Power-wise it is 60W, 100W (deprecated), and 240W. Data-wise it is 480Mbps, 5Gbps, 20Gbps, 40Gbps, 80Gbps. A simple power/data rating like already specified[0] is enough for >99% of cables.
Totally it's a very solvable problem w not many variants.
It's unfortunate the USB group chose these particular labels. They're so ugly that you'd never want one on a cable, and they don't reduce to small sizes well. It's like they were never designed to be put on cables, or they never consulted anyone who ever used or sold a cable as to whether they were going to use it.
I'd have preferred something that could be depressed into the plastic mold of the connector with two icons, a bolt and a dot:
- default (USB2, whatever min watts) is blank cable
- 60w has one bolt, 100w+ has two bolts
- 5gbps has one dot, 20 has two, 40 three, 80 four
That way you avoid the uncleanness of labels and their eventual scratching off, while maintaining at-a-glance (and even physical feel) understanding of cable capability. It also scales to future improvements. Honestly I think this would solve like 90% of people's complaints with USB-C.
I am not aware of this problem existing in practice.
Chargers and devices of course have a wide variety of power ratings, but those are generally all compatible with each other. Just get a charger with a higher rating than the device and it works.
When it comes to cables, pretty much everyone just uses the standard 20V 3A / 20V 5A / 48V 5A cables. The only exception I am aware of is Oppo's SuperVOOC.
A 140W MacBook USB-C charger can not charge an OnePlus 8.
A 67W Poco (Xioami) USB-C charger can barely charge a Pixel 6 (it basically runs out of battery while charging, 200-300mA are transmitted according to an app).
Power-wise it is 60W, 100W (deprecated), and 240W. Data-wise it is 480Mbps, 5Gbps, 20Gbps, 40Gbps, 80Gbps. A simple power/data rating like already specified[0] is enough for >99% of cables.
[0]: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/usb-if_usb_type-c_ca...