbolt cables vs other thunderbolt cables, TB4 spec is different to USB C spec which is actually a connector not a spec. TB4 vs other TB4/USB3/4 specs would be the most telling.
@@frostilver Its not a speed difference actually, there is a latency difference, that is where the issue occurs, many Musicians and Audio people use Thunderbolt because of the cut down Latency which is important for something like Guitar recording where plucking the string and hearing can be disorienting and screws up the measure of your playing. Whether the cable is active or passive as long as it is rated for a Particular speed you are good to go, the difference is due to signal dropoff that a passive cable will always have a maximum shorter length
I think you will find that one of these cables can charge high power devices and the other cant. Simple as that. USBC fast charging is not possible over basic usb-c cables like the one shown, at least not for fast charging devices. For example my digital camera or my laptop cannot charge with the basic cables, only thunderbolt. The question for me, is, does the expensive apple cable last as long as a dirt cheap usb-c cable? Or does it have intermittent connection after mild use just like every apple brand lightning/iphone/ipod cable that has ever been produced.
@@russellc.2261 That's not quite right. There are many standards for fast charging over USB-C, most of which are not Thunderbolt, and do not require Thunderbolt cables. It would be a mistake to buy Thunderbolt cables for devices that don't support Thunderbolt. For example USB PD is a pretty common standard. The most cheap-ass USB-C cables won't support fast charging, and you can have problems with garbage from sketchy randomly-generated Chinese brands on Amazon. But I don't have any issues with my $10-15 USB PD 100w cables from semi-reputable brands, even charging my 16" Macbook Pro which uses the full 100w (when plugged to a good quality 100w USD PD charger). Where you get into trouble is there's so many god damn different standards, like: USB PD, Qualcomm Quick Charge, Samsung Fast Charge, etc. etc.; you have to make sure your device, cable and charger all support the same standard. The differentiating feature of Thunderbolt is NOT AT ALL charging speed, it's the higher rate of data transfer which enables stuff like plugging multiple high resolution monitors into a single Thunderbolt 4 port. With a cheap Thunderbolt 4 cable it might work ok if the cable is short and you don't push it but you might run into issues when you try to use the full data transfer capacity, like if you try using a Thunderbolt dock with multiple monitors, an ethernet cable, a USB hard drive, etc. all plugged in at the same time. The reason this cable is super expensive is that it's difficult to maintain the signal quality required for 40Gbps data transfer over longer distances. Thunderbolt 4 cables longer than 1m are pretty rare. Buying a cable like this just for charging would be a huge waste of money.
The 3 unshielded conductors are VCON (which is the initial voltage for power up), CC (charge control) which is used to negotiate USB 2.0/3.0 power charging, and the SBU (Side Band Use) which is used to signal other modes (Such as signaling support for USB, DisplayPort, etc). These are single conductor signals. VCON and CC are interchangeable which actually negotiates the other pins as the cable can be flipped. All the other data lines are in twisted pairs, which a negative and positive balanced signal pair twisted around each other to cancel the electro-magnetic fields. This ensures that any interference is equal on both lines and thus can be used to "negate" the noise from the signal. In the line are 4 x Super Speed Thunderbolt pair (2 x TX pair, 2 x RX pair), and the differential pair (Which is pretty much your USB data lines). Each of the individual conductors are surrounded by their own ground shield(which helps mitigate cable crosstalk). Apple also uses silver plated copper for both the data conductors and the shields. The silver plated helps reduce skin effect on high speed transmission lines, this reduces the eddy currents formed inside the conductors slightly increasing the lines impedance to current changes. These are pretty standard in high speed data transmission cables operating at over 1GHz speeds and necessary at 10GHz or more. You will find this in Category 6 and 7 data cables. That’s the measurement of the speed in which the maximum voltage flips can occur (high/low state). Another thing they didn’t mention is that the trace’s resistance need to be a known value as transmission cables “reflect” signals at the end (there is essentially ringing at the frequency harmonics that need to be cancelled out). On thunderbolt 4 this is all done in the cable connector, not in the end device. This “smart cable” design also allows the same port to be used by USB-C as the Thunderbolt 4 cable offloads some of the current differences between the two formats (almost like a SFP module does in multi-gigabit networking). Then in the center is power and ground, and multiple conductors are used because of these lines can deliver up to 100 watts at 5 volts. Now of course the able cables cost a lot more as they have apple naming, certification, warranty (and of course use apples proprietary silicon which is more expensive as they ensure people don't steal the specific design and they have exclusive patent/intellectual property rights on it all). There are many non-apple Thunderbolt 4 cables that meet or exceed the specs of this cable, and there are also a lot of really bad cheap cables that barely pass the specs and may have problems reaching full speed/wattage; or cause more retransitions of data which will not really be visible to the end user but cause slight performance bottlenecks when pushed to the extreme as the system just has to work a little more because of a component on the PCI bus is slightly underperforming others.
Feels like the Tested team missed the mark on this one. I don't doubt Adam's excitement as these scans are certainly cool, but you are comparing apples and oranges here. The Apple Thunderbolt 4 cable and the generic USB-C one you had have different use cases. Would have been a better comparison to find a cable that also claims to be Thunderbolt 4 and can do the same as what Apple's can and try to justify the high cost. Unless this was just supposed to be an advertisement for Apple, then perhaps the video should have been clearly stated to be sponsored, as that's what this seems to be.
That's like saying you'd be annoyed if they compared a 1998 Ford focus engine with a 2023 Boeing fighter engine. It's to show how advanced the cables are compared to older and less capable products. It IS comparing apples and oranges. That's the point...
@@Johnny-Josephyes, that's what's happening here except they're pretending that the engines are not for two totally different use cases. They both make things move but they're not the same thing. Thunderbolt uses the same shaped connector but it's not a USB lead.
@@Johnny-Joseph The premise of the video is "Why Is Apple's USB-C Cable $130?" and they didn't prove that. There are $30 cables with just as much technology in it as Apples overpriced garbage.
The price is completely unrelated because a thunderbolt cable is meant for completely different use. If someone watched this and thought they had to buy this cable to charge their iPhone properly.... They just happen to use the same socket for convenience. It's the greatest issue with USB-C
this is all advertising....this is ginzu, shamwow & old timey elixir territory... cat6 brings the internet to your house, through your office etc.. this is the same price as a whole roll box of that cable...........multi GB Lan for 300ft /run..... transmits ultra high speed data across server farms and other data facilities etc.
I've seen a couple of sites reviewing this from the same perspectives, and comparing to cheap incomparable cables. Starting to think this is a paid campaign by Apple, because they never seem to compare to other cables that actually make the same bandwidth and specification claims. Nobody has been able to show why they're $130, they're just showing why they aren't $12.
As a radiologist who reads CT scans every day, I have to say I find Lumafield's application of CT technology absolutely fascinating. I wish we could achieve this level of resolution in our human patients, but the amount of radiation required for this level of detail would probably vaporize our patients.
However, that kind of resolution could provide invaluable scientific data from post-mortem examination. Even better, stored for future researchers. A big enough data repository could lead to more sensitive and cheaper (maybe AI-assisted) diagnostic procedures requiring less harmful scan as input.
Adam, I am a BIG fan of yours but this might be the worst comparison I've ever seen on youtube. Your friend who is an Apple user obviously has a bias. Take an apple $130 lightning cable and an off brand lightning cable comparison and the average user would never see a difference. Now that Europe has barred any products that don't have USB-C Apple has "given in" to the rest of the world. Apple was the first but they are now followers in the industry. Still Love your videos and knowledge that I've learened so much from. Thank you for all your knowledge you share!
I'd like to see a follow up video if possible comparing different Thunderbolt 4 cables at different price points and from other OEMs. Usb 2 spec is from the year 2000 whereas Thunderbolt 4 is from 2021.
yeah sorry, apple prices are stupid. thats about it. cables charge ya phone, or move data. it works. its just a brand logo. it moves data slightly faster...for 100's of pounds. im happy just copying the file and waiting 4 mins.
Yeah no. It’s not just about transfer speed. TB4 can run a 4k60 display, 100w of power, gigabit Ethernet, as well as a USB/TB hub at the same time through a single cable. Try to do that with a Poundland USB2 cable. I dare you.
Also, some of us (usually information security professionals, though it should be basically everyone) actually intentionally buy "charge only" USB cables because they're safe to use in public charging locations. Don't stick your data cable into unknown ports, folks. Practice safe sockets
I was thinking the same thing. What is all the processing for??? These guys really don't know. They are assuming and not really testing it. Until I did, I would not use it.
I've heard this a few times and I'm really wondering why is this the case? What happens if it's not a charge only cable? Can't you transfer data with a charge only cable as well?
Lots of reasons to have a power-only cable, like plugging in at the airport or any public place to charge your device. And not have to carry your own block but still be safe.
Tested, love your stuff and love these videos that "branch" from your typical output and look at new/different technologies. I also thoroughly enjoyed this video. That being said, I can't help but feel that this video was disingenuous and felt like an ad for Apple. USB-C and thunderbolt share connectors so that they can be used intraoperatively for most basic features, but they are fundamentally different standards. The obvious one being that Thunderbolt 4 is literally double the transfer speed of the latest USB-C cables, 40Gbps vs 20Gbps. Second, while it was mentioned, I thought it could have been expanded on that Thunderbolt 4 achieves this, and necessitates the higher signal quality, because it is talking directly with the CPU over PCI-E rather than a USB or other controller on the motherboard and that difference in standards is the entire reason for the increased complexity of the Thunderbolt 4 cable. Given these factors, Thunderbolt 4 cables are generally more expensive than USB-C cables. On a quick Amazon search, USB-C cables tend to be $10-$30 while Thunderbolt 4 cables seem to range $20-$50. Apple cables are amazing quality and engineering, but justifying the cost (and that's what the video and it's title implies) as anything other than an "Apple tax" when I didn't see another Thunderbolt 4 cable >$65 (about half the price of Apple's) doesn't feel honest. If this was done in an "apples to apples" comparison and showed vs another Thunderbolt cable, I would have agreed with the premise more, but comparing a Thunderbolt 4 cable to a USB-C and titling the video around Apple's pricing feels like a bait and switch.
@@ConnorDugandzic I'm not sure how that is relevant, as my comment was more focused on USB-C (the connector) and how they didn't properly differentiate the speed standards. If you want to be pedantic, yes, USB4 can do 40Gbps. That being said, 95%+ USB/USB-C cables on the market are USB 3.2 or lower. USB standards are confusing as they keep changing the naming scheme and even the names retroactively, but looking at the first several lines of the USB4 Wikipedia article, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4 , USB4 is, essentially, another name for the Thunderbolt 4 standard. Edit: Also worth noting, that due to the way the USB4 standard is set up, USB4 just "guarantees" 10Gbps and you need to specify USB4 Gen 3x2 to get 40Gbps and USB4 Gen 4 to get 80Gbps.
Thank you to everyone for providing so much clarity and perspective. In other communities, this would likely be received differently without the appropriate nuance. I TREASURE Adam's channel, but I think such a tuned-in audience deserves a little better than the framing and content approach that came through here. 🖤
USB C is a bit confusing, it can be USB 2.0/USB 3.x/Thunderbolt. Cheap cables with 2 power wires and 2 data wires are just the simplest USB 2.0 type. It's a bit unfair to compare them to full blown Thunderbolt cable. There is a hint of cable type on the plug, USB 2.0 type have old USB logo, Thunderbolt cables have a little lightning on it as you can clearly see it in this video and USB 3.x cables have SSUSB logo on them. So you need to know what type of cable you need and check the logo on the plugs. I agree it's really confusing, but it's not like they are not marked in any way. (cables without any markings are usually USB 2.0)
Most people don't even understand the difference between 2.0/3.0/Thunderbolt, though, which is I think first thing that needs to be learned? This video is meant to educate on the complete opposite ends of the price scale. Then most intelligent people (like the ones watching this channel, I hope!) will intuit that there's other high-performance cables not made by Apple.
