hdmi 2.1

[TheBean]

if hdmi 2.1 has a bandwidth of 48Gbps, why isn't something like this used for ethernet? clearly it can provide a far superior bandwidth compared to cat6 or cat7. also, afaik hdmi does not suffer from crosstalk as much as ethernet does. what is stopping somebody from using this to increase bandwidth even in the server market where bandwidth is a huge issue. 

[Glenwing]

4 minutes ago, Saksham said:

if hdmi 2.1 has a bandwidth of 48Gbps, why isn't something like this used for ethernet? clearly it can provide a far superior bandwidth compared to cat6 or cat7. also, afaik hdmi does not suffer from crosstalk as much as ethernet does. what is stopping somebody from using this to increase bandwidth even in the server market where bandwidth is a huge issue. 

Ethernet needs to run hundreds of meters, the 48 Gbit/s bandwidth can realistically only be achieved over short distances on passive cables.

[TrigrH]

range.

[Drama Lama]

Ethernet has far longer range 

[Lurick]

You run fiber in around 99% of data center applications. Copper Cat6/Cat8 is generally for 10Gbps or lower bandwidth connections, Cat8 can do 25Gbps or 40Gbps depending on the spec but there isn't any gear that uses it and probably won't anytime soon. Fiber (most applications) or some copper Twinax(at 0.5/1/3/5/7 meters fixed length) is for everything else. Twinax is really cheap but fixed speeds so you need to rip/replace the whole cable to upgrade. Fiber you just need to swap the (Q)SFP modules to change speed without ripping out cabling.

 

Ignoring Twinax fixed length which can do 400Gbps today at 7-10 meters I believe, fiber can do thousands of kilometers (at 400Gbps+ as well) and copper RJ45 can do 100m but is basically dead in most data center applications where 25Gbps+ of speed is needed.