Comment by TomatoCo
3 hours ago
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?
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.
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.
Right, so per spec it is a downgrade.
And? The question stands, why is the USB 4 spec a downgrade?
1 reply →