@@zoinomiko The "most intelligent" people either already know this Apple cable isn't merely "USB-C" or become pissed off when (if) they realize by about halfway through this video that they're being misled.
I feel like this is a rare miss. These are two different standards that are being compared to each other. I would also say that apple has a reputation for cables that are not durable and break relatively easily. This is a large reason why apple was forced to move away from their lightning cable. The content of this video visually is exceptional, and the descriptions of what is going on in these cables is excellently done, but problematic factually.
The main reason why Apple moved away from their lightning port is the European Community because Apple was plenty satisfied of the MFI (Made For Iphone). While a lot of their products have used UsbC for a long time, iPhones were with lightning. So all the equipment companies (earphones, charging cables, data cables, dongles, hdmi adapter, usb adapter... , wishing to produce their products to iPhone users, have to pay the lighting brevet to Apple and it is indeed very big money.
@@MODinBANGKOKexactly what I was going to comment. It's nothing to do with the cost, durability or anything other than getting in ahead of the EU law changes that means they've got no choice but to change and soon. Anyone who believes Apple changed due to anything else is fooling themselves. If they could they'd never have changed it on the IPhone until everyone else had.
No matter what the standard is, there's no reason to put a chip inside the cable. Bus transceivers / line drivers usually sit just behind the connectors that do that. What apple puts into the cable is their stupid security chip so they can detect "counterfeit" cables and artificially reduce performance if you're not using their overpriced cable. A lot of what is discussed in the video is true, but not relevant as to why there's a chip in the cable itself. HUGE miss for this channel to be pedaling such false information, not to mention the blatant apple fanboyism
@@gorak9000 Thunderbolt specification requires active cables for connections longer than 1 meter. Sure, Apple is greedy, but in this case your complaint is misplaced.
@@agawtdangedbear well yhea but it's not sponsored by Apple but it's part of a series of videos which are sponsored by Lumafield who are the ones who did those insane small scale CT scans which were actually the only part of the video worth seeing, a little bit followed by the technical knowledge of the electrical engineer who obviously knew his stuff but had also obviously been told what he could and couldn't say about what the main chip/processor in the Apple cable was actually for and a huge part of its job, etc. It's just such a shame that Tested decided to do the "comparisons" so badly in their choice of leads to compare. So I'm unsure why the sponsorship would have been the reason for the very obvious Apple fan club video they put out especially as Lumafield have no financial or business connection to Apple in any way.
This video is part of a sponsored series with Lumafield. Learn more about these scans at: www.lumafield.com/article/usb-c-cable-charger-head-to-head-comparison-apple-thunderbolt-amazon-basics
Apple Thunderbolt 4 cable: app.lumafield.com/project/fedc9b09-b696-4a7f-8270-95762abd1d1d
Amazon Basics USB-C cable: app.lumafield.com/project/a0fd9731-994a-403f-9710-a03aa2f31cc1
$5.50 USB-C cable: app.lumafield.com/project/f6ec539a-2775-44d1-a9e3-54a118093b69
$3.90 USB-C cable: app.lumafield.com/project/3c087b61-34e3-4836-9d2d-38b1f14b9bf3
How industrial CT scanning is used: ua-cam.com/video/-eesZBRW4u0/v-deo.html
Cool, but didn't answer the question with like for like Thunderbolt 4 cables. Why is Apple TB4 $130, OWC TB4 $60 and Anker TB4 $30?
@@ThreeDigitIQ they didn't want to tell the reality that apple is greedy as hell and has cultists for customers, OWC is good quality but they don't have huge manufacturing power behind them (so their cost is high), Anker is high quality and has huge manufacturing cost behind them.
130$ is for a cable for idiots with too much money.
Why not compare a non apple Thunderbolt 4 cable with Apples Thunderbolt 4 cable, y'all tested USB-C against Thunderbolt 4 and they aren't the same thing.
@@ThreeDigitIQyeah, they didn't even test any other Thunderbolt cables because they wanted the Apple cable to look way more "advanced" 😂
Instead of comparing Apple's cable to USB 2 cables, it would be more interesting to compare Apple's Thunderbolt 4 cables to an equally capable $60 Thunderbolt 4 cable (Cable Matters, Anker, OWC, Plugable, or Belkin for example) to see how similar or different the Apple cable is for twice the price.
Than it won't be a good advert ;)
Steve will be sad reading your coment...
100% agree. Please do that @tested
I agree. I was having a problem with this as soon as I saw it. They are not really comparing USB Type C cables, they are comparing as you mentioned TB4 vs standard Type C cables. That's not "Apples to Apples" (See what I did there) These are cables for different purposes. The standard Apple cable as used on iPhones and iPads are crap. I also would mention that Thunderbolt is not an Apple invention, It is an Intel invention.
@@anoid3433Oh, I see what you did there. 😏
The scans are fantastic in their detail, and provide great non destructive information. However, these are not interchangeable cables and the non- Apple ones were never intended to be "imitations". They may have the same end connector, USB-C, but they conform to very different specifications. The Apple cable they is to Thunderbolt 4 specification, where as the others are to other USB specifications. This makes it seem that Apple is doing crazy engineering in comparison. It would be better to compare a different brand of Thunderbolt 4 cable to it. Then compare Apples $19 dollar USB C phone cable to the other USB cables for fairness. (Edit- added a combined response to a few comments below as a reply to this one) (Edit 25/10/23 @2006 UTC Not sure if the tested pinned comment has been edited to show that this is series sponsored by Lumafield or am I just misinterpreting/ misremembering it. If it is Lumafield then Apple got an advert out of it for free. Still doesn't change although the science was cool this video was poorly received by a fair few of us due to the way it was framed/described/thumbnailed and the way the cables were described as imitators or alternatives)
From a tech/science aspect this video was a bit annoying because they treated both of these VERY different cables like they were the same.
Yeah, these cables aren't meant to be used for the same purposes. I'm not going to be using a $130 Thunderbolt 4 cable to charge my phone.
Yeah I'm disappointed too. A comparison between Apple's TB4 cable and other TB4 cables would have been more interesting.
I think this is non-obvious to most people, since the cables mostly look the same. People know how to distinguish cables by connector, but to tell them apart by spec or standard is for the tech-savvy
They knew all of that when they made the "commercial".
While I appreciate the time and effort that went into the production of the CT scans, this feels like an Apple advertisment all over the place.
I would've LOVED to see a fair comparison between the $130 TB4 Apple cable, a mid-range competitor and a budget TB4 cable. Then make a comparison with a full blown 20Gbps USB4-Cable. Just because the cables have the same end termination (in this case USB-C as a standard for both USB AND Thunderbolt 3+4), doesn't mean that they're produced to the same spec.
or better yet, a TB4/USB4 40 gbps 100w cable
i got a belkin one for $75
Look up OWC. They've been around since 1988 and have made aftermarket stuff for Apple forever... for 1/3rd the price.
true but it not an apple standard, apple only using because the where pushed by the EU, but why an apple verion in $130, it hopefully going to be made better, but as the without to much effect, one can got $5, version that nearly every phone, pad, etc, and and do use, $10+ cable, where's $120, gone?
Exactly, its basically an Apple commercial and a bad one at that...comparing apples to oranges lol
FAR too much advertising on this channel lately. FAR too much. Even the "fun" interviews with the mythbusters former producer was basically just a sneaky advert for his new tv show.
I love how they compared apples tb4 cable to other cables capable of tb4 signals... wait they didn't
did they say they were comparing two thunderbolt 4 cables? it literally says in the desc "but what's the difference between Thunderbolt and USB-C?"
@@camsta_ Yes. But in the video they are actively comparing quality-price between those 'different' cables. What's the point? If you are comparing quality-price, Shouldn't it be between the same cables?
@@helenHTID I feel like this is a valid point, if I were shopping for a sports car and I went to the dealership and they only pull out one sports car next to some station wagon telling me how much better it is in every way compared to the wagon. I would ask to see other sports cars to make a more informed decision.
@@helenHTID but they are the “same cables” in the sense that they’re both usb-c. that’s the point of the video, to show why two usb-c cables are engineered totally differently even if they look similar. i don’t get why the comments are asking for a “fairer comparison” just because the apple cable is seen more favorably
@@camsta_ They are both USB-C connector type and the ports are cross compatible, But they are built different! Thunderbolt is capable of much faster data transfer. Those guys are comparing quality vs price of 2 types of cable that have been built different to start with, It makes no sense! USB-C vs USB-C and Thunderbolt vs Thunderbolt is the correct way to judge quality and price. This is common sense, Not some dummy throwing because of Apple lol
important thing to note, you are comparing a thunderbolt 4 cable against a usb cable. These have totally different requirements. The comparison is unfair and should've been between expensive/cheap thunderbolt cables
Yeah, I love Tested and Adam, but this video is embarrassing. Feels like a FUD campaign sponsored by Apple.
They know that and did it on purpose to make Apple's awful cable look better.
Yup, "here we have two cars, a Golf Diesel and a Ferrari - Oh Gosh! The expensive one is faster and have more technology in it😮"
But then again, that's how commercials are done: "compared to this much simpler thing, our thingy is more advanced " 😂🤦
And it was a cheap straight thou direct wired to pins usb-c cable you be lucky if it will even do rapid/fast charging or lucky if data works (don't believe data works on these cables)
the high-speed/100w capable usb-c ones I normally buy have a chip in them like TB4 cable (I usually have issues with the non chip usb-c cables)
Exactly this.. would have preferred to see a fair comparison. There are much cheaper thunderbolt cables out there that do the same job as the apple cable for a lot less money.
It would be interesting to compare thunderbolt to thunderbolt according to price point
that's exactly what they should have done instead of comparing to the cheapest charging cable. and amazon basics junk.
And compare if the added chips provide any speed improvement.
And a lot more valid / meaningful.
Just like comparing a $30K car to a $300K car, you're going to get big quality and performance differences.
So what? (As long as the customer knows what they're getting re the marketing, published specs, etc).
It would be "interesting", aka "not disingenuous"
@@rogergeyer9851 you are correct. 30k vs 300k is nonsense, but it would be better to see 200k vs 300k and see if any of the fancy things in the 300k is actually good or just fluff
Yes, definitely felt you should have compared to other thunderbolt cables like maybe Anker's cables which are good and much less than the Apple cable
It would have been nice indeed, perhaps this would help convince them to make a follow-up video.
I wonder how much it cost them to get the CT scan... in both time and actual dollars.
UA-cam dislike browser-add on helps to safe you from watching this video. This video has around 45% downvotes. Clearly a waste of time.
Install ad blockers and return youtube dislikes!
It has been done elsewhere. What you end up with is understanding why the Apple cable here is the only cable of this sort that offers this performance over this distance on the market.
It costs what it costs for a reason.
It is a much simpler problem (relatively) to meet the spec at a shorter distance.
Knowing Apple and history of putting chips in cables, it would not surprise me if is not compatible with non-Apple devices, or does scale back to USB2.
@@jamespeirce2582 99% of Monoprice's higher quality cables (not their cheapest ones) are able to perform like Apple's cables and usually run about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost and some have lifetime warranty. Unless your Apple device is making you money (professional photographer or something along that line) most people could get by with a quality Anker or Monoprice cable. Much better than the "Great Quality" cables Frys used to sell.
9:38 I am reminded of PC motherboards advertising impedance control like it's a special feature and not just a basic requirement.
I'm disappointed that they didnt work their way through the market instead of looking at the most expensive cable and the the cheapest. As with most things there is usually a good quality product that is below the cost of the premium.
But finding such a thing amid all the greedy cash grab bs is nearly impossible - like finding a bone needle in a haystack ...
