Misplaced Pages

Serial communication: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:12, 8 February 2004 edit213.54.11.199 (talk) +de:← Previous edit Revision as of 23:38, 6 March 2004 edit undoPascal666 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,486 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:


At first sight it would seem that a serial link must be inferior to a parallel one, because it can transmit less data on each clock tick. However, there are plenty of compensating advantages. At first sight it would seem that a serial link must be inferior to a parallel one, because it can transmit less data on each clock tick. However, there are plenty of compensating advantages.
* A serial connection takes up less space. That's good in itself, but it also means that ... *A serial connection takes up less space. That's good in itself, but it also means that ...
* The extra space can be used to isolate it better from its surroundings. *The extra space can be used to isolate it better from its surroundings.
* Not having multiple conductors in close proximity means less crosstalk at higher frequencies. *Not having multiple conductors in close proximity means less crosstalk at higher frequencies.
* Clock skew between the different channels is not an issue. *Clock skew between the different channels is not an issue.
* These last three considerations mean that a serial connection can, all else being equal, be clocked considerably faster than a parallel one. *These last three considerations mean that a serial connection can, all else being equal, be clocked considerably faster than a parallel one.


Some examples of serial communication architectures: Some examples of serial communication architectures:


* ] (old, low-cost, low-speed, for connecting computers to peripherals) *] (old, low-cost, low-speed, for connecting computers to peripherals)
* ] (newer, moderate-speed, for connecting computers to peripherals) *] (newer, moderate-speed, for connecting computers to peripherals)
* ] (high-speed, for connecting computers to mass storage devices) *] (high-speed, for connecting computers to mass storage devices)
* ] (very high speed, broadly comparable in scope to ]) *] (very high speed, broadly comparable in scope to ])
*]
*]


] ]

Revision as of 23:38, 6 March 2004

The communications links across which computers, or parts of computers, talk to one another, may be either serial or parallel. A parallel link transmits several streams of data (perhaps representing particular bits of a stream of bytes) along multiple channels (wires, printed circuit tracks, optical fibres, ...); a serial link transmits a single stream of data.

At first sight it would seem that a serial link must be inferior to a parallel one, because it can transmit less data on each clock tick. However, there are plenty of compensating advantages.

  • A serial connection takes up less space. That's good in itself, but it also means that ...
  • The extra space can be used to isolate it better from its surroundings.
  • Not having multiple conductors in close proximity means less crosstalk at higher frequencies.
  • Clock skew between the different channels is not an issue.
  • These last three considerations mean that a serial connection can, all else being equal, be clocked considerably faster than a parallel one.

Some examples of serial communication architectures:

Serial communication: Difference between revisions Add topic