It seems like, at 16000TbaseT anyways, you’re adding an overhead of about 150% on top of copper/fiber latency plus transmit time latency to process data at that bandwidth. I wonder if the same holds true at 100 vs 1000, 2500, 10000? Certainly this is a known tradeoff for DDR performance tuning — if you don’t mind spiking response times greatly, you can get the advertised maximum speeds, else you accept less bandwidth for somewhat less latency — and they’re both effectively using the same strategies to talk over copper.

> The LATMON pulse width is therefore an accurate measure of the total processing latency of each cycle and is affected by every element in the data path: processing delay in the microcontroller, network transmission delay, host OS delays, signal processing delay in the DAW, etc

I would love to know why this is hand-wavy and not very cool? Even as not-audiophile, I’ve got ideas of things to use this for.

> RME HDSPe AIO Pro PCIe

> eth68 matches the latency performance of the RME card at 48 kHz and surpasses it by 0.33 ms at 96 kHz.