Anker cables would be a good start
problem is that they compared a THUNDERBOLT cable to a regular type-C cable. Expensive vs. Cheap type-C would have been good to see. This is just an advertisement for Apple's thunderbolt cable. Since Apple is not familiar with Type-C, they might need to be educated that a thunderbolt is different from a regular charging type-c cable.
but then that will go against their paid shilling that apple products are the end all be all... 60-100$ will get you a great alternative if you get one with similar specifications. but hey... clearly adam savage [the guy who for years taught people not to believe everything they hear use their brain to think] is willing to think of his viewers as idiots who don't know there is more to specs than just "shared plug size/shape" for the right price.
Would have needed more than a 20 min video. They kept the scope small on purpose.
Would have been nice to see a comparison between Apple’s £150 thunderbolt 4 compared to Anker’s £25 version, to see the real difference in QC & the apple tax on top ?
It’s also Pointless comparing 40gb thunderbolt with a cheapo usb-c! Consumer advise needs to be better !
Apple tax is like +150%, we all know that much..
Agreed, this video is a nonsense Apple shill video. I would expect better from this team. Rubbish.
_That_ would have actually provided useful information. And if the Apple product is genuinely superior, would still have functioned as an advertisement (like, "Look, we know it's expensive but it really IS [much] better than the [much] cheaper _actual_ competition").
@@anonymes2884 100% what i was insinuating ☺️✌️ if the engineering is this excellent then trashy tired meme’s have no place. I think proper investigation is apt !
@@alphadog5676 Agree
I've gotta say it is good to have a critical viewing audience. It makes me happy inside that so many of Adam's viewers recognize that this is really a lopsided comparison and are calling that out. I mean, I get the point of "hey, look at how these cables are wildly different", but I think the title and the premise of how the video was handled do a disservice to that point. Hopefully Adam listens to the feedback from his viewers and takes this into account for the next go-round.
Paid content "This video is part of a sponsored series with Lumafield. "
Hidden in the video description
bro don't you know apply only charges so much because they have to pay for that desin somehow lmfao! who is falling for this
@@the_algorithm Lumafield is the scanning company. They could've shown off their scanner when comparing a more realistic range of cables. In fact, it would've been a better show for the tech because they could've shown how their machine picks up enough detail to see the small differences in what are really rather similar cables.
This was a lumafield ad. I'm sure there were some stipulations as to how the final video ends up.
@@Jazz3006 This is true... except when someone pays you to do an advertisement, you do what the money says.
Jokes on you, that chip is probably just there to make sure you are plugging an Apple cable into your phone.
uggh i still remember plugging my updated ipod into the charger i had, it starting from 0 and STOPPING as soon as it turns on because it realised it wasnt their expensive apple crap. YOU WERE CHARGING 2 SECONDS AGO. hhhhhh
Definitely
@@RitzStarr If Apple made cars.... Don't they run on gas? No only our "special" gas. Aren't they just electric? No only our "special" electricity.
@@pepperfish_ the apple car is canceld
@@Neuer_Alias_erstellen And this would be why... ;)
USB-C and Thunderbolt are two different types even though they share the same male standard. Try comparing to a real off-brand thunderbolt cable. Thunderbolt is designed to carry more than a standard USB-C, which is why the look different on the inside. With that being said, I would never pay 130 for any cable.
My guy, there are cables out there that are worth more than your car. Depending on what you are doing and what you want, you WILL pay that much for them.
@@sujimayne Full 5000ft spools of solid copper conductors used in high amp applications (large scale solar fields for example) are only a few thousand $. If you buy cables that cost more than your car, I have a couple bridges to sell you.
@@ZyxlianIt's not the big spools of thick conductors that are expensive. It is the multi-stranded, multi conductor, high data throughput, harsh environment cables with special connectors on the ends that cost a bunch of money. We have paid thousands for a single undersea cable.
@@gl1klvr Expensive cables is just bs. You can literally slap gold and diamonds on anything to add value.
@sujimayne the gold spun fiber optic wiring on the space shuttle was probably up there but doesn't mean Apple needs to charge a bunch for junk...that wiring probably cost more than your cave...keep riding that apple 🍆 tho....
Comparing a basic USB-C cable to a ANY Thunderbolt cable, not just Apple's, is going to be a drastic difference.
I agree, this is like comparing apples with oranges. There are Thunderbolt cables that cost like 25 to 50 dollars/euros, instead of 5 or 10. Which is still like 5 to 2,5 times cheaper than what apple is doing. I would agree that seeing the engineering behind it is impressive, but you would be a fool to think you need a cable of 130 euros/dollars for everyday stuff.
(An Apple a day keeps your money away.)
Apple fan boys getting paid by apple, such nonsense.
Not comparing like for like on purpose.
Trying to justify Apple prices
This is a guerilla advert, not a tested video
Comparing a USB 2.0 cable, designed for 480Mbps, to a Thunderbolt cable designed for 40Gbps feels disingenuous at best.
They should probably have stated that these cables, while using the same connector (USB-C), are targeting different speeds/generations explicitly. IMO.
Which is to a large degree why the EC's mandate to use a USB-C connector is relatively meaningless.
The USBIF _could've_ specified that a cable's capabilities be imprinted on the cable end, but that would've increased the cost and would've produced an amazing assortment of fraudulent specifications for the cables, so instead they punted.
Very interesting, love the non destructive look but would love to see the $130 Apple Thunderbolt 4 cable against an $30 Anker Thunderbolt 4 cable.
From my knowledge, they will perform pretty much the same. What you will notice is that the Anker cable is going to be a lot shorter. Having a longer TB4 cable can get crazy expensive due to the extra components needed to keep bandwidth up to spec at both ends. But since it's Apple, a good chunk of the price difference does come from the Apple product tax lol.
Boom 😅
If you buy 5 pieces of $12 Amazon Basic cables, it would probably last longer together than a single $130 Apple cable. lol
@@BillAnt We're talking about 2 metre/6ft Thunderbolt 4 cables, not just USB C. Amazon Basics doesn't offer such cables.
Unless I'm hugely misunderstanding how this works, it seems like having a Thunderbolt socket on the side of your laptop is like having an external PCIe slot that dodgy folk can use to connect hardware to read and write your computer's memory, bypassing all the operating system security.
Apple Thunderbolt cable vs. USB-C cables with unspecified abilities, okay. Next video: compare a car to a bicycle?
Neat, but you're comparing a 'Thunderbolt 4' cable to 'USB-c'. They might look the same, and thunderbolt can do usb-c functions, but its a whole different class of thing. Cheap thunderbolt 4 cables are usually closer to $30 anyways. Serious lack of research and understanding here.
Yeah, this is like comparing two completely different standards... Kind of disappointing
Absolutely there was a great deal of understanding here, which is why the apple advertisers chose cables they knew wouldn't hold up for comparison.
The video is terrible and it feels like it's just sponsored by Apple. It's basically propaganda/ FUD.
Not only is it a USB c. It's a USB 2.0 charging cable....
Its like " look at this comparrison from a McLaren P1 vs this 1998 Chevrolet"
Comparing Thunderbolt 4 against a USB Type C isn't really fair... even though they are of the same connector.
Not just a USB-C cable, but a USB-C cable to a USB 2.0 cable with Type C plugs.
Why not fair??
Apple cable price is same as thunderbolt's cable!
@@Syonaga_Auron777 It *is* a Thunderbolt cable.
Yes! It would be more reasonable to compare only standard USB-C cables and/or to also include thunderbolt cables from other brands. This is comparing apples to oranges.
as far as I know, usb type c cables, doesn't come with basic specs, because there are none, even as far as pd, they are not the same, because there are some without pd functions
correct me if I'm wrong
I would have been really interested to have seen a comparison between the Apple cable and another, cheaper thunderbolt cable with the same advertised features. I'm sure you don't intend to mislead, but it feels like a weighted test in Apple's favor.
Mislead?? They compared two different cable standards against each other, WTF kind of researched are they doing here? My 13yr old knows the difference...
Well, looking at the way they described it, it sounds like they don't really know that much about this anyway...
Came to the comments to say the same thing. Amazing scans but really would have been nice to show a cheaper thunderbolt cable to maybe help illustrate the differences with the apple cable (if any). Disappointed.
Of course they are shilling for apple no person with tech knowledge about this would compare a basic type c usb to a thunderbolt 4 rated cable thats like comparing a regular passenger plane to air force one.
You’re always going to pay more for Apple compared to reputable 3rd party manufacturers but there’s also a lot of 3rd party manufacturers that cut corners. Like anything if you’re a casual user, not a big deal. But if you’re a pro, time is money so the savings may not be worth the risk.
so BASICALLY this is a FREE apple advert ?
Either that or undisclosed advert, which is illegal (I think, not a US citizen)
I don't see this as an advertising but an explanation of the state of the art and why the attention to detail must be at the level it is or the efficiency would not exist.
I do lament FireWire 800 downstream is so very difficult to adapt to more modern computers. This does help me understand why docking stations are or can be so expensive.
@@crawford323 ah no, it's definitely an advertisement. The description mentions it's a sponsored series.
I would have liked to see an actual thunderbolt cable compared to the Apple cable. These cables are probably used to charge a phone and that’s it.
I agree, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Still an interesting video but could have compared with cheaper thunderbolt cables.
Ty for saving me from watching the rest of the video
yeah.. probably no one would buy it unless they are connecting some professional tools that requires constant fast and accurate data transmission to their computer
100$ agree, apples and oranges
Also I believe I've heard somewhere that Apple puts some kind of firmware on their cable to detect whether it's connected to an Apple product or not
Did anyone notice that the testing did not include any testing? How did those cables perform? Was the $30 cable 13 times better? was it any better at all?
Its not for people who know what science is and how even a newborn does it
USB-C signalling is backwards compatible with USB-2. So you can get a USB-C to USB-2 cable, without any chips. Just 4 wires.
BUT, this will be limited to USB-2 speeds. This is what the cheaper cables carry. Just USB-2 signals. You're not going to be running a monitor off one of these cheaper cables. But, that's ok, most of the time you just want it for connecting to a mobile phone anyway...and perhaps you don't want to buy a $120 cable just to teather your internet...that $120 cable isn't going to be as thin and light as a cheep cable!
BUT, if you want high speed....really high speed, enough to carry multi-display signals, or (in theory) eGPU's, you're going to need a cable that will handle it.
Also there's a difference between "testable" and "actually matters."
So in terms of data transfer, most transfer protocol already has some type of error-checking build-in. As for electricity - it's just electricity. An electron is an electron and it doesn't care how and what "quality" it arrives.
I don't recall any mention of testing - just the question and the obvious answer.
There are a thousand videos doing that. Not many with cool CT scans.
Good thing they didn't spend view time doing what is already overdone
1:43 BGA stands for ball grid array, which refers to the mechanism by which the IC is attached to the PCB (an ARRAY of solder BALLS in a GRID pattern). It does not mean "ball gate array".
He made several mistakes and/or glossed over how a lot of the electronics worked in the Thunderbolt cable. For instance, he mentioned differential signaling but what he chose to point out about it was that there were two wires involved and they were twisted together. Well, that's not really the important part of differential signaling. Also, all USB data uses differential signaling since version 1.
They also didn't mention the rather glaring difference that the Apple cable is Thunderbolt 4 and the others are just USB C. Just because they share the same connector doesn't mean they are anything alike either in spec, construction, or intended use case.
At the end Adam complains that there could be different markings to show what does what. And while I do think there could be better markings to differentiate different specs of USB C cables, showing the cables next to each other at the end showed very clearly that the Apple cable was marked with a Thunderbolt logo and the others were marked USB.
Fun fact, the first generation of USB C iPhones are only capable of USB2 speeds. So, if you are buying that $130 TB4 cable just to plug in your iPhone you are going to be sorely disappointed.
