[0x457]

Those are irrelevant? Consumers only care about: speed and wattage. You're technically never supposed to care or even know about which USB standard it is, all of those Gen 3.2 2x2 aren't supposed to be consumer facing.

USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 “consumer” name is^W was "SuperSpeed USB 20 Gbps" that is what USB-IF been suggesting since the beginning. However, to use that name, they have to submit to testing and compliance. Otherwise, they can use whatever name they want.

As long as there are no two different standards that are capable of the same wattage and speed—everything is good.

[userbinator]

As long as there are no two different standards that are capable of the same wattage and speed

There are. USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 and 3.2 Gen 2 are both nominally 10Gbps but use different signaling.

[crote]

I am still not convinced that Gen 1x2 actually exists. Sure, it's in the specs, but can you actually buy chips which support 1x2 but not 2x1?

Sure, in theory it is easier to design because you are dealing with two 5Gbps signals instead of one 10Gbps signal so you have a bigger error margin, but 2x1 was introduced in 2013 whereas 1x2 came along in 2017, had a worse real-world data transfer rate, and required way more complicated chips due to the mandatory USB-C handling.

Did anyone bother to build chips for it?

[0x457]

Yes, but the result is the same. USB 3.2 Gen 2 will downgrade to USB 3.2 Gen 1x2. But also, I've never seen USB 3.2 Gen 1x2 device in real world.

For the consumer, the difference is negligible.

[wereHamster]

Does that affect device function?

[crote]

In theory, yes.

Gen 2x1 uses a slightly more efficient error correction method than 1x2, so even though the number of bits going over the line is the same, the effective data transfer rate is higher.

Meanwhile, Gen 1x2 uses half the bandwidth that 2x1 requires, which makes the design of the chips, PCBs, and cables a lot easier. If a Gen 2x1 link fails to operate reliably, it will actually downgrade to 1x2 if possible.