3 ms·
>(And no, that earlier 120Gbps figure isn't a lie.) Is that 120 Gbps or 120 GB/s as the previous poster stated? 120 GB/s is on the order of DDR5 throughput - I
by hn_acc1 1y ago
>(And no, that earlier 120Gbps figure isn't a lie.)
Is that 120 Gbps or 120 GB/s as the previous poster stated? 120 GB/s is on the order of DDR5 throughput - I doubt we have any kind of cheap cable tech that can carry that kind of bandwidth right now - while 120 Gbps is more like NVME 5 SSD speed.
- ssl-3 1y agoGood catch. I didn't notice the factorization difference. I myself definitely meant gigabits per second. 120Gbps is about what 2x 8k 60Hz monitors use at a constant rate in the simplest sense (pixels), so that's what I assumed they were talking about. But it's more complex than that. Looking a bit deeper: It seems that TB5 (which uses USB C) is natively a symmetric 80Gbps: 80Gbps one way, and 80Gbps the other way. 160Gbps, total, counting both directions -- plus or minus overhead. It can also use a "turbo" mode where things are shifted to be 120Gbps one way (host-to-device) and 40Gbps the other way (device-to-host), which is still 160Gbps in aggregate. It isn't clear how that dual-8k-display mode provides any extra bandwidth for other things that may be downstream like storage devices, but that's as deep as I feel like going. And that is deep enough to answer your question: It is definitely in the neighborhood of [up to] 120Gbps [in one direction], and it is definitely never in the neighborhood of 120GBps [neither in any direction, nor in aggregate].
- klausa 1y agoI mistyped in the other post! But 120Gbps (with 40Gbps in the other direction at the same time) is still _very fast_.