this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
292 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
59428 readers
3166 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Damn, I don't think I even have WiFi 6 yet, haha. I've just not had any need for faster speeds.
I'm sure something will come along that'll make use of it though!
Wait till you’re streaming 8k video in each eye of your VR headsets. And, the whole family is watching in their headsets. You’ll need it some day.
That's why I'm dropping fiber in my house when I do my ethernet drops. Might as well pull 2 wires and future-proof it.
40Gb fiber and CAT6e?
Nice.
It's even better, because I forgot that our neighborhood was getting FTTH until they started on my street this morning.
Not even 5 minutes in - your internet throttles back to 56kbps because you hit the data cap.
This is primarily meant to replace wired local data transfer solutions like thunderbolt. Example, sending video data from a camera to an editing workstation.
The transfer speed of WiFi 7 is just over Thunderbolt 3.
This is so wrong that it's absurd it's been here for 3 hours and nobody has called it out. The claim is "more than 40Gbps" (I believe 46Gbps is the number floating around) for wifi7. This will likely require 8x8 at 320MHz or even possibly 16x16 ( I don't remember if this was floated as an idea or not) which would require more or less the entire frequency range. Fine... But that's 46Gbps aggregate, meaning for up and down speeds. The split would then be 23/23 gbps, this is paper best case.
The reality is that you're going to lose about 50% of that off the top because wireless always does. So 12/12 if you're lucky.
What speeds does Thunderbolt 3 support? 40/40... 80gbps aggregate on paper. 22/22 in practice for a data-only channel (other modes can still access 40/22 quite readily). It's not even close.
Woah. I assume Thunderbolt will still have latency benefits. For example, we're not going to have wireless eGPUs, surely? I hope I'm wrong, because wireless PCIe lanes would be amazing.
Cpus won't be able to handle the interrupts from speeds that high.