The iphone 15 Pro can transfer at 10Gbps using USB-3, the standard iphone is limited. Makes sense I would say considering the use-cases@@drumguy1384
Ballgate/Watergate lol As a regular Joe, do I need to spend 10x$ for the cutting edge accuracy and speed? I'm not rendering a movie
Can you put a paid promotion notice at the start?
At my work we have over 100 employees, we are not a huge company but we almost all exclusively use Thunderbolt cables every day, day in, day out (I work in I.T.) These are not Apple cables. They cost nowhere near $130.... We have never had one fail or cause us any issues. The thunderbolt docks have caused us issues but the cables themselves, never do. Our users are not gentle or careful. We don't have issues. This Apple cable is massively overkill for almost anyone. I'm sure its a very, very well made cable but who needs it in reality?
Also, as others have said, at least make comparisons to other Thunderbolt cables. Not Type-C cables it's a very flawed comparison.
Right? This is more like military grade hardware rather than consumer. Way too overkill for what it does. Apple doing what they've always done - offer a simple concept at an exorbitant price.
@@Adrian2140 I agree!
We use these cables in the film industry for transfering very huge files and real time playback for raw video formats. This cable might not be for everyone because of its price but yeah we use it haha.
Probably only Apple fanboys needs such cable 🤣
@@Direkarenz Yeah, I know that some people will use it. The question is and maybe you have tested this or someone else has. Does this actually give you any tangible benefit Vs a regular thunderbolt 4 cable in reality.
First off, the scans are super cool. And I loved seeing them. Good job.
But as other people have said, I am a bit annoyed by the misrepresentation of what these cables are. Showing an Apple TB cable and comparing it to a USBC cable and saying, "wow look how good Apple's engineering is, it's obviously worth the price" is like comparing a Tesla roadster to a bicycle. Is the Tesla faster than the bike? Yes. But if you just need to get from A to B, you could buy a Prius, be a lot happier, and safe a ton of money. And the Prius might actually be more durable.
PS: Apple's strain relief has always been sub-par in my experience. The decision to have the cable run straight into the end without a flexible relief collar is done purely for aesthetics as far as I can tell, and is an inferior design. So in this case, I do believe you could get a more durable cable that performs just as well for less than half the price.
This probably comes off as me just being an Apple hater, and full disclosure I do dislike them, but my biggest concern is that a video like this adds to the public perception that "Apple is just better" which is not true and is harmful to consumers who could get a lot better deal and have more ownership over their own devices by choosing an alternative.
Very well said! I totally agree. This whole video just came off like one big Apple infomercial. I am really disappointed by Adam and Tested for this video.
Very well said indeed!
My old usb-c to my samsung phone was great, full speed and all good but it broke when i dropped my phone and the cable maanged to take up all the force from the fall and the weight of the phone.
That cable was 3.5 years old and was working 100% still.. until i dropped the phone by accident..
A replacement usb-c did cost me 4$ i think.. and i got the same specs and quality..
We all do our own choice in life and if people buy the "usb-c" cable made by apple that have the "Apple tax" that make them cost a fortune its their choice and they have to deal with the bad sides of their choice.
Its not hard to change brand or manufacturer of a phone or tab so its no big deal and change if you want.
I like adam but he did make it look like the cheaper cables would break after a month.. its not really true to reality..
This would have been fairer and more interesting if you had compared the Apple thunderbolt cable to the USB C cable that Apple supplies in the box with devices for charging. And also if you had mentioned that they serve different purposes. That one also only runs USB 2 speeds.
Kinda funny that Apple markets its phones as professional quality tools, but their transfer speeds are a throwback from 2002.
Oh my god. So friend of mine, told be that this praised new iPhone type-C cable only is capable of usb 2 speed. Now, I guess, I've learned that it's meant to be used only as charge cable and not data cable? You bought our overpriced phone, now go buy our overpriced cable.
remember this whole episode is an ad sponsored by Apple. They hired Adam to make this video so people wont rage at apple for a $130 USB-C cable. Or at least make apple users feel like they are getting a super great thing. This is all marketing.
@@Brismo7 I thought that it's may be apple ad from the begining of the video.
@@Darkdaej high speed needs micro transactions
Nice 20min Ad you got there
Funny enough the actual sponsor aspect was great, the CT scan was awesome to see. The alleged undisclosed apple sponsor was what ruined the video.
You'd think people capable of designing tech like this would know the difference between a USB2 cable and a Thunderbolt cable.
They do know the difference. But they are pretending like it's the same thing to advertise a product without saying it.
Oh they know. They just didn't think anyone else would. This is shady AF and super disingenuous, even for a 20 minute Apple ad.
Apple lost the battle to keep their proprietary lightning cable. So they make their USB-C ports not work as efficiently unless you're using their proprietary USB-C cable.
Finally someone with a functioning brain!
That's not it, USB-C and Thunderbolt are different, most Thunderbolt cables don't cost a days wages though, so this seems like a stealth add since the only Thunderbolt shown was Apples.@@TheValorious
You can't compare a Thunderbolt USB-C cable to a regular USB-C cable. They both have a USB-C connector, but they have different uses
Agreed they have different specifications so why are they comparing them
I was expecting that new EU USBC cable they released. Thunderbolt was designed to be powering like monitors and external hard drives at fast speeds. It definitely was not made to be a 'USB-C' cable, which is normally used for like phones and tablets. It's like taking a fiber connection and comparing it to gigbit. Yeah they both transfer data but one has a very narrow use and is why it costs so much more.
Sure you can. It is actually good to look at the vast range. Also you say "regular USB-C" like that is a real thing. This standard is the wild west.
@@AdamHarteyes, to most, an USB-C cable is just a cable for charging your phone. Thunderbolt cables are not your usual USB-C. They are for fast data transfers between devices that utilize Thunderbolt spec'ed cables that so happen to have the USB-C connector.
This video is just an commercial for overly priced Apple cable. You can get better Thunderbolt cables for much much cheaper then what apple is selling.
@@WillFuIto showcase the newest technology in cables... It's not a product review buddy.
To be fair to the AmazonBasics cable, they sell it as a USB-C cable, not a Thunderbolt 4 cable. Thunderbolt 3 and 4 use the same connector as USB-C, and have backwards compatibility with USB-C (using the same port but only requiring a few of the pins be present) but it is a different standard used for high speed data transfers between external drives/drive arrays and computers. It requires much more precise timing especially at 3+ foot lengths. I would love to see the difference between an Apple USB-C charging cable like they sell for a MacBook power cable and see how comparable it is to the AmazonBasics one. (And I 1000% agree with Adam's rant about USB-C cables being a dumpster fire of compatibility. Is that 3.1 Gen 1 or Gen 2? Does that have Alt-DP capability on this cable or not? Horrible lack of standards in naming on it.)
I think this is actually the USB2 Amazon USB C cable (asin B01GGKZ1VA). USB2 is 5 wire (power, ground, 3 data) while USB3 is 10 wire. This is clearly 5 wires in the CT scan.
This was my thought as well. I want to see the cheapest THUNDERBOLT 4 cable vs Apple's.
Been using Thunderbolt cables for YEARS in our office with Lenovo's and the Thunderbolt docks. Gen1 through to Gen4. Apple re-inventing the price I see. Lenovo cables are about AUD$50, and I'd argue they'd be as good (if not better) than the new kid on the USB-C block.
Paid content "This video is part of a sponsored series with Lumafield. "
Hidden in the video description
so remind me why it cant just be a grounded aluminum wrap to shield interference like everything else?
Wow I had no idea USB C cables had so many tech inside of them. Really interesting video.
Definitely feels like an ad for apple. Comparing a $130 thunderbolt cable to cheap basic charge cables or cheap data cables where the people using it don't care about massive transfer speeds seems so off. Comparing this cable to other premium yet cheaper cables should have been what's done here.
They should have at least included something more comparable considering they’re comparing a Thunderbolt / USB4 cable to effectively USB2 cables.
But at the same time, a LOT of people see the same connector and think they’re the same thing and that one is massively more expensive cause “it’s from Apple”
Just look at all the comments saying it being from Apple is the only reason it’s so expensive. People just don’t get it. And they have to understand USB-C is just a connector and the cables arent the same thing before they’ll understand more nuanced differences between more similar cables.
I mean it was exactly what the angry people of Twitter were doing, so some people clearly don’t even understand that much. This is for them if you will.
its sponsored.. so everything apple will be highly impressive in their eyes.
@@Sircivus they literally walked through the obvious differences. They didn’t say anything about Apple as a company or anything that’s not evident by the actual build of the cables. The worst they did was not include another Thunderbolt/usb4 cable to compare to.
@@Sircivus Dude, it's sponsored by Lumafield not Apple, you need to think about what you're saying.
Would have been nice to see a like cable comparison and actual transmission results. Instead we got a data cable vs a couple of charging cables and a cat scan.
Exactly, so people can know if the difference in transmission rates is worth the dollar. The whole video looks to me like an infomercial for Apple.
Exactly, these over excited old guys think we are all stupid.
Overpriced crap, but they get to say its worth overpaying. I wonder why, cough! 🤠
Because it's utter Apple fanboy nonsense.
The irony is macs don't even tell you transfer rate. It's so dumb and stripped down because apple thinks people are babies and goes out of their way to strip useful stuff.
Absolutely. It's good to know about all sorts of magic going on inside, but my primary concern is what it gives me as a customer.
Might as well have compared the thunderbolt4 cable to a 20 year old
Micro A. That’s how relevant the comparison of standards you guys did here. Sure, the CT of the cable was reaaaaaaally interesting and fun to see, but the way you guys advertised it from the get go was something like “buyer beware” expectancies to the public and was the one thing that wasn’t delivered here, I feel.
Exactly my feeling too. In no way does this explain WHY it should be $130 when you can get TB4 cables for $30. That would be a more interesting video.
@@dantower8268Exactly right
Also numerous plain false statements and omissions of obvious things. None of three know anything about USB or thunderbolt pinouts and signals.
It felt really deaf tone to me, the whole thing. They could have grabbed someone that knew a more about microelectronics from the Tested crew itself or someone from outside that knew more than those. I’m willing to give in that they might have thought by themselves that it would have been just plainly interesting to see without a second thought and decided to just roll with it off the cuff but it feels disappointing to me. Much like the cruiser Princess something or another he made a series of videos awhile ago. Sure, there are several advanced engineering problems that were solved in interesting ways but he would scratch the itch a lot more if he saw how something that people can’t get a view at all being made such as bulk cargo and container transporting ships first. He would probably have given a wider berth of access too compared to a passenger cruiser too. In Japan at least, Mitsubishi Heavy and Imabari often give turns to their shipbuilding facilities to both local schoolchildren and international visitors if asked with enough advance.
They wen't for the click-baity "Apple blah blah blah".
But the point was: not all USB-C cables are the same.
Thunderbolt 4 is always gonna be more expensive that 480mbps, which is more expensive that charge-only.
it'd had been nice to make it clearer from the start. But well, the scans are cool
Thank God I don't own a device that NEEDS a $130 cable
As others have said Thunderbolt is not usb and comparing a usbc cable vs a thunderbolt cable isn't apples to apples .
Compare apples 120$ cable to a 40$ cable mate intel certified thunderbolt 4 cable.
But this was not a review. It was only showing what an advanced cable looks like compared to a crappy on. And it nailed that premise
@@AdamHarteno. It compared a USB-C cable to a Thunderbolt 4 cable. Same connector but otherwise completely different purpose. Comparing an Apple TB4 cable vs a cheaper TB4 cable would be a fair comparison. This was not.
If you compared apple's to apple's, then you would only be comparing the same expensive cabling with itself.
@@thomassynths what good is a comparison of two cables that are designed for two completely different purposes? Of course Apple’s cable is going to have more complexity.
