Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Rolling Out 800Gbps Cables This Year

Posted by Unknown on from the silicon-photonics-sounds-cool dept.

phmadore writes "10Gbps cables are what are commonly used in large server centers today, but very soon, according to Ars, 800Gbps cables will be available from Intel. From the article: 'The new cables are based on Intel's Silicon Photonics technology that pushes 25Gbps across each fiber. Last year, Intel demonstrated speeds of 100Gbps in each direction, using eight fibers. A new connector that goes by the name "MXC" holds up to 64 fibers ... The fiber technology also maintains its maximum speed over much greater distances than copper, sending 800Gbps at lengths up to 300 meters, Intel photonics technology lab director Mario Paniccia told Ars. Eventually, the industry could boost the per-line rate from 25Gbps to 50Gbps, doubling the overall throughput without adding fibers, he said.'"

14 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Will we still talk ethernet over it? by glasshole · · Score: 2

    Or will it be a new protocol all together. I guess it depends if its suppose to be point to point or not.

    1. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I work with 100 Gbps that runs over a single pair. And doesn't use DWDM, so you can run 88 channels of it, for 8.8 Tbps. On a single fiber. And the fiber can be 20+ year old single mode (though results depend on quality). Industry standard, no new cabling. Intel is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Or maybe coming up with something not-new in a cheaper price point. 88-channel DWDM is expensive. I think we are paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 per fully-populated 8.8Tbps link. But then, that's for optics capable of 1000+ mile transmission (with amplification). As the market is small for those speeds from server to switch or with any level of port density, so the price is not optimized for common use.

      So from what I can tell, this is less than 1/10th the speed of common industry standard gear, but cheap. Since when did stories about price breakthroughs get front page (other than solar)?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:Will we still talk ethernet over it? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Look at the screenshot in the article - they packed 64 fibers into a cable about the same bulk as Cat5 copper - even the connector, which has 64 'pins'. Just like when somebody makes a new multi-core chip that replaces an entire cluster - that's progress.

  2. I prefer Monster cables by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    The guy at Best Buy told me they were the best.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:I prefer Monster cables by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      One of you managed to make my eyes bleed, but I'm not sure which one.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:I prefer Monster cables by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      High speed digital cables do require more expensive manufacturing processes. They all use differential signaling and require length matching and controlled impedance within wire pairs. The manufacturing process is a little more demanding than slapping some wires together willy-nilly. That being said, on high volume products like HDMI the added costs are negligible on a per unit basis and the gold plated $200 fluff is just gouging the ignorati.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:I prefer Monster cables by bobbied · · Score: 2

      It's not that hard to build an HDMI cable if you have the right wire with close to the right twist. Length variances isn't all that important, it's the twisting of the various pairs that matters. Even that isn't critical until you start talking about really long cables that most people don't need anyway.

      Further there is a standard that all "HDMI" cables must comply with to use the HDMI lable. If it meets the standard, it will work. So, if it is advertised/labeled as "HDMI" and not manufacturer rejects on E-Bay or somebody is using "HDMI" without a license, it's going to work.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think this is impressive. I know this is different http://tech.slashdot.org/story/99/10/12/1835225/nortel-gets-64-terabits-on-a-single-fibre but Nortel did 80gbits/s on a single wavelength over 480 km in 1999. They had to have multiple rack of equipment to generate all wavelength to get to their 6.4 tbits/s but I don't see why we could not just use one unit. Did it really take 15 years to adapt the tech and integrate it in a server for server to server communication in data centers?

  4. 25 Gbps is the fastest the industry can do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028095.500-ultrafast-fibre-optics-set-new-speed-record.html

    At the Optical Fiber Communications Conference in Los Angeles last month, Dayou Qian, also of NEC, reported a total data-sending rate of 101.7 terabits per second through 165 kilometres of fibre. He did this by squeezing light pulses from 370 separate lasers into the pulse received by the receiver. Each laser emitted its own narrow sliver of the infrared spectrum, and each contained several polarities, phases and amplitudes of light waves to code each packet of information.

    At the same conference, Jun Sakaguchi of Japan's National Institute of Information and Communications Technology in Tokyo also reported reaching the 100-terabit benchmark, this time using a different method. Instead of using a fibre with only one light-guiding core, as happens now, Sakaguchi's team developed a fibre with seven. Each core carried 15.6 terabits per second, yielding a total of 109 terabits per second. "We introduced a new dimension, spatial multiplication, to increasing transmission capacity," Sakaguchi says.

  5. Re:Like these? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    Well if you just looked at the photos of the cables, you would see it is not a common consumer cable. It is a 64 optic fiber cable that does not exist in other fields. The Denon AKDL1 is simply an ethernet cable. AudioQuest Diamond is simply an HDMI cable. AudioQuest K2 is simply speaker cable. The Intel cable probably will be expensive but it will be used for back-bone usage and not consumer usage.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Re:...and... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Hey now.. I get 25Mbps both ways for $90/month... Well, I get that to any of the speed test servers out there. Now if I actually want to watch Netflix or something, all bets are off.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. Re:Like these? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some cables are legitimately expensive because they are expensive to make. Some cables are expensive because they are a niche product and there is only one vendor and then some cables are stupidly expensive simply to prey on idiots.

    These cables undoutablly will not be cheap but they may well be cheaper than terminating and patching all those fibers seperately for those few niches that really need that much bandwidth between the same pair of devices.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  8. Re:Doesn't matter by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Here in upstate NY, I pay for 15mbps but actually get closer to 8mbps. Since there's no FIOS or other high speed Internet service where I live, Time Warner Cable has no incentive to upgrade their network by me. They might eventually get around to it, but they'll take their time. (I'm not in a rural area so they don't even have that excuse.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  9. How dare you! by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I conclude that he must be the Architect from the nonexistent Matrix sequels, living with his mother. And he is a lonely, lonely man.

    How dare you begin a sentence with "And".