XR infrastructure comparison
This tool compares a traditional layout with a Hyperspan XR extended-reach copper design. The numbers apply to that comparison only. They are not assumptions about fibre, racks, cameras or the rest of the portfolio.
Project inputs
Live project comparison
33.3% lower rack power burden. Est. annual electricity saving: £1,095
Estimated yearly electricity saving based on 1 fewer racks.
Projected five-year electricity saving from reduced powered infrastructure.
Estimated annual CO₂ reduction from lower rack electricity consumption.
Detailed project comparison
| Metric | Traditional Design | Hyperspan Design | Reduction with Hyperspan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total outlets | 72 | 72 | 0 |
| Outlets over 90m from original rack | 4 | 4 | Routed edge run: 53.3m | Hyperspan spans 3 floor(s) |
| Rack / comms room count | 3 | 2 | 1 fewer |
| Materials cost | £22,200 | £17,620 | £4,580 |
| Labour time | 8.7 days | 7.3 days | 1.4 days |
| Labour cost | £5,220 | £4,359 | £861 |
| Total job cost | £30,162 | £24,177 | £5,985 |
Fewer comms rooms
Extended reach can allow wider coverage from fewer locations, reducing rack hardware, space usage and ongoing support overhead in suitable buildings.
Simpler topology
With fewer intermediate locations, the network can be easier to understand, deploy, document and maintain over the life of the site.
Faster installs
When rack count drops, installers spend less time building out extra rooms, powering extra switches and coordinating additional cross-connect infrastructure.