Interconnect Latency & Power Comparison
Interconnect Technology Benchmarks

Latency, Power & Cost: Five Technologies, One Clear Outlier

Comparing DAC, AEC, AOC (optical), CPO, and e-Tube across the metrics that matter most for AI cluster performance at 800G–1.6T.

Latency per port (lower = better)
DAC (Passive Copper) ~1 ns
AEC (Active Electrical) 3–5 ns
CPO (Co-Packaged Optical) ~5 ns
AOC (Active Optical) >100 ns
e-Tube (Dielectric Wave) 80 ps ⚡
* AOC includes optical DSP processing delay. Scale is illustrative (log).
Power per 800G port in Watts (lower = better)
DAC (Passive Copper) 0 W
e-Tube (Dielectric Wave) ~3 W ✓
AEC (Active Electrical) 5–6 W
CPO (Co-Packaged Optical) ~10 W
AOC (Active Optical) 15–20 W
* DAC: zero active power but unusable at 1.6T due to reach. e-Tube excludes passive cable.
Technology Max Reach @ 1.6T Latency Power/port Relative Cost Skin Effect
Passive Copper (DAC)
< 1 m ~1 ns 0 W 1× (baseline) Fatal ✗
Active Electrical (AEC)
2–2.5 m 3–5 ns 5–6 W 1.5–2× Partial ⚠
Active Optical (AOC)
10 km+ >100 ns 15–20 W 4–10× None ✓
Co-Packaged Optical (CPO)
100 m+ ~5 ns ~10 W 10×+ None ✓
e-Tube (Dielectric Wave)
10–20 m 80 ps ⚡ ~3 W ~1.5× (vs DAC) None ✓
🔴
DAC
Free but unusable at 1.6T — can't reach across a rack
🟡
AEC
Short bridge — better than DAC but still too short for 1.6T
🔴
AOC
Great distance; terrible power bill and cost at scale
🟡
CPO
Advanced but complex, costly, still needs optical conversion
🟢
e-Tube
Best-in-class latency + 70% power saving + rack-scale reach
Source: Point2 Technology White Paper (2024) | IEEE 802.3 Task Force (2023) | Dell'Oro Group Market Forecast (2024)