←back to thread

Optical PCIe 7.0 connection hits 128 GT/s

(www.tomshardware.com)
204 points WithinReason | 1 comments | 17 Jun 24 11:42 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taneq ◴[17 Jun 24 23:07 UTC] No.40712220[source]▶
GT/s = gigatranfers per second.
replies(1): >>40712523 #
8n4vidtmkvmk ◴[17 Jun 24 23:42 UTC] No.40712523[source]▶
What's a transfer? That like a packet or a single bit?
replies(4): >>40712584 #>>40712629 #>>40712638 #>>40714329 #
Arnavion ◴[17 Jun 24 23:51 UTC] No.40712584[source]▶
One bit, but it's a bit of the underlying signal layer which has a 1-2% redundancy over the actual data. PCIe 2.0 and earlier encode 8b data in 10b signal. 3.0 to 5.0 encode 128b data in 130b signal. 6.0 and 7.0 do a more complicated thing: https://pcisig.com/blog/pcie%C2%AE-60-specification-webinar-...

Also the speed is per lane, eg an x8 slot / port / device is called that because it has 8 lanes, which all transfer in parallel.

replies(4): >>40712626 #>>40713642 #>>40714334 #>>40715086 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[17 Jun 24 23:58 UTC] No.40712626[source]▶
Edit: Nope, I misread. As reply notes, 16GB/s/lane.

So... That's about 16 terabytes per second per lane. AKA more bandwidth than I can imagine any use for, though I'm sure we will find ways to take advantage...

(Seriously, that's enough to move 16 largish laptop drives every second, on a single lane.)

replies(3): >>40712668 #>>40712893 #>>40713833 #
1. hughesjj ◴[18 Jun 24 03:37 UTC] No.40713833[source]▶
Assuming it was 16tb/s.... Imagine a JIT data lake loading stuff into main memory like brrr...

Actually at that point, a pcie7 nvme would be faster than ddr6

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2237799/ddr6-ram-what-you-sh...

That said, per-pin, 16GB/s seems to be the same ballpark as contemporary (to pcie7) main or graphics memory..... Like, actually more if I'm reading this right?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/21287/jedec-publishes-gddr7-s...