Talk:List of device bit rates
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of device bit rates article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated List-class)|
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
Bad title: should be list of interface bandwidths
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
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 .
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 
Density, latency/CPU, power draw and a few other considerations also have inhibited the shift from 1GbE to 10GbE , but it's primarily price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2012
Physical layer interface
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.