SFP+ is not a good choice for a consumer device.

From a physical pov it’s not rated for anywhere near as many mating cycles and requires user care to protect against environmental damage.

From a connectivity pov you’re limited to short runs for DAC or extra cost to add a transceiver on each side.

▲

jeroenhd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Consumers don't need to detach/attach the actual modules. They can just plug in their ethernet cables like normal, except they'd also have the option to switch to something better in the long run.

It's more expensive but hardly an impossible fit. My router comes with an SFP+ port on the fiber side, it's just not labeled as such.

Combining SFP+ with fiber in consumer spaces is going to be more of a challenge (although I'll gladly accept it if it somehow makes it to market somehow).

▲

toast0 2 days ago | parent [-]

> They can just plug in their ethernet cables like normal, except they'd also have the option to switch to something better in the long run.

I don't think many will exercise that option, and it adds complexity and costs that most people won't need. It would be useful for some, so it would make sense to make some boards with sfp+ rather than an integrated transceiver, but not as the default.

If you want 10G sfp+, Intel x520 cards are cheap on ebay.

	▲	Avamander 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The cards might be cheap but they tend to be very hot and wasteful in terms of power. Only the newer more expensive modules finally support PCIe ASPM properly. Lack of it might actually also increase overall system power consumption due to certain sleep states becoming inaccessible.