Originally Posted by Gualichu04
Originally Posted by KyadCK
DP is a "computer standard" and they want to use hdmi to remain compatable with current dvd/bluray/hdtv stuff. Hdmi 2.0 can do 4k 60hz.
Converting electricity to light and back is a waste of time. Copper has lower latency in the short range.
Besides that, optic's main selling point is extreme distance and immunity to electrican noise, neither of which applies in a home theater setup.
Oh, and toshlink has a rather pathetic bandwidth of 125mbps... DP is at 32.4gbps with rev 1.3, nearly 260 times faster. So... Ya.
Tis was a joke i just like fiber optic. Seen internet speeds through fiber optic max speed yet? Its in the Tb/s
And you think the costs for a controller cost what? And you think the copper on the each end can get that data how? "Liking it" is nice, but please at least begin to understand what is behind it before touting speeds and treating it like god send.
The time it takes to translate data from electrical pules to light is not instant, nor is the time required to change it back. Both add a considerable amount of latency.
Unlike copper (COAX), the signal can not be split or the cable extended without use of a repeater, which has to again change the signal from optic to electric to optic again, adding yet more latency.
Even a standard 4gbps Fibre controller is in the hundreds of dollars. 8gbps, 10gbps, 12gbps and 24gbps are even more so, stretching into the thousands. For each side.
Switches available to handle such loads are in the thousands of dollars each for anything worth anything at all.
Cables themselves cost far more simply due to the level of purity required for it to retain it's signal strength and speed. In addition, the cables are also far more fragile (duh, it's made of glass), and very difficult if not impossible to repair.
And of course those speeds you're thinking of have absolutely no place at all in anything a consumer will ever see in the next 10-20 years. Those are backbone speeds used as trunk lines between ISP centers to handle the data between major hubs. That is not "Internet speeds", that is networking speeds, as they are very very much intra
The optimal setup is to run fibre as the primary backbone, often port channeled to increase bandwidth without the need for stronger controllers as the cost for the stronger controllers doesn't increase linearly, and depending on service style either run weaker fibre* or split off to Coaxial copper** to the regional switch boxes, which again depending on the service go to the houses via some form of copper, be it phone line, CAT5, COAX, whatever.
*Internet only service, requiring only multidirectional bandwidth and no broadcast-like services.
** TV and Internet services such as Comcast, where much of the bandwidth is used to stream a constant service, IE thousands of TV channels.
How far into the "split" they go (ISP center, regional center, switch box in someone's back yard) before switching off to copper would depend on how the area is laid out and how many people are dependent on each stage of the split, as well as the service style they provide. Regardless, providing fibre itself directly to the home, especially with all the dangers (landscaping, stupid users, etc) and costs (Cable, controller, etc) is not smart.
I honestly do not mean to be a jerk or anything, but it drives me nuts when people think there is one perfect solution. There are benefits and downsides to each (yes I know I only listed the bad for Fibre), and frankly the one you picked is the absolute worst of them all to use in your home. Don't pick favorites, use the tool for the job.