@@AdamHarte Except the title was "Why is Apple's USB-C cable $130?" Then they proceeded to "prove" that it was worth so much because it was soooo much better than these other cheap cables that also have a USB-C connector. They didn't prove that the Apple cable was worth $130 so much as illustrating why a TB4 cable costs more than a USB cable. They didn't compare it to a cheaper TB4 cable to see why Apple's might be worth the premium. They compared it to not even mainstream USB-C cables, but one spec'd for USB 2 data and one for USB 2 charging only. It's not a fair comparison and doesn't come anywhere near answering the question in the video title.
A more honest title would be, "Why are some USB-C cables more expensive than others?" Then they could point out that the Apple cable is TB4, which has a USB-C connector, but is much more complex under the hood, etc. As it stands, they just called them all USB-C cables and suggested that Apple's was worth the asking price because it was so much better than the worst crap they could find. They could have at least thrown in a low-end TB4 cable or higher-end USB cable to show a wider range of difference.
Based on the comparison I can't wait until these guys do a non destructive comparison of a 9600 baud phone land line to USB 2.1 micro USB A cable
is this a advert for Apple? Justifying a $130 thunderbolt cable? Your better then this Adam
Lolz
56k phone modem data transfers vs 801N wireless.
Looking inside the Thunderbolt4 cable was fascinating, but I'm upset that you compared it to a bunch of USB2 cables
Do you need a special case to hold the cable in or else it breaks if you drop it on the floor?
special cable case sold separately, only $99.99
No, but your Apple computer breaks if you use a different cord.
I would have loved if this was labelled more along the lines of Thunderbolt 4 vs USB-C phone charging cables. Giving apple credit for a standard that intel patented I feel is disingenuous. I LOVE engineers talking about this and the complexities needed for such a high spec cable. This was just released on the tail of apple going to the USB-C port on the phone, but not implementing anything besides USB 2.0
And they had to be forced by the EU... they didn't even want to stop locking their users in...
I wish I had more upvotes to give.
Not to mention they're just comparing the cheapest cables against the overpriced cable. The mid-priced cables would be unfavorable towards the Apple propaganda because they're not far off in terms of quality but a much more reasonable price considering that they're made by machines with less than $5 of parts.
Apple contributed nearly a quarter of the engineers in the certification process, so I don't think it's fair to call it disingenuous. Also, a theory about Apple only using USB 2.0 speeds on the non-pro versions is that the A16 SoC was not designed with USB-C in mind and is not reliably compatible with higher speeds. Chances are the next generation of phones will all be full speed.
The iPhone 15 pro has usb 3.0 10Gbps, not sure where you got the idea that they "didn't implement" it. The base iphone got last years "pro" chip which only supports usb 2.0.
It should be pointed out that the Apple cable is Thunderbolt while the other three are just USB.
Thunderbolt can move up to 40Gbit/s. In order to get those speeds over any significant distance, you need active transceivers in the connectors. Which you can see on the Apple cable.
The other three cables are USB 2.0 cables, despite using a type-C connector. Notice that they only have five conductors - power, ground, one differential twisted-pair and a sense line (used as a part of power negotiation). These can be much simpler because they have a maximum data rate of 480 Mbit/s - nearly 100x slower than the Thunderbolt cable.
It would have been interesting to see what a third-party Thunderbolt cable looks like, compared to the Apple cable. Also to compare a short (
So what you saying is, USB-C is backwards compatable with USB2.0 on the hadware level and provides only so much speed when hardware is sending USB-C speed ranges? So I can rewire my 2011 iMac USB2.0 ports to USB-C just as simple as that?
So what you're saying is, 3 smart guys look at cool CT scans, and keep saying 'impressive', fascinating', and 'amazing', mumble about the huge price difference, without realizing these are different types of cables?
@@crisgriffin3042 - "So what you saying is, USB-C is backwards compatable with USB2.0 on the hadware level and provides only so much speed when hardware is sending USB-C speed ranges?"
Not quite - USB 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 4, etc. are data transfer standards/protocols - they set the limits and expectations for transfer speeds and included features.
USB Type-A, Type-B, Type-C (and all the Mini/Micro variants of A and B, and that one that only printers use) are _connector_ types. There is no such thing as "USB-C speeds", because USB-C is a connector, not a transfer protocol. A USB-C connector that supports USB 4 could have speeds upwards of 40Gbps, but a USB-C connector that supports only the 2.0 standard will be limited to 480Mbps. Similarly, a USB-A connector could have speeds of up to 10 Gbps, because there are Type-A connectors that support the USB 3.2 standard (you may recognize the Type-A ports supporting USB 3.x as the ones that are blue).
Which was kind of the OP's point here - the video is comparing multiple cables with USB Type-C _connectors,_ but one of them is a Thunderbolt cable (comparable to USB 4 standards) while the others are all basic USB 2.0 cables that happen to also be using Type-C connectors.
This is also the root of the issue Adam started ranting about, though I'm not sure if he knows exactly _why_ it's an issue - cables that share connectors but support different protocols is very annoying. It's why you can connect your phone to a wall charger and have it charge very slowly, but swap out what looks like the same cable but now it can fast-charge with the power-delivery standard. The first cable is using the same connector type, but doesn't implement the PD feature, so it operates at default USB 2.0 charging specs. If the USB people had mandated that all USB-C cables are fully 3.0 compliant, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but they didn't do that likely because then cables would be much more expensive, even if you only need it for basic USB 2.0 transfer speeds.
edit: so to answer your question - you could rewire your 2011 iMac's USB 2.0 ports which presumably use Type-A connectors to instead use Type-C connectors, sure, but it will still be a 2.0 port, it won't suddenly get faster, because Type-C is a connector, and USB 2.0 is a protocol. You could also just use a Type-C to Type-A adapter dongle thing for the same effect.
@@crisgriffin3042 Google Benson Leung USB-C
@@KingBobXVI Thank You! This was the clarification which, combined with the video, made me much smarter than I was.
There's a lot to be said for having a "charging only" cable. If you're plugging into a public USB port, it's nice to be certain that no malicious payload can be transferred to your device.
I agree. I want to be able to transfer data when it's between two devices I own, but if I'm plugging in to charge up at the airport I want to know I'm only getting electricity into my battery and no data transfer. But, along the lines of what Adam said in the video, it would be nice if cables meant for charging only indicated that and cables meant for data indicated that. It would be nice to tell the difference easily at a glance when we're packing multiple cables.
@@JoshuaMichail0 Totally agree. The Thunderbolt cable does at least have a Thunderbolt symbol on it. It would be great to have a standardised colour/symbol scheme to indicate the capabilities of a cable. There is some level of colour coding on ports, though it's certainly not universal. USB 3 ports are generally blue, and fast charging ports are generally red. I'd quite like if charging only cables had red connectors, with the number of amps they carry printed on the plug. However, manufacturers lie, so you'd probably still need to test cables to verify they match their advertised capabilities.
There are dongles for USB-A that only allow charging so you don't have to carry an extra cable, I assume there must be similar dongles for other cables
The downside is that only having the charging wires will limit you to 500mA@5V, because everything else has to be negotiated using the data pins.
The other danger is when you have a rental car and you don't want data transferred to it. I saw a UA-cam video about how customer contacts were left in a rental car's entertainment system.
Those ct scans are unbelievable!!! Thanks for sharing the links.
It would be more interesting to see a cheaper thunderbolt cable compared to the apple thunderbolt cable. The only similarity between these cables is the connector. The cheaper ones are not "imitations" as you say.
Yep, they are being sold to idiots who need to replace a crapple cable that was lost/damaged/stolen and are desperate to just CHARGE their $1k soon to be brick.
a cheaper thunderbolt cable will perform identical to the apple cable since thunderbolt is a protected name and can only be used when the cable meets spec in exhaustive tests.
What a well done and thorough 20 minute ad.
Post myth busters this is how he makes money. But highly disingenuous.
Yea no kidding.. Lost all respect for Adam after watching this...
@@keithfucious7067It took this long?
At least there is something to be learned here. Many people wouldn't have realized how different the interior of the cables can be. There's no doubt that the apple cable is actually well engineered, while still being too expensive.
If you look closely, you can see the engineering required to squeeze in $125 worth of Apple PR marketing in under the BGA.....
To be fair, Thunderbolt is entirely different than just a USB-C cable used for charging. Would have been great to see competing Thunderbolt cables, as I'm sure there are some at lower price points. Or just compare to Apple's normal USB-C cable which I'm sure is still expensive. Using a fancy Thunderbolt cable for a USB-C only application will not use the benefit of all that fancy signal processing in Thunderbolt.
I bought a 11$ thunderbolt 4 cable on eBay. I tested it to 40gbps and 100W. It would be much more interesting to test against the Apple one.
here´s a dumb fanboy justifying his beloved company
USB 4 is based on thunderbolt
@@Gusfer-ze8lw I wouldn't agree with that. As John stated, a Thunderbolt 4 (TB4) cable, which uses the USB-C connector, is vastly different from a generic USB-C cable. TB4 cables come in active and non-active connections, with 40Gbps data and 120w of power (unsure of exact power specs). A USB-C cable could be rated at USB 2, USB 3, USB-3.1, Thunderbolt 3, or Thunderbolt 4, or could just provide power as some of those cables did. Both of Apples cables are the active Thunderbolt 4 spec, meaning it has those chips, but there exist those cheaper Thunderbolt 4 cables that if below 1m (according to the TB4 spec), do not need to be active to achieve those speeds and transmit that power. None of those cables tested were the cheaper TB4 cables, which theoretically do the same thing.
@@samw61 Yeah exactly, thanks for explaining it. I'm no fanboy for Apple, don't use their products. Just would have been nice to see a comparison between Apple and more reasonable cost ones of the same type. If anything, it would probably show Apple's isn't worth it.
Advert for Apple disguised as product review
Don't think I've ever seen a tested video with 46% dislike ratio (so glad there are extensions to bring that back). Not surprised either. this felt...not dishonest, but not what we'd expect from Adam.
It feels pretty dishonest to me. If you're going to cover technical details, you'd better be pretty straight about it.
I think the dislike ratio is even higher than that since UA-cam turned off the dislike api and the addon can only track its own users. But I might be wrong about that.
Yeah it's because the viewers are confused about the message of the video. They have tried to read their own apple bias into the video 😂
@@Johnny-Joseph It's because they are comparing two completely different products, and presenting it as a fair comparison. It's like comparing a high speed HDMI cable with a DVI, and pretending they are the same product.
No, definitely dishonest.
As a Signal Integrity engineer, this is such a neat video but there is so much more to the story!
Also all the amazing technology inside the Apple cable that was talked about is run of the mill technology and is no reason for the cable to be so expensive- that’s just corporate/Apple greed
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. A thunderbolt cable that is not made by apple is going to have the same exact stuff. Lol
Actually, the Apple cable added DRM, so it requires Apple's branded cable to work on Apple's products
as also an electrical engineer, this price point is ridiculous
…which would be why non-Apple TB4-certified cables go for a quarter of the price (and are often certified for higher power transfer)
@@bazzeil No it does not. You really should go to the bathroom more often, your stuff if going the other way around.
Love the detailed CT Scan of the plugs and cables. But they are comparing completely different types of cables to justify a 130$ cable that probably has a production cost of a few bucks instead of cents. I will still always prefer a normal 3$ cable for charging and transferring some random data...
On top of this, thunderbolt bought out of apple will most certainly be cheaper but still have same requirements. Shame on you autors. It is a good approach from the market to standardize, and thunderbolt is product of that as is 3.0 USB. Apple always obstructed these agreements to get more money or control on their products, and now they play better because they produce this. Joke.
@@jestestuman This is so true.
Had you watched the video, you'd learn that the $3 doesn't have the ability to transfer data
@@plotikaiyou're kidding yourself and buying the snake oil salesmen at play here -- did you happen to catch the explicitly defined reason why it costs 130? I sure didn't. The visuals and talking everything around this point, everything but the point itself, is the giveaway -- a sales pitch disguised in a 'friendly way'.
