Time for optical video cables?

SomeGuy133 said:
expensive due to economies of scale....produce millions or billions of them a year and it wont be expensive.
Click to expand...

Not unless they use photonics or something. Volume isn't the problem as much as base cost that needs change.
 
Shintai said:
Not unless they use photonics or something. Volume isn't the problem as much as base cost that needs change.
Click to expand...
you keep comparing a much more complex system. networking is more complex than video cables and you keep making shit up as you guy.

and 10Gb E is like 20 dollars per receiver new. not this magical 500 dollars bullshit you or someone else was spewing

these would also be used on ultra highend screens so 50 or 100 extra dollars wouldnt even be noticed.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
you keep comparing a much more complex system. networking is more complex than video cables and you keep making shit up as you guy.

and 10Gb E is like 20 dollars per receiver new. not this magical 500 dollars bullshit you or someone else was spewing

these would also be used on ultra highend screens so 50 or 100 extra dollars wouldnt even be noticed.
Click to expand...

Please show me a 20$ 10Gbit fiber. Or even a 20$ 10Gbit copper. Then we can talk about who makes up what.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
http://www.fs.com/products/11589.html

16 dollars

I still need to put my home 10GbE network up.....on that someday todo list
Click to expand...

That's just a gbic. It is a very good price for a gbic tho.

So in the end of the day the result is what. ~250$ instead of 500$ or 32$ for 10gbit if you use some of the cheapest NICs being . But how much was required again? :)

http://geizhals.eu/?cat=nwpcie&xf=819_SFP+

Even 100$ is quite a lot of money for something with little to no effect.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
That's just a gbic. It is a very good price for a gbic tho.

So in the end of the day the result is what. ~250$ instead of 500$ or 32$ for 10gbit if you use some of the cheapest NICs being . But how much was required again? :)

http://geizhals.eu/?cat=nwpcie&xf=819_SFP+

Even 100$ is quite a lot of money for something with little to no effect.
Click to expand...
tl: dr
Shintai talking out of his ass.


you said transceiver before and that's what i got you. for 16 dollars.

keep moving the goal posts.

also my nic was 50 bucks
https://hardforum.com/threads/wanti...elp-out-parts-advice.1910352/#post-1042528057

again this isn't even comparable to a fiber video source. These require far more things than a video source cable.

Keep talking out of your ass and moving goal posts...you dont know shit here.

You can compare 2 different things that aren't even comparable if you like but it makes you a fool and wrong.

cable and transceivers are not expensive and you have been proven wrong several times.

100 dollars extra for a 16K 10 bit 120 hz panel.....isn't shit if it makes the panel work with sufficient BW.

That would be a 5-25K screen right now. Even 100 for a 1K screen when OLED magically isn't expensive and meets its supposed cheaper than LCD price point it still won't matter.
 
dwd999 said:
If you look at the Monoprice fiber optic HDMI cables,

https://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024018&p_id=14234&seq=1&format=2

the price per foot ranges from approx. 82 cents to $1.73 US for long lengths, so it would certainly seem possible to have shorter lengths at a reasonable cost. So perhaps Monoprice could be encouraged to order shorter lengths from the manufacturer if enough people request it.
Click to expand...
using fiber there just allows for longer lengths not more bandwidth. The bandwidth is created via the internal chips or whatever. There is a module inside each device that makes things HDMI X.X

Nice find though. Good to know that exists and to see more evidence shintai talking out of his ass.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
tl: dr
Shintai talking out of his ass.


you said transceiver before and that's what i got you. for 16 dollars.

keep moving the goal posts.

also my nic was 50 bucks
https://hardforum.com/threads/wanti...elp-out-parts-advice.1910352/#post-1042528057

again this isn't even comparable to a fiber video source. These require far more things than a video source cable.

Keep talking out of your ass and moving goal posts...you dont know shit here.

You can compare 2 different things that aren't even comparable if you like but it makes you a fool and wrong.

cable and transceivers are not expensive and you have been proven wrong several times.

100 dollars extra for a 16K 10 bit 120 hz panel.....isn't shit if it makes the panel work with sufficient BW.

That would be a 5-25K screen right now. Even 100 for a 1K screen when OLED magically isn't expensive and meets its supposed cheaper than LCD price point it still won't matter.
Click to expand...

Your NIC was used as well. Dont tell me its 50$ new.
http://geizhals.eu/778236862
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod..._re=Intel_X520-DA1-_-9SIA9Z94VP3327-_-Product
 
Armenius said:
Optical would certainly get around the length constraints with copper, and I don't think people will tolerate cables that need to be shorter than 3m for best signal quality. However, the industry is so entrenched in HDMI that I don't think we'll see any major changes anytime soon. Plus, moving away from copper will eliminate the passive compatibility with DVI, which is the Windows XP of the display world. But sacrifice is often required to move forward.
Click to expand...

Settle down Apple.
 
Shintai said:
Your NIC was used as well. Dont tell me its 50$ new.
http://geizhals.eu/778236862
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod..._re=Intel_X520-DA1-_-9SIA9Z94VP3327-_-Product
Click to expand...
doesnt matter works 100% You can get new for like 100 but again your comparing 2 techs that aren't comparable. NICs require a ton more hardware and tech than a media cable. NICs weren't even part of the initial topic. You goal posted moved after you were shown to be patently wrong.

your argument was transceivers and they are 16 dollars a pop. so please stfu already. Your patently wrong so own up.
 
Armenius said:
Optical would certainly get around the length constraints with copper, and I don't think people will tolerate cables that need to be shorter than 3m for best signal quality. However, the industry is so entrenched in HDMI that I don't think we'll see any major changes anytime soon. Plus, moving away from copper will eliminate the passive compatibility with DVI, which is the Windows XP of the display world. But sacrifice is often required to move forward.
Click to expand...
who cares about the passive capability. just put a DVI port in there and you are done.
 
Reported as advertising spam.

Not even clever spam as 3 GB/s is nowhere near the bandwidth needed.
 
Eventually I think we might have no choice but to go optical if we want ultra high definition high refresh displays. We're already reaching limits of copper cables. Over at AVSFORUM http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-h...-support-4k-60hz-4-4-4-chroma-deep-color.html there is discussion spanning 50 pages on which cable to buy that would carry 4K 60Hz signal over 25+ feet because signal loss is already a problem for 4K over long distances. If you look at DP specs page higher resolutions such as 8K or higher refresh rates like 120Hz+ require data compression because the cable just can't carry this much bandwidth. We have reached the copper limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top