All these USB version names. I used to know what they all meant, but then the USB IF went ahead and renamed them all and made a bunch of versions have the same name and renamed some versions to have the same name as the old name of other versions.

I have absolutely no idea what anyone means when they say USB 3.2 gen 2x2. I used to know what USB 3.2 meant but it's certainly not that.

Unfortunately "USB 3.2" is just a version of the standard, which does not give any information about the performance of a USB port or device.

USB 5 Gb/s = USB 3.2 gen 1, available on Type A or Type C connectors (or on devices on a special extended micro B connector)

USB 10 Gb/s = USB 3.2 gen 2, available on Type A or Type C connectors

USB 20 Gb/s = USB 3.2 gen 2x2, available only on Type C connectors

Moreover, "5 Gb/s" is a marketing lie. The so-called USB of 5 Gb/s has a speed of 4 Gb/s (the same as PCIe 2.0). On the other hand, 10 Gb/s and 20 Gb/s, have the claimed speeds, so USB of 10 Gb/s is 2.5 times faster than USB of 5 Gb/s, not 2 times faster.

10 Gb/s USB and Ethernet have truly the same speed, but the USB overhead is somewhat higher, leading to a somewhat lower speed. However, the speed shown in TFA, not much higher than 7 Gb/s seems too low, and it may be caused by the Windows drivers. It is possible that on other operating systems, e.g. Linux, one can get a higher transfer speed.

Oh, it's fine.

The lack of clarity is in keeping with the USB C connector itself, which may supply or accept power at various rates or not at all, may be fast or slow, may provide or accept video or not, and may even provide an interpretation of PCI Express but probably doesn't.

It probably looks the same no matter what, and the cable selected to use probably also won't be very forthcoming with its capabilities either.

(Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.)

USB is just a complete mess. I don't mind so much ports having different capabilities if they are well documented in the specification sheets of the hardware because then at least I can find out what they are capable of, but alas it never seems to be the case. Its very hard to work out whether a port can do Displayport and to what extent/performance or its true power capability or just its real data transfer speed. More often than I like I have just hoped that something works. Anything above 5W charging and 5gbps transfer is optional.

Going by Fabien Sanglard's cheat sheet (who I trust uncritically) https://fabiensanglard.net/usbcheat/index.html it looks like 3.2 actually is a broader term than expected. Maybe there was some awful attempt at backwards compatibility? Or forwards?

To be fair they seem to have taken this often-stated criticism on board. USB 4's naming is more sensible, and they've pushed the simple data speed & power labelling that makes it easier to work out what you need.

I predict in future when our civilization will advance to higher level, this phenomenon will happen with english words and jargons. e.g. here are versioned and namespaced words. topology.bio.23, topology.math.45 etc.

Welcome to the brave new world we will enter in far future.

[flagged]