Just get a decent cable if you're concerned. you don't have to spend 130 to get the name as always.
Then your user experience doesn’t match a 130€ Cable. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t prep who are using this daily
I don't care how much I like and respect Adam. There's no way they should be charging $130 for something that could be priced at $30 (or $40). That's just overpriced "brand" markup. Anyone who buys one of these is only focused on either "look at me and what I can afford"
Any chance that last cable was marketed as a charge-only cable? There are plenty of times you specifically want a charging cable that won't allow data transfer. Like any time you're plugging into someone else's USB port.
He says just that at 18:17
That charge only comment they made really shows how little research was put into this video. The USB standard only requires 4 pins to transfer data.
They are comparing Thunderbolt 4 to USB 2.0. It's embarrassing.
usb 2 spec
@@vpstateofmind No. The only thing he said, that cables like this exist. The user to whom you are answering seems like asked about auction from where they buy it, as they prolly bought it from place where it's pointed in title and description that it's charging only.
This guy still was smarter in the room and knew at least some things, but IDK if they forbid them to talk about that, or he just said "whatever, I won't explain why someone would want that, because It's not just because it's cheaper".
It's the longest apple cable commercial I've seen. 😂
so fake!!
😂😂
What I find strange is that there was no discussion (maybe I missed it? I was listening in the background) of the actual results of all the extra complexity, just observation that it was there.
@@jeremykothe2847 or in other words no intrinsic value to this video other than some colourful images yay
@@jeremykothe2847 I have the same question. Strangely, they don't talk about that.
Thunderbolt and USB-C are fundamentally different communication standards. Other than the USB-C connector, they aren't even really comparable.
They are comparable, because they just compared them. I think you mean they are functionally different. Yes, ok, and what? This isn't a sales pitch, it's just a look into what's inside different cables. The presenters don't recommend a specific cable, but rather discuss what functions the different price levels provider. Don't be so triggered.
@chiphill4856 he's saying that instead of comparing an Apple Thunderbolt 4 to a generic USB-C, they should have compared an Apple Thunderbolt 4 to a generic Thunderbolt 4. You'll find all the same processors and chips that they are gushing about inside a generic Thunderbolt 4.
@@chiphill4856 This literally was a sales pitch. They're talking about how beautiful the wiring is and saying maybe the amazon cable wouldn't charge and maybe it'd hurt your data, maybe it wouldn't charge as fast. All those things are utterly false. And they would know better.
@@IdiomatickYou're completely correct. It's awesome that people are naturally coming together to tell the truth to those who might be manipulated into misleading choices for their families.
@@chiphill4856you have to be willfully ignorant to believe that no one in that room understands how media doesn't have to be explicitly a sales pitch to be effective as advertising. I just hope Adam and especially Zach got some additional revenue from Apple. Because this feels like work.
Always been allergic to fruit. Saved me 10s of thousands over the years.
🎯
As interesting as the scans are, it'd been nice to see a comparison to another Thunderbolt 4 cable.
Agree. You can get an active thunderbolt 4 braided cable with the same transfer speeds and all the same bells and whistles for under $50. This is like comparing a HDMI cable to a DVI.
In addition to what everyone else was saying about how these cables aren't even intended for the same purpose, when your cat chews through yet another cable that you probably only use for charging, you'll be happy you spent $10 instead of $130. All these complaints about how a $3 cable will fail much more quickly, without mentioning that you can buy 43 of them for the same price.
I've had so many Apple cables fail, I'm convinced the lack of strain relief is intentionally bad. They always, always, fail the same way.
Bingo, if my kid will destroy it in 6 months I'd rather buy two $12 cables a year than two $120 TB4 cables even if we did transfer data on the cable, I'll take a 5 minute vs 1 minute data transfer if the price difference is over $100. These guys seem to be drinking deeply of the Apple Kool-aid.
Agree - though e-waste is a huge issue, so I don't think we should reward companies that make crappy products that are designed to break easily.
These cables aren't meant for the average consumer anyway. They benefit professional environments where transfer speeds can mean the difference in getting a project out on time or late. These also work for display purposes as well so sometimes they may be a permanent fixture between the computer and monitor. The areas these cables are largely going to be used aren't going to have kids or animals wreaking havoc all over the place. For everyone else, including me, the $10-20 cables are just fine to suit our needs.
@@SaltNBattery It's not intentionally bad per se. It's that they refuse to change the design for aesthetic reasons. Yes they fray and fail worse than anything on the market.
This has been going on since long before Jobs died. It goes back to Jony Ives, blame his "now on Sprockets" ass.
How much did Apple pay that guy to come on? He scoffed at even using the cheap cables for power and was like "not necessarily" when Adam said they won't damage your device.
I've used official Apple products and $130 still breaks after six weeks in your car during the winter. Better to spend $10 at the gas station.
@@shawnmayo8210i don’t think you can blame them for you using a device out of its specifications, dipping in and out of freezing every day for months
@@sirensongss And I think you missed the point of his post.
@@sirensongss the apple product is the one that will break. i have cables that are over a decade old and still working perfectly despite heavy use. yet apple products break if you put them on a table wrong or forget to pray to their machine spirit and the omnissiah steve jobs, every time you use them. [40k joke, don't get panties in a twist over it]
Lol don't use thunderbolt cables to just charge your phone, but I get your point
When I think of expensive cables, I think of Monster cables in the 90s.
A lot of audio/visual/home theater tech people would say Monster cables are overpriced. Something like $100+ for 21 feet of cable.
I do some audio engineering as a hobby, so I bought three (guitar, bass, acoustic guitar optimized) cables with excess credit card points. They were more or less free with points so I splurged.
Monster cables are marketed as having superior sound quality, but I don't think they sound any different, especially with modern active (9 volt+) powered guitar pickups like the Fishman Fluence Modern producing a very flat signal already. But, Monster's robust construction and lifetime warranty alone seem to make them a good deal.
Cable construction quality might not matter in a home theater setup, but if you are touring doing gigs performing music, robust cable construction makes the difference between performing and not being able to perform.
As far as Apple, they make proprietary and you pay for proprietary.
In the audio engineering world, Apple's Firewire and now Thunderbolt is valued for its speed and low latency when recording audio signals.
Apple back in the 90s-00s was probably a better deal than PCs because their systems were more stable and avoided the blue screens of death Windows PCs often suffered. Additionally, if I were recording live and had a lot of things going in and out at once in real time, I would insist on Apple even today.
But for the prices Apple charges, along with the 5 year upgrade cycle typical of the tech industry these days, Apple does not seem worth it as much as they used to be. It is the same way with the "industry standard" digital audio workstation, Pro Tools.
Why did this change for some of us? Windows PCs became more stable. Power users like me could build desktops that were expensive at outset, maybe $3,000+, but would last 10 years across 2 or 3 OS versions. Apple Power Macs would cost much more than this for lesser specs but increased stability and speed.
Additionally, hobbyists were turning to open source software like Reaper that made Digidesign/Avid's Pro Tools running on Macs less relevant.
I wish I had Thunderbolt connections instead of USB 3+ because of decreased latency. But I am also recording one instrument at a time. Extensive instrument samples make up the rest, so lots of RAM, SSDs, and stable software/hardware that doesn't crash is required.
That said, with proper buffer/sample/bit rate settings, recording on a less expensive PC/Cubase/Cakewalk style system is a manageable solution for hobbyists with modest demands and expectations.
PC/Windows recording is certainly not as much of a struggle as trying to record on a Linux system where there is very little pro audio software being developed natively for the OS.
BTW there is a marking standard for the cables. The lightning bolt ending in an arrow is a thunderbolt certified cable, the usb logo is USB2.0 certified, the usb logo with SS (super speed) is USB3.0 certified. A generic lightning bolt is supposed to mean usb charging only. And no label indicates they’re too cheap to get certification. And SS USB logo plus a little 10 is the new usb 4.0 logo (10GB/s)
That's the idea, anyway. In practice mis-labeling is rife, because enforcing the trademark is impossible.
@@vylbird8014 Tbh most cables don't have any markings at all.
ss usb logo with 10 is not usb 4 logo. 10Gbps is usb 3.2 gen 2. usb 4 connectors will just say 40Gbps or 20Gbps with a cable graphic underlining it... at least if USB-IF's guidelines on logo usage is followed properly. now you mention 10GB/s, which is equal to 80Gbps (difference between bits and Bytes) is usb 4 v2.0 and is signified on the cable as 80Gbps with the cables power rating written below it (for example, 240W) with the same cable graphic underlining the entire text block.
I can hardly express my shock that a large UA-camr would actually misrepresent the facts of something in order to sell a product for a large company. It's never happened before!
Exactly
😅😅😅
hahaha I think my favourite is when he starts to argue that a cheap USB-c cable can short-circuit your hardware - because it's not over-engineered with smaller and more brittle solder-points.. Unbelievable.
What I gathered from his statement is 5% tint. Sauter increases the impedance of the ultra low voltage, being transmitted in the cable. Whereas the precious metal, gold and silver have a ultra low resistance to the low-voltage thus keeping the voltage, consistent with the amount of Solder and the type of metal used to connected to connections.
Yeah. It looked pretty pathetic.
What I would like to see is the apple thunderbolt 4 cable vs a cheaper $25 thunderbolt 4 cable. This was an interesting video but results were somewhat expected when you compare a cheap usbc charge only cable compared to a full thunderbolt 4 cable.
Only Apple makes 3m TB4 cables.
@@nnnnnn3647 Cable Matters has even one that’s 5 meters. And the 3 meter version costs less than half of apple‘s cable. Wait for a bit and you’ll get one for 20-25 bucks.
@@nnnnnn3647 maybe true but you can get TB4 "2m" for 18 USD. 140 USD for 1 meter longer is total rip off...
@@nnnnnn3647 Not true
well most people dont know there is an actual difference. I didnt know how different it was, its apple so I thought it was just another piece of shit thats overpriced like every iphone past the 5.
Ah no wonder they got some great talents up in here. That Apple paycheck must be good
This is like comparing a scalpel's blade edge to one from a hacksaw. They are both blade edges, but wildly different applications. One of these cables is for transmitting sensitive data at high speed over 2 meters. The other is for transmitting 5-9V DC. Very disappointing that a true comparison wasn't made. And the other two presenters DEFINITELY knew the differences between these two cables, but decided to take the Apple ad money over honesty.
Wow, I was wondering why a vid staring Adam had a whopping 50% downvote ratio. Then I read the comments, and downvoted it, too.
@@coredumperrorhow can you see downvotes?
You completely missed the point. It's a Lumafield ad using the incredible intricacy of the Apple Thunderbolt cable to demonstrate Lumafield's capability. They obviously discuss the differences in the intended use of the different cables, but you and a heck of a lot of other people were too busy being incredulous to correctly identify the purpose of the video.
Dude, one is a Thunderbolt 4 cable and the other is a USB-C cable...........TWO DIFFERENT CABLES that can not be compared.
@@jeremi96221There are plugins for various browsers that unhide them. The data is there, and UA-cam makes it public, they just don't put it on the actual page any more.
Well this is the same company that sells a computer stand for 1000$
Pro Display XDR stand ;) €1099
Or Apple MacPro Wheels (4x) €849!!
Or Apple Mac Pro Feet‑kit €349
Totally nuts!!
@@R2_D3Whole kilo of Aluminium...
@@ljubomirculibrk4097 1KG Aluminium €2,50 €100 fabrication, €996,50 Apple Tax
@@ljubomirculibrk4097 hey man.. aluminum aint cheap... oh wait.
@@Sircivusyou forgot the fact they have to pay life insurance on all the kids who jumped out of windows at their factory because even death is better than making iPhones in a slave camp....
Even though they use the same connector ends, Thunderbolt and USB-C are completely different methods for transferring data. If you were to test a Thunderbolt cable on a PC that only has USB-C, you will not see any performance increase, and all that cool circuitry will not be used.
