This is merely a limitation of USB-A. You need to use a type C port to get 3A with native USB. Outside of proprietary protocols, or violating USB specs.
wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Allowable_current_draw
3 Likes
As I said, when I connect the USB-A expansion card to a USBC power brick or power bank, I’m able to draw sustained higher current, some 5V2A others 9V2A, no protocol is used in the former case(I used power resistors directly connected to +5V and GND), i.e. higher than 1.5A, so it’s not the computer not be able to supply that higher current, is that the computer somehow decided intentionally not to supply it. Maybe a BIOS update can fix it, as it’s necessary in some cases like connecting to 2 USB HDDs(1A each, 2A in total) via a USB 3.0 hub
Edit: I’m going to use a third party USB-C to USB-A cable on this and other laptops and compare the results
Ok, maybe saying that they are useless is a bit much but ports 3 & 6 have quite limited compatibility and this was not properly communicated by framework. I still love my FW16 but finding something like this out after buying and testing is really a bad user experience. I am curious if the storage expansion card works on one of these modules. It likely does not and also does not reach its maximum read and write speeds there which means that another card is limited to ports 1, 2, 4, 5.
1 Like
If you read the wikipedia link, you’ll see that 2A is over the USB-A limit, when you properly follow the USB specs. There are devices that use non-standard USB protocols, or just completely ignore the USB specs. You can always ignore specs. For example, you could push 30A over a USB-A connector & cable, and it will work, until the contacts heat up to the point of the connector deforming or the insulation melting off the wires. Of course, you’re not pushing it that hard. But the line has to be placed someplace, taking into consideration a range of quality for connectors & cables you might encounter. For a computer, it seems 2A was placed over the limit for USB-A. Dedicated power supplies do go over this, but the Framework laptop is a computer, and it seems it’s following the USB specs for a computer. Hard to blame them too blame hard for following specs, even if it would be nice if it was higher.
You want to be careful connecting resistors straight to power supplies, they weren’t designed with that in mind. Limit it to no more than a couple seconds at least. USB power supplies may not have proper overcurrent protection. Instead they some may rely on their voltage dropping as current rises very high. Intelligent devices, like a phone, will compain & can’t use the power if the voltage drops too low. But a simple resistor doesn’t care. You can roast the componets in your power supply.
Switch to a USB-C hub. Either one that provides USB-A ports for the hard drives or use adapters for them.
1 Like
Basically all unpowered hubs are out of spec. The USB spec allows only 100mA/150mA ports on unpowered hubs. Most hubs try to provide more anyways, being therefore out of spec.
1 Like
I guess you have a point about USB 3.2 being 1.5A (<1.6A) but not every laptop has this, in fact, the majority modren laptop does not restrict this current. In comparison, ancient laptop can’t even draw 1.2A before cutting of on the USB (2.0 IIRC) port.
Here are two other, one popular(Lenovo) the other niche(Panasonic), computers’ USB-A outputs connected to a power bank. As you can see on the Panasonic, the USB-A port can deliver 2A to the power bank, while the USB-C to USB-A outputs 1.7A(higher than 1.6A cutoff on the Framework) mainly because too much internal resistance of the many connectors. On the Lenovo, the USB-C to USB-A can deliver sustained 2A. They are all higher than the outdated specs on the Wikipedia link.
Before saying “voltage too low the port is overloaded”, I would explain that I was using a crappy cable with high internal resistance, as shown below, when doing 3A the source is 4.8V while the sink is 4.3V, thus when doing 1.5A the source voltage is about 4.9V to 4.95V, well before overloading.
0.9A @ 5V that’s USB 3.0, not even USB 3.2 standard(which is 1.5A), as shown in your linked thread the data speed is also USB 3.0. It might because of negotiation, i.e. might deliver 1.5A when negotiated 3.2. However since 3 & 6 is not PD and can’t receive any power, it’s more likely that 0.9A is hardware limited, unlike the software limited on the ports of FL13
@Charlie_6
I think the USB 3.0 and 3.2 standard document talks about 0.9A/5V, but allows more if the USB port supports more than 1 USB channel. I.e. USB 20Gbps and above.
The FW16 USB supports 10Gbps on USB 3.x ports, and 40Gbps on USB 4 ports.
So, 0.9A/5V is complying to the USB 3.2 standard.
2 Likes
According to Framework themselves, ports 3 & 6 are advertised as USB 3.2 with no further information provided (Expansion Card Slot functionality on Framework Laptop 16).
