4 ms·
Running Bluetooth over USB has always struck me as a bit of an odd choice. With USB having to run through the CPU, doesn’t that make things like Bluetooth audio
by kitsunesoba 4y ago
Running Bluetooth over USB has always struck me as a bit of an odd choice. With USB having to run through the CPU, doesn’t that make things like Bluetooth audio more susceptible to load-induced dropouts? Would make more sense from my layman perspective to have it handled by a CPU-independent controller over PCI-E?
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoNo CPU has any problem running audio through basically any interface anymore ever since the Windows 9x days; compressing audio will actually use significantly more CPU than transferring it. If your platform is so constrained the CPU can't send audio inline over USB, then it most definitely won't be able to compress it anyway. For such a scenario, there are Bluetooth controllers that send audio data out-of-band (e.g. through a I2S link), and may even perform the compression in hardware. But this is hardware that is significantly limited, not a PC.