One other thing worth pointing out is that USB 3.2 Gen 1×2 and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 supposedly only supports USB-C type connectors.
Because USB-C has more physical links between host and device.
USB A/B = 1 link
USB A/B SS = 3 links (1 legacy, 2 SS)
USB C = 5 links (1 legacy, 4 SS)
The idea behind USB-C for the connector itself made sense. The fact that there isn't a good consistent way for a Type-C's port to describe what it can and can not do with what cables is freaking insane. Things ranging from just USB 2.0 connectivity all the way up to Thunderbolt. Honestly, my experience with trying to get a Type C (not Thunderbolt,) display to work properly at work as been a freaking nightmare... with a HP laptop using a HP display.
Simply put, what people have been doing with the USB-C standard is just insane (not in a good way.)
Yeah...DisplayPort, sadly, is getting the same way. It's like everyone wants to be that one connector everyone else uses but in the process, they're making controllers complicated and doing a terrible job at informing consumers of what the installed controller can do. DisplayPort I think is keeping it under control better than USB is but still... Even though a DisplayPort cable could theoretically have a USB signal on it, we don't know that the DisplayPort controller in the host device actually has a USB host, we don't know if the monitor we're plugging in that has USB ports understands that it can use the DisplayPort cable to carry the USB signal, and if the USB ports on the monitor fails, it's not clear where the failure was at.
USB video has the same problem. The assumption should be that USB video is handled by basically a USB powered video card inside the cable itself. It shouldn't be pulling a video stream from a video card because now you're making the how that message routes through PCIE and the like convoluted.
I can understand why DisplayPort would want to carry USB because that means only one cable between monitor and computer. I don't understand why USB-IF thought it was a good idea to put video/thunderbolt streams in USB. USB-IF should focus on one thing and that is connecting peripherals to computers as it always did. Yes, increase bandwidth, no, don't expand beyond the scope of doing exclusively what it needs to do. If other interfaces want to carry USB, so be it, but it shouldn't be the other way around because USB isn't supposed to be one connector to rule them all. It doesn't have enough pins to and usually isn't connected to a high enough speed bus internally to either. Now GPUs are having to fight USB controllers for PCIE lanes. It makes no sense for something that's predominantly used to drive mice and keyboards.
For being standards, they aren't very standard.