Not quite-in theory you'll get fewer errors, but the speeds involved are such that you'll get fewer errors anyway.
USB4 is 40Gbs can only do 1 4k video. Thunderbolt 4 40Gbs 2 4k videos. That about the only difference
USB-C is simply a connector. USB 1-4 is the technology. It's easy to misunderstand and most people (including myself) somewhat erroneously use USB-C to mean USB 3 with a C connection.
@@Masta6801 you can send 10 4k videos over 40Gbps with compression. Most people probably don't even notice quality drop.
@@encycl07pedia- Im pretty sure thats exactly what it means, because USB-C comes with some standards and requirements. IIRC every fully featured USB-C cable supports at least USB 3.1, as well as ~25 watt for charging or so.
Is this an Apple ad?
I think it would've been more interesting to compare this to a comparable cable. It's like comparing a commuter car to a rally car because they have the same lug nut pattern. It's a standard to make things easier and cheaper to produce. If you're going to show off cables with different uses, let's see how Apple has progressed, by sharing images of the original 30pin and a (surprisingly sitll relevant) lightning cable.
Or at least show off a cable with an identical marketed rating and lower price.
So, make your own video with that as the subject.
@@trekster9269 Why would he? Apple gonna cough up the dough to sponsor it like they did for this video?
@@trekster9269 Congrats. You win the Ahole comment of the thread. Comes off very much as condensating Bravo 👏 👏 👏
Encouraging people to create is a bad thing? You must have grown up in a very oppressive house. That's sad.@@jpgcne
@trekster9269 ok. Ok.. sure thing. Your post was meant for "encouraging" ✅️ very constructive ( see. Can put my very constructive in same quotes if you choose) /RT
I was hoping to see more than just the scans of what's inside and maybe a comparison of lower cost thunderbolt cables to the higher cost ones to see just how they compare for data transfer/etc. While it's good to see that many are just for power, it would also be good to see how performance compares between different comparable cables.
Your talking minutes to hours with cheap vs expensive. There ya go. 😂
I get what you want them to explain but I understand they have to compromise to one topic, I think the video is more about the physical differences because that is something you couldn't find in any other video while comparing speeds is a very common video to find here in youtube.
Look at the specs and compare.
Totally agreed. At the end of the day, it is not how sophisticated the cable is that the users want, it is the performance as a cable for "charging and data transfer" that the users are interested in. The price of $130 is ridiculously high. Apple is aiming to making even more money from the USB-C cable than from the already expensive Lightning cable.
A more borning comparison, more informative yes but that doesn’t generate the views. People see “EXPENSIVE” Apple cable and wondered why. Thunderbolt cables have been around for a while but this one made headlines because Apple made it and priced it even higher.
Next do a CAT8 vs CAT3 cables to explain why CAT8 costs 10x the price. Also, make sure you pick up the most expensive CAT8 cable you can find with all the magic marketing pixie dust added in to make it closer to the comparison you did in this video. This really is bellow standards of what we've came to expect from @tested.
I'm not aware of data centers using only "Belden brand cable because everything else is just AOL dialup lol"
This comment is gold.
Hahaha😂😂😂
I bought a CT machine last week because I'm tired of buying suspicious cables.
The scans and deep dive is incredible, but, as many people have said, they're comparing two entirely different cables and saying "look they're different"... Groundbreaking stuff.
Not connected pins aren't necessarily an indicator of bad quality, the USB-C standard is open to a lot of configuration arrangements (which is why not all pins are always connected to a cable), the problem is how companies are advertising what they implement and then there's material, build and design quality itself, with price not necessarily being its indicator but rather a ball park of it, but it can range by a lot, like these Apple cables, no way they cost so much, Apple just charges whatever they can get away with.
Phone manufacturers: "No, YOU'RE supposed to be the one that has connectors on both sides in case the cable is reversed."
Cable manufacturers: "No, YOU!"
😆
@@fitybux4664 By spec, they both should. As long as one of them gets it right, everything should work fine. If neither of them gets it right, you are about to have a confusing day. Luckily I have only ever had both get it wrong once.
USB C is just the connector. We 're actually discussing usb 4 here.
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrrthunderbolt 4 is different from USB 4 standard. thunderbolt 4 is Intel's implementation that supercede USB 4, not all USB 4 follows thunderbolt 4 specification. however if you are just charging, the 2 standard are identical: 100 watt.
@@Madrrrrrrrrrrr Thunderbolt 4 and USB4 are different, though Thunderbolt 4 must support USB4, the converse is not true. USB4 and Thunderbolt 3 are largely the same, aside from Intel validation. The Amazon cable is a USB 2.0 cable.
With the way the video goes, one would think Apple invented the USB C cable. Why don’t they compare out of the box cables from other leading Android brands .
They scrapped the barrel on Amazon for the comparison
Because probably Apple is paying... it's a PR fix piece to make it seem as if they did anything when in fact they had to be forced by the EU.
I know right? It’s not even the same cable. These cables have hugely different use cases.
"Hi, today we're going to show a video on how a V8 is better than this 2-cylinder lawnmower engine, but we're gonna ignore the fact that one is supposed to drive a car really fast and the other is just supposed to mow your lawn! Wow, look at the difference!"
Actually, Apple did co-design and engineer the USB-C cable. A large chunk of the engineers for the standards group were from Apple. Apple was amongst the first adopters top - they got slatted for committing to USBC in laptops “too early”, before any PC laptop did.
android brands that come WITH your phone for free
This is recklessly misleading to those who don't understand the difference between thunderbolt 4 and a charging only type c cable. Wonder how much apple paid for this commercial>
It seems that a lot of misinformation in this video could have been clarified by looking up a wiring diagram for USB-C. I'd also have liked to see scans of USB-C 10Gbps cables, and lower priced thunderbolt 3/4 cables. The low-end ones just had power and usb 2.0 data (4 wires total). just-a-waffle
Agreed. If I remember correctly (never a ''given'), the USB Type C cable standard only requires a cable support a minimum of 3 Amps (current) and USB 2.0 data rates (480 Mbps). Such cables typically have a maximum length of 3~4m (10~13ft)? USB Type C cables that support higher current (up to 5A) and/or higher (USB 3.x) data transfer speeds (up to 4.8Gbps), will be thicker/stiffer (as 5A cables are thicker than 3A cables) and/or shorter, respectively (since longer cables are more susceptible to external EMI/RF interference and therefore are less likely to achieve the specified highest data speeds - maximum length limited to just 1m (3ft) in some cases). But ALL "certified" USB-Type C cables must support data transfer - at least at the slower USB 2.0 speeds. The main advantage of a USB Type C cable that only supports the slower USB 2.0 data rates is that it is cheaper and can be made much longer than a USB-C cable designed for higher data rates (all else being equal). If all you want to do is charge your phone, then those longer, cheaper cables are the obvious choice. Which is why they are often explicitly marketed as USB-C "charger" cables.
These are great scans and really cool to see how this is but it is like comparing a cat6 ethernet cable with the old 3 wire phone cable. Yes you can "get" a connection with that old 3 wire phone cable but it can't be compared to that cat6 cable and everything they have done to improve the cable (twisting of the cables is a very important aspect of these cables)
At the end of the day, It is another comparison of "look how great apple is to justify the cost by showing it next to something that is obviously lower specs" They should have added in some mid level cables at least but probably couldn't find any that wouldn't put apple to shame
I think it would have been more interesting to compare Thunderbolt cables vs other thunderbolt cables, TB4 spec is different to USB C spec which is actually a connector not a spec.
TB4 vs other TB4/USB3/4 specs would be the most telling.
This review is RUBBISH. I honestly thought the man knew better. Now I know.
There already are passive TB4 cables as cheap as $10! Wish to see the speed difference between them and the Apple cables.
@@frostilver Its not a speed difference actually, there is a latency difference, that is where the issue occurs, many Musicians and Audio people use Thunderbolt because of the cut down Latency which is important for something like Guitar recording where plucking the string and hearing can be disorienting and screws up the measure of your playing. Whether the cable is active or passive as long as it is rated for a Particular speed you are good to go, the difference is due to signal dropoff that a passive cable will always have a maximum shorter length
Very educational! Thank you
So aside from being an Apple ad, where is the testing comparing the REAL WORLD performance between cables?
They left that out cuz that would be a self report on how much of a scam 130$ for a cable is
note when he says the cable acts as a receiver and transmitter antenna
I think you will find that one of these cables can charge high power devices and the other cant. Simple as that. USBC fast charging is not possible over basic usb-c cables like the one shown, at least not for fast charging devices. For example my digital camera or my laptop cannot charge with the basic cables, only thunderbolt.
The question for me, is, does the expensive apple cable last as long as a dirt cheap usb-c cable? Or does it have intermittent connection after mild use just like every apple brand lightning/iphone/ipod cable that has ever been produced.
@@russellc.2261 you can buy 3 meter long USB-C cables that can charge 100 watt from reputable brands for like 15 bucks, what are you talking about????
@@russellc.2261 That's not quite right. There are many standards for fast charging over USB-C, most of which are not Thunderbolt, and do not require Thunderbolt cables. It would be a mistake to buy Thunderbolt cables for devices that don't support Thunderbolt.
For example USB PD is a pretty common standard. The most cheap-ass USB-C cables won't support fast charging, and you can have problems with garbage from sketchy randomly-generated Chinese brands on Amazon. But I don't have any issues with my $10-15 USB PD 100w cables from semi-reputable brands, even charging my 16" Macbook Pro which uses the full 100w (when plugged to a good quality 100w USD PD charger).
Where you get into trouble is there's so many god damn different standards, like: USB PD, Qualcomm Quick Charge, Samsung Fast Charge, etc. etc.; you have to make sure your device, cable and charger all support the same standard.
The differentiating feature of Thunderbolt is NOT AT ALL charging speed, it's the higher rate of data transfer which enables stuff like plugging multiple high resolution monitors into a single Thunderbolt 4 port. With a cheap Thunderbolt 4 cable it might work ok if the cable is short and you don't push it but you might run into issues when you try to use the full data transfer capacity, like if you try using a Thunderbolt dock with multiple monitors, an ethernet cable, a USB hard drive, etc. all plugged in at the same time.
The reason this cable is super expensive is that it's difficult to maintain the signal quality required for 40Gbps data transfer over longer distances. Thunderbolt 4 cables longer than 1m are pretty rare.
Buying a cable like this just for charging would be a huge waste of money.
The 3 unshielded conductors are VCON (which is the initial voltage for power up), CC (charge control) which is used to negotiate USB 2.0/3.0 power charging, and the SBU (Side Band Use) which is used to signal other modes (Such as signaling support for USB, DisplayPort, etc). These are single conductor signals. VCON and CC are interchangeable which actually negotiates the other pins as the cable can be flipped.
All the other data lines are in twisted pairs, which a negative and positive balanced signal pair twisted around each other to cancel the electro-magnetic fields. This ensures that any interference is equal on both lines and thus can be used to "negate" the noise from the signal. In the line are 4 x Super Speed Thunderbolt pair (2 x TX pair, 2 x RX pair), and the differential pair (Which is pretty much your USB data lines).
Each of the individual conductors are surrounded by their own ground shield(which helps mitigate cable crosstalk). Apple also uses silver plated copper for both the data conductors and the shields. The silver plated helps reduce skin effect on high speed transmission lines, this reduces the eddy currents formed inside the conductors slightly increasing the lines impedance to current changes. These are pretty standard in high speed data transmission cables operating at over 1GHz speeds and necessary at 10GHz or more. You will find this in Category 6 and 7 data cables. That’s the measurement of the speed in which the maximum voltage flips can occur (high/low state). Another thing they didn’t mention is that the trace’s resistance need to be a known value as transmission cables “reflect” signals at the end (there is essentially ringing at the frequency harmonics that need to be cancelled out). On thunderbolt 4 this is all done in the cable connector, not in the end device. This “smart cable” design also allows the same port to be used by USB-C as the Thunderbolt 4 cable offloads some of the current differences between the two formats (almost like a SFP module does in multi-gigabit networking).