This means that I have to assume that devices with USB 3.2 or lower (downward compatibility) should work on that port. Nowhere is mentioned that power delivery is limited below what people expect of such a port (and to be said, most people do not know nor should be expected to know official standards and documentation). On any other laptop you buy, USB3.2 means you can connect devices that do not require an additional power source. If port functionality is limited below expectations, this should be properly communicated, otherwise information is misleading. I first though my ports or expansion cards were broken before I found some additional information in this forum. Because I never had a case like this. If a complete laymen would experience stuff like this, they would simply think their device was broken and send it back.
2 Likes
- If a USB 3.2 data port can deliver USB 3.0 power does it still classify as USB 3.2 port?
- Why does the manufacturer of a 2023 laptop decided to make the port the minimum requirement of power rating, despite a 10y/o laptop can deliver 1.5A on a USB2.0 port (BC1.2 protocol)
Isn’t that USB3.1? The “1” means 1 “channel”
The number that comes after the “3.” is just the revision of the standard. USB 3.2 did introduce optional support for a second channel, but single channel is still allowed.
USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 = 2× 10 Gbps channels
USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 = 2× 5 Gbps channels
USB 3.2 Gen 2x1 = 1× 10 Gbps channel
USB 3.2 Gen 1x1 = 1× 5 Gbps channel
USB 3.1 Gen 2 = 1× 10 Gbps channel
USB 3.1 Gen 1 = 1× 5 Gbps channel
USB 3.0 = 1× 5 Gbps channel
Framework supports USB 3.2 Gen 2x1 (which only has one channel, but is one of the USB versions specified in the USB 3.2 standard so the USB 3.2 name technically applies following the USB spec).
2 Likes
I definitely think they should put power specifications on this chart for the consumers to know ahead of time. I’ve personally not run into any issues because most of my devices don’t exceed the limits of ports 3 and 6. My external drive enclosures (Orico 2.5 HDD @ 5V 900mA on usb-C; Sabrent M.2 SSD NVME/SATA) are both low power so they’ve never given me trouble. However when charging my phone on those ports it charges on slow mode.
Everything needs to be clearly stated for us to know ahead of time. I do wonder if this will be changed on future motherboards. Possibly have a section for specs of each individual motherboards?
5 Likes
I cannot say I have encountered any problems with my ports 3 or 6. Right now they are dedicated for my mouse wireless receiver and for a micro sd card and they do their job perfectly well. I have used flash drives on them without issues and have also run power to things like a laptop cooler to them without issues. They are more limited but they are far from useless.
I agree that Framework should communicate this. They schematics of the Mainboard says that all 6 Ports can deliver 5V/3A.
For Port 2,3,5,6 they are using a Genisys Logic GL3590-S
https://www.genesyslogic.com.tw/en/product_view.php?show=68
Excerpt from the Datasheet:
USB-C port supporting USB-C current modes, including USB Default, 1.5A@5V, 3A@5V
I can use my Samsung T7 SSD on my Smartphone with USB-C 2.0 Port but on the Framework USB 3.2 Port 6 it does not work.
1 Like
All my previous laptops, including old laptops before the introduction of USB3.0, can deliver at least 1.5A from their USB 2.0 port.
I don’t want to sound too skeptical, but it looks like the FL16’s extremely underpowered 3&6 ports while stay in compliance with standards are partly the result of the deliberately confusing renaming of said USB standard (USB 3.0 to USB 3.2) and the renaming happened before the introduction of FL16, so…
I don’t think the old 3.0 has any reason to be named USB 3.2. I think the 5Gbps should be named USB 3.0, 10Gbps USB 3.1 and 20Gbps USB 3.2. in this case the 3&6 ports have USB 3.1 data speed and USB 3.0 power
2 Likes
My 14 years old Desktop-PC with USB 3.0 can power an external NVME-SSD or a 2,5’’ HDD-Raid on his USB 3.0 Ports.
That’s how it should be.
2 Likes
It should be a bit more specific, like this
I think there’s a way to find out. You can connect the 3 or 6 to a C cable and to a PD trigger, set the trigger to 5V3A and draw a >1A load. If the current turns off it’s hardware limits, if the current stays it’s software restrictions. However I don’t have an FL16 so I can’t test it myself but I used the same way to test the 1.5A limit of the USB-A and 3A limit of USB-C(even the 3.2 port) on the FL13.
Hi Charlie,
I don’t have a PD-Trigger but as i mentioned bevor my Samsung T7 SSD is not working on Port 6. It is rated 5V/1.5A. Connected it with a USB-C Cable. Also does not work on Port 5. In your Overview you say 10Gbps for Port 3 and 6 but i believe they are just 5Gbps.
Excerpt from Genesys Logic Data Sheet:
Genesys GL3590 is a low-power, and configurable USB 3.1 Gen 2 hub controller.
