|
|
|
|
|
by MaxBarraclough
2221 days ago
|
|
The counterpoint to this is that once you've got enough bandwidth (and low latency) to stream an interactive session with negligible quality issues, you can move anything that requires more bandwidth offsite ('the cloud') and just stream the audio/video output. As things stand though, it's as kortilla says: we don't even have any such bandwidth-intensive applications in the home. 4k video streaming is the most bandwidth-intensive problem we have. 10gbps may improve download rates for large archives, like modern games or perhaps major OS updates, but that doesn't strike me as a very compelling selling-point. It's a relatively rare occurrence, and reducing the download time by an hour (say) isn't worth reworking your Internet infrastructure. Even here, there's no gain if the Internet connection speed exceeds the write-speed of your storage hardware. edit It's not quite the same, but I think 5G faces a similar problem. What's the point? 4G is more than enough to stream video. The biggest issue with 4G isn't the bandwidth, or the latency, but the coverage, and I don't think 5G is going to help there. (There are still parts of central London without reliable 4G coverage.) |
|
Perhaps the previous commenter perceives a 10gbps connection as the speed of an actual, say, 5gbps connection.