| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Is that like a quote from Copernicus or something … or famous quotes by Mellitz ?? :)
From: <Mellitz>, Richard <richard.mellitz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 9:04 AM To: Joel Goergen <jgoergen@xxxxxxxxx>, "STDS-802-3-50G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-50G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: Back Plane Loss Discussion More powerful Si is more power too. …Rich From: Joel Goergen (jgoergen) [mailto:jgoergen@xxxxxxxxx]
I agree with you … but what margin are you looking for? In the designs I target, 25dB has no value. I would need retimers. Retimers add space and power. So if I add them on more then 50% of the links, then I
should just as well set the power level to what I need it for to set the retimer number back into the 20ish% links requiring retimers. Take care Joel From:
<Mellitz>, Richard <richard.mellitz@xxxxxxxxx> For this market, it is not only power but lower cost volume manufacturability.
I really need 60dB if I use the “fit in the shoe box” argument.
J … Rich From: Joel Goergen (jgoergen) [mailto:jgoergen@xxxxxxxxx]
All My apologies for not starting this discussion sooner. I understand the there is a lot of push-back for a 50G interface 32dB@14Ghz. I would guess the reason is power related. My argument is that if the limit is 25dB or 28dB, a significant amount of retimers will be required. And therefore the power per link will be almost double
anyway. So power isn’t an argument. However, I would conceded to a lower loss level if we all agreed to completely define the retimer block and recognize it as a valid block function. Take care Joel |