Wi-Fi 7 to get the final seal of approval early next year, new standard is up to 4.8 times faster than Wi-Fi 6::There are a lot of ‘draft’ Wi-Fi 7 devices around, but ‘Wi-Fi 7 Certified’ devices will only come to market sometime next year.
Wi-Fi 7 to get the final seal of approval early next year, new standard is up to 4.8 times faster than Wi-Fi 6::There are a lot of ‘draft’ Wi-Fi 7 devices around, but ‘Wi-Fi 7 Certified’ devices will only come to market sometime next year.
This is primarily meant to replace wired local data transfer solutions like thunderbolt. Example, sending video data from a camera to an editing workstation.
The transfer speed of WiFi 7 is just over Thunderbolt 3.
This is so wrong that it’s absurd it’s been here for 3 hours and nobody has called it out. The claim is “more than 40Gbps” (I believe 46Gbps is the number floating around) for wifi7. This will likely require 8x8 at 320MHz or even possibly 16x16 ( I don’t remember if this was floated as an idea or not) which would require more or less the entire frequency range. Fine… But that’s 46Gbps aggregate, meaning for up and down speeds. The split would then be 23/23 gbps, this is paper best case.
The reality is that you’re going to lose about 50% of that off the top because wireless always does. So 12/12 if you’re lucky.
What speeds does Thunderbolt 3 support? 40/40… 80gbps aggregate on paper. 22/22 in practice for a data-only channel (other modes can still access 40/22 quite readily). It’s not even close.
Woah. I assume Thunderbolt will still have latency benefits. For example, we’re not going to have wireless eGPUs, surely? I hope I’m wrong, because wireless PCIe lanes would be amazing.
Cpus won’t be able to handle the interrupts from speeds that high.