Realtek's $10 tiny 10GbE network adapter is coming to motherboards later this year
Finally, some affordable 10GbE
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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
Yeah - I was pretty sure that was the case, but didn't want to speak out of turn. So the data is entering the house on copper regardless.
I have fiber directly into my house. My PC is on the opposite end from the modem. This comment is a load of baloney
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
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.
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.
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
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
Yep, and then add multiple streams at that rate.. Although it also depends on how your network is setup for how much that will matter. With the right arrangement of switches/cables you might manage it if you always stream between the same devices by just making sure that connection doesn't share an ethernet cable. But easier to go 10Gbps and not have to worry about it.
Although so far I only do 1 stream and its over wifi. Its fine but obviously ethernet would be better. Mainly use it for sticking a few games on the TV, keep talking and nobody explodes and jackbox games.
Thanks for the info, didn't think the limit was so close.
My box has 2.5Gbps but I'm with you on that one regardless of my real needs, I'll wait it out til 10Gbps. If even my geek needs flare up I mean :-)
Most (all?) 10gbe copper switches will negotiate 1/2.5/5 gbps.
Most 10g switches with sfp+ will as well, but you also have to make sure the sfp+ ethernet module will negotiate lower speeds.
I've had some annoying interactions between 1gbps and 10gbps when using different sfp+ switches and sfp+ ethernet modules. I never dug into it, I just swapped stuff around until it worked.
So no reason not to get a 10g switch to start building things out
