Researchers find way to achieve 301 terrabits per second data transfer rate with fiber

It's terabits, not terra. And the question was never about throughput, but latency between the client and the server. If you happen to live next to a server, good for you! But if not, you will be always limited by the speed of light (or the speed of causality, if you will). Unless some fancy new physics comes to exist, increasing the throughput will not change that.
 
Last Hearth said:
Could this be the breakthrough that allows for true cloud gaming, with 8K resolution, easily.
Click to expand...
We need a breakthrough in latency

And please stop talking about 8k like it's the next big thing. It's nothing more than a buzzword at this point.
 
Last edited:
Hrk69 said:
We need a breakthrough in latency

And please stop talking about 8k like it's the next big thing. It's nothing more than a buzzword at this point.
Click to expand...
Latency in gaming is always going to be more important than resolution.
 
Last Hearth said:
301 Terrabits per sec, that's 301,000,000 megabits per sec.

thedebrief.org

Data Delivery Rates 4.5 Million Times Faster Than Average Broadband Achieved in Major Fiber Optic Breakthrough

A new breakthrough in fiber optic technology has succeeded in sending data at an astonishing 4.5 million times faster than home broadband.
thedebrief.org thedebrief.org

Could this be the breakthrough that allows for true cloud gaming, with 8K resolution, easily.
Click to expand...
How exactly would this work on a global scale....
 
That should stop those pesky SSD prices from going up.
Everyone can just simply download the same file from the same server at the same time.
Problem solved.
 
star trek data GIF by HULU
 
If we could add solid state quantum computers and faster write speeds for storage, we'd practically have super future computing.

Would be insane.
 
…and where I live, I would never see it. I'm paying the highest tier, $90, for 500mb down and 25mb up. It's fast enough, but it's not perfect.
 
1 bit or 1 terabit it doesn't meter, the speed of light is maximum speed.......& fiberoptic is that...soooooooo...no...it will not help with cloud gaming.
 
nowhat said:
It's terabits, not terra. And the question was never about throughput, but latency between the client and the server. If you happen to live next to a server, good for you! But if not, you will be always limited by the speed of light (or the speed of causality, if you will). Unless some fancy new physics comes to exist, increasing the throughput will not change that.
Click to expand...
Light can travel around the globe in 140 milliseconds. The problem with latency is all the other steps not the speed of light.
 
poppabk said:
Light can travel around the globe in 140 milliseconds. The problem with latency is all the other steps not the speed of light.
Click to expand...
Bruh 140 ms is outside the realm of playable for anything other than a turn based game like Civilization

And yes that's the best case scenario, because your electrons don't move directly from point A to point B over the Internet, real world latency is much much worse if you are actually traversing the global Internet to a destination on another continent

Also for gaming your actual latency is round trip latency, not one way latency, because you have to see the game, react to it, make an input, and send the input back to the server so real world gaming latency is double the one way latency implied by ping
 
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier said:
Bruh 140 ms is outside the realm of playable for anything other than a turn based game like Civilization

And yes that's the best case scenario, because your electrons don't move directly from point A to point B over the Internet, real world latency is much much worse if you are actually traversing the global Internet to a destination on another continent

Also for gaming your actual latency is round trip latency, not one way latency, because you have to see the game, react to it, make an input, and send the input back to the server so real world gaming latency is double the one way latency implied by ping
Click to expand...
Err people are playing current gen games with worse latency -


And that 140ms is round the globe, so at most the time for light to travel from two points as far apart as is possible is 70ms. From east coast US to west coast is 16ms.
 
Terra bits, while tolerated, are not Omnissiah approved. Therefore the Adeptus Mechanicus recommends the sanctioned and more extensively used Martian bits.
 
How much is Comcast going to charge me if I use this for one hour. I'm probably going to explode my quota.
 
poppabk said:
Err people are playing current gen games with worse latency -


And that 140ms is round the globe, so at most the time for light to travel from two points as far apart as is possible is 70ms. From east coast US to west coast is 16ms.
Click to expand...

Not sure that video is much help there. It shows that lag will only get worse, likely Much worse, with a digital structure. If it was just the speed of light, which it isn't, it would be 32ms rund trip on top of the lag in the game. That's getting pretty bad.
 
maybe i'm really dumb, but isn't this really more about bandwidth, and how much more crap you can force down the pipe, vs latency gains?

like, even if latency is the same, downloading every movie in existence in seconds does seem pretty neat.
 
Last edited:
Evolved1 said:
downloading every movie in existence in seconds does seem pretty neat.
Click to expand...
The problem here will be finding a storage medium that's fast enough to accept this data and commit it to a form of file storage. This data transfer is still several orders of magnitude faster than the fastest NVMe SSD. Something like a Samsung 990 can only do about 75000 mbps aka 0.075 terabits per second.
 
Now I can transfer my porn collection in only a few months. Technology is beautiful.

