4 ms·
Marvell which might not have the resources to design a competitive interconnect solution themselves. I guess it depends on what you mean by interconnect. If y
by mmmBacon 5y ago
Marvell which might not have the resources to design a competitive interconnect solution themselves.
I guess it depends on what you mean by interconnect. If you’re talking about >100GbE then the Marvell has a large market share in interconnect market for high speed Ethernet.
- stonogo 5y agoMarvell has nothing dense enough to meet these requirements. We're looking at 100GT/s, sure, but across millimeters, with physical connections measured in micrometers. It's a completely different technology to what Marvell makes.
- mmmBacon 5y ago128GT/s in PCIE G4 is only 125Gb/s. Marvell has serial interfaces that do this today for Ethernet. Since PCIE is a multilane technology these lanes are quite low speed by comparison. Many folks who have these interfaces don’t have the expertise to produce the interface and actually purchase the IP from a 3rd party. Regarding pitch I’m not sure what your comment is based on but it’s doubtful you’re correct since pitch tends to be limited by the XTALK considerations not by fabrication. Since we are all using the same fabs we can all achieve the same minimum pitch supported by the ecosystem. Having said that even the pitch at these speeds is measured in microns and has been for a long time. I think what you probably mean is that Marvell’s devices use a lot of DSP and FEC for use in Ethernet. This is because those interfaces are much higher speed and include impairment compensation for both electrical and optical channels. The DSP and FEC add latency which in compute applications would be problematic.