Then in the center is power and ground, and multiple conductors are used because of these lines can deliver up to 100 watts at 5 volts.
Now of course the able cables cost a lot more as they have apple naming, certification, warranty (and of course use apples proprietary silicon which is more expensive as they ensure people don't steal the specific design and they have exclusive patent/intellectual property rights on it all). There are many non-apple Thunderbolt 4 cables that meet or exceed the specs of this cable, and there are also a lot of really bad cheap cables that barely pass the specs and may have problems reaching full speed/wattage; or cause more retransitions of data which will not really be visible to the end user but cause slight performance bottlenecks when pushed to the extreme as the system just has to work a little more because of a component on the PCI bus is slightly underperforming others.
Feels like the Tested team missed the mark on this one. I don't doubt Adam's excitement as these scans are certainly cool, but you are comparing apples and oranges here. The Apple Thunderbolt 4 cable and the generic USB-C one you had have different use cases. Would have been a better comparison to find a cable that also claims to be Thunderbolt 4 and can do the same as what Apple's can and try to justify the high cost.
Unless this was just supposed to be an advertisement for Apple, then perhaps the video should have been clearly stated to be sponsored, as that's what this seems to be.
That's like saying you'd be annoyed if they compared a 1998 Ford focus engine with a 2023 Boeing fighter engine. It's to show how advanced the cables are compared to older and less capable products. It IS comparing apples and oranges. That's the point...
@@Johnny-Josephyes, that's what's happening here except they're pretending that the engines are not for two totally different use cases. They both make things move but they're not the same thing. Thunderbolt uses the same shaped connector but it's not a USB lead.
@@Johnny-Joseph The premise of the video is "Why Is Apple's USB-C Cable $130?" and they didn't prove that. There are $30 cables with just as much technology in it as Apples overpriced garbage.
Apple are the kings of price gouging.
The CT scan is more interesting than the ridiculously priced cable itself.
the rest is just advertising.
The price is completely unrelated because a thunderbolt cable is meant for completely different use. If someone watched this and thought they had to buy this cable to charge their iPhone properly.... They just happen to use the same socket for convenience. It's the greatest issue with USB-C
yeah.. XD
this is all advertising....this is ginzu, shamwow & old timey elixir territory...
cat6 brings the internet to your house, through your office etc..
this is the same price as a whole roll box of that cable...........multi GB Lan for 300ft /run.....
transmits ultra high speed data across server farms and other data facilities etc.
@@kazzxtrismus nope, Ethernet doesn't do 40 to 80 Gbps.... It does 10....
I've seen a couple of sites reviewing this from the same perspectives, and comparing to cheap incomparable cables. Starting to think this is a paid campaign by Apple, because they never seem to compare to other cables that actually make the same bandwidth and specification claims. Nobody has been able to show why they're $130, they're just showing why they aren't $12.
As a radiologist who reads CT scans every day, I have to say I find Lumafield's application of CT technology absolutely fascinating. I wish we could achieve this level of resolution in our human patients, but the amount of radiation required for this level of detail would probably vaporize our patients.
However, that kind of resolution could provide invaluable scientific data from post-mortem examination. Even better, stored for future researchers. A big enough data repository could lead to more sensitive and cheaper (maybe AI-assisted) diagnostic procedures requiring less harmful scan as input.
This is the funniest thing I read all day. Literally laughed out loud. Thank you!
I can relate.. I still can't think straight after my last CT scan......🤪
OR you could create some HULKS.
Does this radiation fry the electronics?
Adam, I am a BIG fan of yours but this might be the worst comparison I've ever seen on youtube. Your friend who is an Apple user obviously has a bias. Take an apple $130 lightning cable and an off brand lightning cable comparison and the average user would never see a difference. Now that Europe has barred any products that don't have USB-C Apple has "given in" to the rest of the world. Apple was the first but they are now followers in the industry. Still Love your videos and knowledge that I've learened so much from. Thank you for all your knowledge you share!
I'd like to see a follow up video if possible comparing different Thunderbolt 4 cables at different price points and from other OEMs. Usb 2 spec is from the year 2000 whereas Thunderbolt 4 is from 2021.
Yeah, it's a pretty bad faith move to compare cables designed using standards made 20 years apart to one another.
yeah sorry, apple prices are stupid. thats about it. cables charge ya phone, or move data. it works. its just a brand logo. it moves data slightly faster...for 100's of pounds. im happy just copying the file and waiting 4 mins.
Wrong, Thunderbolt is about 10x faster than USB 3. They use the same connector, but Thunderbolt is not the same thing as USB.
Yeah no. It’s not just about transfer speed. TB4 can run a 4k60 display, 100w of power, gigabit Ethernet, as well as a USB/TB hub at the same time through a single cable. Try to do that with a Poundland USB2 cable. I dare you.
Also, some of us (usually information security professionals, though it should be basically everyone) actually intentionally buy "charge only" USB cables because they're safe to use in public charging locations.
Don't stick your data cable into unknown ports, folks. Practice safe sockets
I was thinking the same thing. What is all the processing for??? These guys really don't know. They are assuming and not really testing it. Until I did, I would not use it.
this. I've stolen so much info from people this way
What??! They explain what it is all for... It's the PCIe connections etc...
@@ThePaulSIN
I've heard this a few times and I'm really wondering why is this the case? What happens if it's not a charge only cable? Can't you transfer data with a charge only cable as well?
this conspiracy is on the same level as edibles as a treats on Halloween
Id be interested in seeing a standard Apple USB C compared to Anker or JSAux USB C.
Lots of reasons to have a power-only cable, like plugging in at the airport or any public place to charge your device. And not have to carry your own block but still be safe.
Most folks don't know the cable they have is not only a charger but a data cable... good point.
Tested, love your stuff and love these videos that "branch" from your typical output and look at new/different technologies. I also thoroughly enjoyed this video. That being said, I can't help but feel that this video was disingenuous and felt like an ad for Apple. USB-C and thunderbolt share connectors so that they can be used intraoperatively for most basic features, but they are fundamentally different standards. The obvious one being that Thunderbolt 4 is literally double the transfer speed of the latest USB-C cables, 40Gbps vs 20Gbps. Second, while it was mentioned, I thought it could have been expanded on that Thunderbolt 4 achieves this, and necessitates the higher signal quality, because it is talking directly with the CPU over PCI-E rather than a USB or other controller on the motherboard and that difference in standards is the entire reason for the increased complexity of the Thunderbolt 4 cable.
Given these factors, Thunderbolt 4 cables are generally more expensive than USB-C cables. On a quick Amazon search, USB-C cables tend to be $10-$30 while Thunderbolt 4 cables seem to range $20-$50. Apple cables are amazing quality and engineering, but justifying the cost (and that's what the video and it's title implies) as anything other than an "Apple tax" when I didn't see another Thunderbolt 4 cable >$65 (about half the price of Apple's) doesn't feel honest. If this was done in an "apples to apples" comparison and showed vs another Thunderbolt cable, I would have agreed with the premise more, but comparing a Thunderbolt 4 cable to a USB-C and titling the video around Apple's pricing feels like a bait and switch.
USB4 can do 40Gbps (20 per lane) too, even 80Gbps (40 per lane).
@@ConnorDugandzic I'm not sure how that is relevant, as my comment was more focused on USB-C (the connector) and how they didn't properly differentiate the speed standards.
If you want to be pedantic, yes, USB4 can do 40Gbps. That being said, 95%+ USB/USB-C cables on the market are USB 3.2 or lower. USB standards are confusing as they keep changing the naming scheme and even the names retroactively, but looking at the first several lines of the USB4 Wikipedia article, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4 , USB4 is, essentially, another name for the Thunderbolt 4 standard.
Edit: Also worth noting, that due to the way the USB4 standard is set up, USB4 just "guarantees" 10Gbps and you need to specify USB4 Gen 3x2 to get 40Gbps and USB4 Gen 4 to get 80Gbps.
Thank you to everyone for providing so much clarity and perspective. In other communities, this would likely be received differently without the appropriate nuance.
I TREASURE Adam's channel, but I think such a tuned-in audience deserves a little better than the framing and content approach that came through here. 🖤
Tested doesn't want educated people. They want a crowd of people that will happily consume anything they present.
Man I'm so glad Apple invented cables.
USB C is a bit confusing, it can be USB 2.0/USB 3.x/Thunderbolt.
Cheap cables with 2 power wires and 2 data wires are just the simplest USB 2.0 type.
It's a bit unfair to compare them to full blown Thunderbolt cable.
There is a hint of cable type on the plug, USB 2.0 type have old USB logo, Thunderbolt cables have a little lightning on it as you can clearly see it in this video and USB 3.x cables have SSUSB logo on them.
So you need to know what type of cable you need and check the logo on the plugs.
I agree it's really confusing, but it's not like they are not marked in any way. (cables without any markings are usually USB 2.0)
Most people don't even understand the difference between 2.0/3.0/Thunderbolt, though, which is I think first thing that needs to be learned? This video is meant to educate on the complete opposite ends of the price scale. Then most intelligent people (like the ones watching this channel, I hope!) will intuit that there's other high-performance cables not made by Apple.
@@zoinomiko The "most intelligent" people either already know this Apple cable isn't merely "USB-C" or become pissed off when (if) they realize by about halfway through this video that they're being misled.
I feel like this is a rare miss. These are two different standards that are being compared to each other. I would also say that apple has a reputation for cables that are not durable and break relatively easily. This is a large reason why apple was forced to move away from their lightning cable. The content of this video visually is exceptional, and the descriptions of what is going on in these cables is excellently done, but problematic factually.
The main reason why Apple moved away from their lightning port is the European Community because Apple was plenty satisfied of the MFI (Made For Iphone). While a lot of their products have used UsbC for a long time, iPhones were with lightning. So all the equipment companies (earphones, charging cables, data cables, dongles, hdmi adapter, usb adapter... , wishing to produce their products to iPhone users, have to pay the lighting brevet to Apple and it is indeed very big money.
@@MODinBANGKOKexactly what I was going to comment. It's nothing to do with the cost, durability or anything other than getting in ahead of the EU law changes that means they've got no choice but to change and soon. Anyone who believes Apple changed due to anything else is fooling themselves. If they could they'd never have changed it on the IPhone until everyone else had.
No matter what the standard is, there's no reason to put a chip inside the cable. Bus transceivers / line drivers usually sit just behind the connectors that do that. What apple puts into the cable is their stupid security chip so they can detect "counterfeit" cables and artificially reduce performance if you're not using their overpriced cable. A lot of what is discussed in the video is true, but not relevant as to why there's a chip in the cable itself. HUGE miss for this channel to be pedaling such false information, not to mention the blatant apple fanboyism
@@gorak9000 Thunderbolt specification requires active cables for connections longer than 1 meter. Sure, Apple is greedy, but in this case your complaint is misplaced.
@@agawtdangedbear well yhea but it's not sponsored by Apple but it's part of a series of videos which are sponsored by Lumafield who are the ones who did those insane small scale CT scans which were actually the only part of the video worth seeing, a little bit followed by the technical knowledge of the electrical engineer who obviously knew his stuff but had also obviously been told what he could and couldn't say about what the main chip/processor in the Apple cable was actually for and a huge part of its job, etc. It's just such a shame that Tested decided to do the "comparisons" so badly in their choice of leads to compare. So I'm unsure why the sponsorship would have been the reason for the very obvious Apple fan club video they put out especially as Lumafield have no financial or business connection to Apple in any way.
They want to make sure their market cap doesn't dip below $1T.