this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
293 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

60113 readers
4001 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
293
Wi-Fi 7 to get the final seal of approval early next year, new standard is up to 4.8 times faster than Wi-Fi 6 (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Wi-Fi 7 to get the final seal of approval early next year, new standard is up to 4.8 times faster than Wi-Fi 6::There are a lot of 'draft' Wi-Fi 7 devices around, but 'Wi-Fi 7 Certified' devices will only come to market sometime next year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ghostalmedia 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is primarily meant to replace wired local data transfer solutions like thunderbolt. Example, sending video data from a camera to an editing workstation.

The transfer speed of WiFi 7 is just over Thunderbolt 3.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

The transfer speed of WiFi 7 is just over Thunderbolt 3.

This is so wrong that it's absurd it's been here for 3 hours and nobody has called it out. The claim is "more than 40Gbps" (I believe 46Gbps is the number floating around) for wifi7. This will likely require 8x8 at 320MHz or even possibly 16x16 ( I don't remember if this was floated as an idea or not) which would require more or less the entire frequency range. Fine... But that's 46Gbps aggregate, meaning for up and down speeds. The split would then be 23/23 gbps, this is paper best case.

The reality is that you're going to lose about 50% of that off the top because wireless always does. So 12/12 if you're lucky.

What speeds does Thunderbolt 3 support? 40/40... 80gbps aggregate on paper. 22/22 in practice for a data-only channel (other modes can still access 40/22 quite readily). It's not even close.

[–] clothes 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Woah. I assume Thunderbolt will still have latency benefits. For example, we're not going to have wireless eGPUs, surely? I hope I'm wrong, because wireless PCIe lanes would be amazing.

[–] Takumidesh 5 points 1 year ago

Cpus won't be able to handle the interrupts from speeds that high.