I am just wondering if it would be better to go straight to fiber instead of ethernet as most have fiber to the home anyway. That should help with future speed upgrades beyond 10Gbit as well.
I don’t think “most” have fiber to the home, first of all. Cable companies in the US do multigig speeds via fiber to a relay and coax cable to the home. Fiber is great when it’s underground or in a data center and safe, but it is delicate and easy to break the cables so not a great home solution. Fiber terminations are difficult and more expensive. The power efficiency payoff on a 1m cable from your router to your pc is probably going to be measured decades, more if you factor in the higher cost of the cable.
And your pc is connected by fiber directly to the modem? It sounds like not, which was the point of of the parent comment. But you can’t tell me that you think this is a normal and typical use case, to install PCI-E fiber optic network card.
Recognize that your situation is not like most people. Old apartment buildings especially will not be keen to run fibre everywhere when coax can handle gigabit speeds just fine
Add to that, that most homes have multiple devices that you want connected. So you need a fiber switch as well. 150usd will get you a mikrotik crs305, with 4 sfp+ ports. And you’ll probably want a router, but perhaps you can offload that to your ISP, kinda like routing on a stick.
I frequently transfer data over the LAN at a higher rate than my internet connection.
Kinda wish it was easier to test the connection speed between devices tbh, unless someone knows a good way of doing it but many devices are so locked down I am not sure how you would.
Even when doing that, the bottleneck is the storage write speed. you can have 1Tb internet connection and it wouldn’t matter unless you have enough users in a home.
Low latency means low compression. Low compression means high bandwidth.
1080p60 NDI will be 200mbps. If you are doing 2160p60, that’s 800mbps (which is about the limit I would run 1gbe at). Doesn’t leave much overhead for anything else, and a burst of other traffic might cause packet drops or packet rejection due to exceeding the TTL.
2.5gbps would be enough.
But I see 2.5gbps and 5gbps as “stop-gaps”. Data centers standardised on 10/40gbps for a while (before 25/100 and 100/400) - it’s still really common tbh - so the 10gbps tech is cheap.
I don’t see the point in investing in 2.5/5gbps
NVMEs are claiming sequential write speeds of several GBps (capital B as in byte). The article talks about 10Gbps (lowercase b as in bits), so 1.25GBps. Even with raw storage writes the NVME might not be the bottleneck in this scenario.
And then there’s the fact that disk writes are buffered in RAM. These motherboards are not available yet so we’re talking about future PC builds. It is safe to say that many of them will be used in systems with 32GB RAM. If you’re idling/doing light activity while waiting for a download to finish you’ll have most of your RAM free and you would be able to get 25-30GB before storage speed becomes a factor.
That is true, given everyone uses good quality nvmes, which is not always the case, but honestly, 1Gbps fiber is enough for a home with multiple users. Even if, assuming the storage is not the bottleneck, unless you need often very large lan transfers, should be more enough with 1Gbps.
Anyway, I guess i’m sidestepping the initial topic. bottom line: cool cheap tech for companies, not so much for home users.
I am just wondering if it would be better to go straight to fiber instead of ethernet as most have fiber to the home anyway. That should help with future speed upgrades beyond 10Gbit as well.
Fiber is also more power efficient? Why not?
I don’t think “most” have fiber to the home, first of all. Cable companies in the US do multigig speeds via fiber to a relay and coax cable to the home. Fiber is great when it’s underground or in a data center and safe, but it is delicate and easy to break the cables so not a great home solution. Fiber terminations are difficult and more expensive. The power efficiency payoff on a 1m cable from your router to your pc is probably going to be measured decades, more if you factor in the higher cost of the cable.
I have fiber directly into my house. My PC is on the opposite end from the modem. This comment is a load of baloney
And your pc is connected by fiber directly to the modem? It sounds like not, which was the point of of the parent comment. But you can’t tell me that you think this is a normal and typical use case, to install PCI-E fiber optic network card.
Recognize that your situation is not like most people. Old apartment buildings especially will not be keen to run fibre everywhere when coax can handle gigabit speeds just fine
An SFP+ single mode module alone costs ~20€ at least. Add to that a PCIe extension card and you’re way over the cost of copper.
Add to that, that most homes have multiple devices that you want connected. So you need a fiber switch as well. 150usd will get you a mikrotik crs305, with 4 sfp+ ports. And you’ll probably want a router, but perhaps you can offload that to your ISP, kinda like routing on a stick.
You need more than10Gb/s at home? I mean we all know the 640Kb meme but I’m curious here :-)
I frequently transfer data over the LAN at a higher rate than my internet connection.
Kinda wish it was easier to test the connection speed between devices tbh, unless someone knows a good way of doing it but many devices are so locked down I am not sure how you would.
Even when doing that, the bottleneck is the storage write speed. you can have 1Tb internet connection and it wouldn’t matter unless you have enough users in a home.
Not all data transfer is sending stuff to storage, streaming your display live at a high bitrate for example never needs to go into storage.
Is more than 1Gbps needed for that? That seems insane, but I’m old and watch stuff in full HD so what do I know.
Low latency means low compression. Low compression means high bandwidth.
1080p60 NDI will be 200mbps. If you are doing 2160p60, that’s 800mbps (which is about the limit I would run 1gbe at). Doesn’t leave much overhead for anything else, and a burst of other traffic might cause packet drops or packet rejection due to exceeding the TTL.
2.5gbps would be enough.
But I see 2.5gbps and 5gbps as “stop-gaps”. Data centers standardised on 10/40gbps for a while (before 25/100 and 100/400) - it’s still really common tbh - so the 10gbps tech is cheap.
I don’t see the point in investing in 2.5/5gbps
NVMEs are claiming sequential write speeds of several GBps (capital B as in byte). The article talks about 10Gbps (lowercase b as in bits), so 1.25GBps. Even with raw storage writes the NVME might not be the bottleneck in this scenario.
And then there’s the fact that disk writes are buffered in RAM. These motherboards are not available yet so we’re talking about future PC builds. It is safe to say that many of them will be used in systems with 32GB RAM. If you’re idling/doing light activity while waiting for a download to finish you’ll have most of your RAM free and you would be able to get 25-30GB before storage speed becomes a factor.
That is true, given everyone uses good quality nvmes, which is not always the case, but honestly, 1Gbps fiber is enough for a home with multiple users. Even if, assuming the storage is not the bottleneck, unless you need often very large lan transfers, should be more enough with 1Gbps.
Anyway, I guess i’m sidestepping the initial topic. bottom line: cool cheap tech for companies, not so much for home users.
edit: wording
We don’t all have 1Gbps fiber though, but even without it I can still benefit from 1Gbps ethernei