Talk:Transfers per second

message: What's a transfer in this context? Is it a byte? A packet? E.g. how much bytes would 10MT/s transfer (the verb) in 1 second? 10 million bytes, or maybe 10 million packets of e.g. 4KB making it 4 billion bytes? 193.74.100.50 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One bit per data line.  Multiply by the bus width (e.g. 1 bit for PCIe x1, 16 bits for PCIe x16, 64 bits for SDRAM) to get bits per second.  (In theory, multi-level signalling could encode more than 1 bit per bud, but that's not currently used in such contexts.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer? 

message: This sounds like a somewhat more specific and useless version of "baud", doesn't it? Something like x bauds = x symbols per second = x/(data pumping rate) transfers per second? 217.153.153.210 (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baud? 

message: Trying to reinvent the Hertz; no, not all frequencies are clock frequencies. Destroy with prejudice. 92.39.196.233 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference.  Hertz is cycles per second, i.e. the signal returns to its initial state. Double-pumping works by observing that one data bit is at most half a cycle, so you can transmit two bits per cycle.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with this. Wikipedia has gotten away with retroactively renaming things with stupid substitutions for too long. The original definition was in Megahertz, it doesn't need to be changed. The same goes with the Megabyte; We don't need a consortium panel of idiots telling us what we need to call things. Ggigabitem (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Superfluous idiocracy. What a waste of time. Let's invent a non-technical, unofficial (and officially unrecognised) term to buff some editor's ego. I clicked on a link named MT in the Ivy Bridge article with some apprehension, sure I was about to see yet another abhorrence similar to the delicious mibibyte et al. Yep; sure enough, here we are. Blitterbug 11:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless/Pointless 

message: The article mixes transfer and transfer rates. A rewrite is needed to clarify this and the comments above. I've tagged the lack of references and problems. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed the foo versus foo/s confusion too. I'll try to clear that up now. However I'm not sure what to do about the other problems mentioned above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.201.53 (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok, I believe I improved this, but it needs a lot more work. The part about the physical data rate being limited by the speed at which one can change the field down a wire seemed to me to be a garbled/confused version of Shannon's Law; I just deleted it, but I think a reference to Shannon's Law might be appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.201.53 (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed 

message: This should be renamed to "Transfer and transfer per second". The joule is not equal to the joule per second (watt), the newton metre is not equal to the joule (newton metre radian), etc. 2600:4040:208F:2A00:CDC5:7A1F:39FF:5A73 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move