this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
559 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

70285 readers
3348 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 minutes ago

My fiber is also directly to the box on the side of the house. There inside is a modem with an Ethernet port that connects to the panel in the garage. Every home in our county has fiber like this afaik

[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You need more than10Gb/s at home? I mean we all know the 640Kb meme but I'm curious here :-)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

We don't all have 1Gbps fiber though, but even without it I can still benefit from 1Gbps ethernei

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

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