Talk:List of device bit rates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Bad title: should be list of interface bandwidths[edit]

It's not devices, but interfaces or protocols or ports that are being compared. Very very few devices reach the maximum speeds of the more modern interfaces or protocols, making the distinction very important. If you wish to retain the name then add some actual device bandwidths:

  • typical throughput of a spinning platter hard drive in MB/s
  • typical throughput of various types of lower-speed RAM chips especially those used in SSDs
  • typical throughput of wireless links under different conditions
  • compressed and uncompressed throughput of CD, DVD and Blu-Ray

Among other things it would make the "list" very useful to see if there is any practical advantage in moving to an interface that is much faster, as the device it is connecting to may be too slow typically to make that worthwhile.

Price per port, per byte[edit]

The price per port or per (mega)byte per second is extremely relevant to most readers and helps them sort out which technologies are historical vs. still in use.

Having a "N/A" tag for those technologies that are no longer available in the marketplace would help to identify those that a modern network student can just ignore.

Practical network decisions tend to get driven by metrics like price per port, trade press usually refers to that metric in comparisons, for instance 10 gigabit Ethernet recently fell to under US$200/port on desktop [1].

There should also be some recognition of when switching technology passes some major cost threshold - 40 gigabit Ethernet only exists because it matches the speed of PCI 3.0 and does not require the expensive bus technology (high end HTX, etc.) of 100 gigabit Ethernet. Companies selling this like Mellanox tend to emphasize that they are at a cost/performance plateau with 40GbE [2]

Density, latency/CPU, power draw and a few other considerations also have inhibited the shift from 1GbE to 10GbE [3], but it's primarily price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.183.245 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2012

Physical layer interface[edit]

The actual physical wire or medium for LAN and WAN technologies should be listed. This determines what options one has over a given building's or campus' existing network.

Obviously the only reason anyone would use IEEE 1901/HomePlug is because they need tight integration/coextent with the existing AC power wiring. And where there is copper Ethernet already in place, you would prefer to use devices compatible with that rather than digging it all up and replacing with serial cabling. :-)

Separating fibre interfaces and existing-wire interfaces from random old copper wire technologies is also helpful.

The many powerline networking technologies can arguably have their own section.

GDDR5[edit]

GDDR5 is missing, see e.g. List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_700_Series. User:ScotXWt@lk 22:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Line rates and usable net rates completely messed up[edit]

Sorry, but this article is a pretty mess without the possibly important distinction of line (signalling) rates and net (usable) rates. In the cases of PCIe, SATA and such, the nominal bit rates are line rates (bits/symbols on the physical wire) with net rates being up to 20% lower. Other standards like Ethernet are identified by their net rates and usually use higher line rates (1000BASE-CX, -SX, -LX, ...).

Could we possibly have a marker to show if line rate or net rate is indicated? Or even split the rate column in two? Zac67 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)