1 Like
This is exactly what I’m skeptical about, the renaming of all previous 3.0 3.1 or whatever to 3.2 is “encouraging” manufacturers to make false advertising
1 Like
That would be the fault of your drives drawing beyond the respective USB specs and not having fallbacks to operate slower on lower powered ports.
This is violating the USB-A spec and using resistors is a) the simplest “protocol” and not possible with data ports. USB-BC for example defines how to have a data port that also uses resistors to communicate support for 1.5A. That is what “charging” USB-A data ports usually have. Anything else is violating the spec and thus there are NO guarantees for anything.
USB 3.2 refers to a PDF. It is not suitable to refer to ports. Yes it is wrong of Framework to refer to their ports as “USB 3.2” as that says nothing but “it is a USB3 port without any further details”.
The specs say USB3 ports need to provide at least 4.5W of power. USB-C ports with dual-lanes (i.e. everything 20 Gbps or up) need to provide 7.5W. Thunderbolt ports need to provide 15W.
Any USB device that requires more than this needs to CLEARLY specify this. And they could potentially operate slower when there is not enough power instead of failing completely.
Yes. So it should not be mentioned except if refering to the actual PDFs or when talking with people that have at least read over large parts of the USB specs and understand the concepts. That is actually the official stance of the USB-IF
NO. Stating it this way is an oversimplification and adds to the confusion. Tech media teaching people this wrongly is the reason why almost every manufacturer gets it wrong and people misunderstand it.
Officially, according to guidance form the USB-IF the ports where always to be called SuperSpeed USB. This name means 5 Gbps. It stayed the same until USB-IF simplified the names to just the speed across USB3 and USB4.
- SuperSpeed USB: 5 Gbps (Gen1x1 is an internal technical name for the mode the Phys are operating in according to the newest specification, which is USB 3.2).
- SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps: 10 Gbps (Gen 2x1 phy mode according to USB 3.2 spec)
- SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps: 20 Gbps (Gen 2x2 phy mode according to USB 3.2 spec)
Problem is with the new official names and logos, there is no difference between USB3 and USB4. But there is overlap.
- USB 5Gbps: synonymous with SuperSpeed USB
- USB 10Gbps: synonymous with SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps
- USB 20Gbps: either SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps OR USB4 20Gbps. So this should be qualified by either mentioning USB3 or USB4 for context
- USB 40Gbps: refers always to USB4 40Gbps (and it would be Gen 3x2 phy mode).
- USB 80Gbps: refers always to USB4 80Gbps (and it would be Gen 4 symmetrical phy mode, there is no more x2. Because those are very technical details that the normal consumer really should never have been burdened with)
That would mean that Samsung acknowledges that this drive does not work on normal USB3 ports, but can only be guaranteed to work on USB 20Gbps or faster ports. Or ports that just so happen to support USB-BC (which is unclear. They might actually not support that or just one or the other).
There was no renaming on that level. And there was no encouraging.
Official guidance from the USB-IF that almost every manufacturer chose to ignore in order to placate misinformed people that think “USB 3.2” means anything that they are interested in.
If they wanted to remain true and accurate and for some reason mention the spec version, even though most people are wrong to care, it would be sth., like
“Supports USB 10Gbps according to the USB 3.2 specification”
None of that makes sense. This thread only refers to the USB-C expansion cards. Gen2x2 would only be 20Gbps. And Framework states nowhere that they support USB3 20Gbps. Intel 13th gen has started to support that on all USB4 ports. But it requires ReTimers that support it as well. And Framework reused the same ReTimers from 12th gen that do not support it. Same as DP UHBR10 and UHBR20 speeds, which 13th gen would also support.
But since the USB-C expansion cards are essentially just non-compliant USB extension cables, they will work mostly like USB-C cables, where everything below the top speed is supported. So they do Gen 3 speeds. That covers ALL USB3 speeds and USB4 speeds up to Gen 3 (and since technically, USB Gen 4 does not increase the signal quality requirements, the expansion cards might actually be good for Gen 4 as well)
What?
Which board are we talking about?
Intel 11th & 12th gen have a USB3 10Gbps controller for all USB3 functions of the USB4 ports (which is all external ports). Intel only says it supports at least 3 GB/s across all 4 ports, which is somewhere above 2 ports fully saturated.
Intel 13th gen upgrades this to a USB3 20Gbps controller. They did not update the guaranteed number. They probably support more.
AMD I am not sure. Its the same CPU dies with the same hardware features for 13" and 16".
AMD has no USB3 20Gbps support on those chips. And only very limited ports even. Thus 3 ports of the FW16 share a single CPU USB 10Gbps port via a hub.
3 Likes