Product comparison · 2 interface cards/adapters

GIGABYTE CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45 vs InLine 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2

8specifications compared
4differ
4identical
23known for one product only

Key differences

The InLine 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2 has 19 mm more width than the GIGABYTE CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45 (95 mm vs 76 mm). The GIGABYTE CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45 has 63 mm more depth than the InLine 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2 (115 mm vs 52 mm). Output interface: RJ-45 on the GIGABYTE CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45, M.2 on the InLine 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2. Expansion card standard: PCI 2.1 on the GIGABYTE CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45, PCIe 3.0 on the InLine 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2.

Output interface
- CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45:RJ-45
- 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2:M.2
Expansion card standard
- CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45:PCI 2.1
- 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2:PCIe 3.0
Width
- CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45:76 mm
- 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2:95 mm
Depth
- CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45:115 mm
- 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2:52 mm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only

Comparison of CLNCA12, 76660S
31 specifications	A GIGABYTE CLNCA12 interface cards/adapter Internal RJ-45 Model CLNCA12 View product	B InLine 76660S interface cards/adapter Internal M.2 Model 76660S View product
Ports & interfaces2 differ
Host interface	PCIe	PCIe
Output interfaceDiffers	RJ-45	M.2
Host interface gender	Male	Male
Expansion card standardDiffers	PCI 2.1	PCIe 3.0
NVMeKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
Number of M.2 (M) slotsKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	1
Designidentical
Internal	Yes	Yes
LED indicatorsKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
Country of originKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Taiwan
Product colourKnown for one	Blue	Unknown — not stated by the source
PurposeKnown for one	Server	Unknown — not stated by the source
Cooling typeKnown for one	Passive	Unknown — not stated by the source
Featuresidentical
Data transfer rate (max)	1 Gbit/s	1 Gbit/s
Poweridentical
Power supply input voltageKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	3.3 V
Operational conditionsidentical
Operating temperature (T-T)Known for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	-40 - 85 °C
System requirementsidentical
Windows operating systems supportedKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Windows 10, Windows 11, Windows 8, Windows 8.1
Linux operating systems supportedKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
Server operating systems supportedKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Windows Server 2012 R2
Technical detailsidentical
Compliance certificatesKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	TÜV mark, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), CE
Weight & dimensions2 differ
WidthDiffers	76 mm	95 mm
DepthDiffers	115 mm	52 mm
WeightKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	30 g
HeightKnown for one	14.2 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
Packaging dataidentical
Mounting brackets includedKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
ManualKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
Package weightKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	30 g
Package typeKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Hanging box
Quantity per packKnown for one	10 pc(s)	Unknown — not stated by the source
Package widthKnown for one	306 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
Package depthKnown for one	252 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
Package heightKnown for one	185 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More interface cards/adapters comparisons

All interface cards/adapters comparisons