Jokes aside, wonder what the fault rate is, either I missed it in the article or they didn't talk about it.
 
nowhat said:
It's terabits, not terra. And the question was never about throughput, but latency between the client and the server. If you happen to live next to a server, good for you! But if not, you will be always limited by the speed of light (or the speed of causality, if you will). Unless some fancy new physics comes to exist, increasing the throughput will not change that.
Click to expand...

It's always a trade-off between latency and bandwidth. With enough local storage and a high enough bandwidth you could download everything you need locally across the network such that latency concerns become moot.

With this kinda bandwidth, you could download entire games worth of assets, uncompressed to store locally in RAM and then the SSD. With enough local storage you can hold the next few hundred hours worth of assets downloaded on-hand before you ever need it. At this point, your latency concerns for asset streaming are completely moot.
 
TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
It's always a trade-off between latency and bandwidth. With enough local storage and a high enough bandwidth you could download everything you need locally across the network such that latency concerns become moot.

With this kinda bandwidth, you could download entire games worth of assets, uncompressed to store locally in RAM and then the SSD. With enough local storage you can hold the next few hundred hours worth of assets downloaded on-hand before you ever need it. At this point, your latency concerns for asset streaming are completely moot.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about asset streaming, I'm talking about cloud gaming, where all the game logic and rendering is done by a server somewhere out there and locally just a video stream is being displayed. Which is why, for example, Stadia ran on a Chromecast and you can use Xcloud in some TVs - they're only displaying a video stream with no need for any local processing.

When talking about input lag, locally, there are two factors: engine lag (how long it takes for the engine to react to player input) and display lag. But with cloud gaming you also have to factor in how long it takes for the user input to reach the server, and that depends mostly on the distance between the user and the server (or rather, the length of the route the input has to take to reach the server). And that added latency doesn't change no matter how much you increase the throughput.
 
Awesome.

Shame large parts of the UK still don't have fucking fiber laid.

I live in the Greater London area and still can't get anything faster than 32Mb.

Shitty ghetto country…
 
I've got 150mbps download speed and 50mbps upload which is enough for me. My ping usually sits under 10 on a good EU/UK server and downloads are rarely over 2 hours. I'm never in that much of a rush to require a game to download in 5 minutes. As nice as that must be, it's not worth the extra money in my opinion.
 
All that speed.

Yet Xbox will still only download games at 100mbps.

If only Xbox download servers were as fast as steam.
 
Fiber made all the difference in cloud gaming for me. PSNOW works pretty well and I've finished a few PS3 games using it.

When I had cable it sucked and was lag city. Of course ping everywhere wss slow af.

Of course your only as fast as your slowest hop across the internet and it's up to your router as it builds an ARP table to figure that out.

Even with fiber a paid VPN made it laggy so I don't keep it on router side, just my PCs use it.

Seriously if you can get fiber. IDC if you have fast cable, it's probably slowing you down.
 
Rockman33 said:
Mine is usually around 400 with a Ethernet connections.
Click to expand...
i pay for a 1000mbps connection through my isp.

Sometimes its 400 to 500mbps. But then goes down to 100mbps and i have to restart my Xbox to get those 400mbps speeds again.

Im using Ethernet as well.

Steam is fast, and even ps5 is faster than Xbox.
 
Steam is inconsistent for me as well. Newer releases tend to max out my connection (400mbps) but older games may only download at 20 or 30mbps. What games in particular have you been trying to download on Xbox?
 
hybrid_birth said:
i pay for a 1000mbps connection through my isp.

Sometimes its 400 to 500mbps. But then goes down to 100mbps and i have to restart my Xbox to get those 400mbps speeds again.

Im using Ethernet as well.

Steam is fast, and even ps5 is faster than Xbox.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it's an internet problem over a Xbox problem since it does get to 400-500.

I've found PS5 & XSX & Steam are all relatively the same. I have 1gb download and rarely get higher than 45-50 MBS on any of them.

If you do try and play a game when it's downloading on Xbox it drops SIGNIFICANTLY, not sure if that's the same on PS5 as I'm usually only playing one game at a time there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How to Transfer Nintendo Switch System Data to Nintendo Switch 2
Platform 
17
2K
Mozza replied
[Guide] How to Transfer Data from PS5 to PS5 Pro
Hype 
35
6K
DryvBy replied
AMD FSR Redstone uses machine learning to achieve parity with Nvidia DLSS
Hardware  2 3 4
195
3K
Gaiff replied
Randy Pitchford Regarding BL4 potentially costing $80: "If You’re a Real Fan, You’ll Find a Way to Make It Happen"
2 3 4 5 6
293
3K
The Pleasure replied
Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D on Switch will not have an upgrade path to Switch 2 version (save data also cannot be transferred or shared between them)
2
68
181
asdasdasdbb replied
Top Bottom