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?

▲

Someone1234 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Great site, thanks for the link. But holy heck, that "Also Known As" column is complete chaos. What the heck is wrong with the USB Consortium, do they have brain damage?

Also, according to that table, "USB4 Gen 2×2" is a downgrade on "USB 3.2 Gen 2x2", since the cable length is 0.8m instead of 1m for the same speeds. Which is uhh unexpected.

▲

BearOso an hour ago | parent [-]

The cable length is only for the spec. You can get longer cables that achieve the higher bandwidth, they're just not certified for that.

▲

Someone1234 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Right, so per spec it is a downgrade.

▲

mort96 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

And? The question stands, why is the USB 4 spec a downgrade?

	▲	BearOso 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Probably because with USB 3.2 2x2 they were reviewing too many longer cables that didn't meet the requirements, so they lowered the length so companies didn't submit them only to fail to get certified. It's worth noting that 1.2m is now in the USB4 spec.