Recommend a PCIe wifi adaptor

[kalniel]

So I have been gaming on a PCI Edimax (ralink) 802.11g adaptor and it's been great. An imminent broadband upgrade (if the ISP engineer every actually keeps an appointment) has pushed me to looking at an upgraded card for N or AC networking. So what cards are recommended?

I've tried a TP-link N900 PCIe adaptor which was cheap, but it added on average 5ms to the ping over the same .g network compared to the PCI card. I don't know if that's PCIe latency or just the card being worse.

The access point is on a different floor but range isn't a major concern (got -57dBm signal with the cheap card) - latency is more important for me.

[DanceswithUnix]

For latency I expect you would be better off with Homeplug AV.

From Linux server downstairs to a Win7 box upstairs, how does this compare with your wifi?


$ ping -c 10 192.168.100.4
PING 192.168.100.4 (192.168.100.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=4.46 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=3.02 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=2.94 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=14.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=4.82 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=6 ttl=128 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=7 ttl=128 time=2.22 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=8 ttl=128 time=2.92 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=9 ttl=128 time=2.26 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.100.4: icmp_seq=10 ttl=128 time=2.53 ms

--- 192.168.100.4 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9015ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.227/5.579/16.567/4.960 ms

[kalniel]

PS C:\> ping -n 10 192.168.1.254

Pinging 192.168.1.254 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.254:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 2ms, Average = 1ms

So, worse The 5ms difference was noticeable to external sites, though I guess I can't account for it if connection to router is still as quick :/

*shrugs* guess it's not really anything to be bothered about. Ping to google dns is perfectly acceptable, was just a little better with old card

PS C:\> ping -n 10 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=58
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 29ms

[DDY]

I've had good results with Intel WiFi chipsets.

I just did ping tests on my Dell Latitude E6400 and E7440 laptops fitted with Intel 5300 and 7260 cards respectively, both average 1ms ping to the WiFi AP in the next room.

For a desktop, I can recommend the same Intel based mini PCIe cards with a mini PCIe to PCIe adapter, such as these:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_fr...eless&_sacat=0

[kalniel]

For a desktop, I can recommend the same Intel based mini PCIe cards with a mini PCIe to PCIe adapter, such as these:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_fr...eless&_sacat=0

Ooh there's an idea. Thanks. I quite like the killer wifi mini cards but didn't think I'd be able to use them.

I've just been playing with optimising TCP and the ping is now quite close to my old card, so I wonder if I had also optimised that in the very distant past and there's actually no significant difference.

[herulach]

Ooh there's an idea. Thanks. I quite like the killer wifi mini cards but didn't think I'd be able to use them.

I've just been playing with optimising TCP and the ping is now quite close to my old card, so I wonder if I had also optimised that in the very distant past and there's actually no significant difference.

I have an asus PCE AC68, which is awesome. sustained 900mbs transfer speeds to the matching AC66U router. Ping looks like:
Gaming PC to Router

Pinging 192.168.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.1:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 0ms

Microserver to router

PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.268 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.286 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.299 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.295 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.311 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.293 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.305 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.311 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.321 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.301 ms
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.268/0.299/0.321/0.014 ms

WIFI to 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 16ms

Microserver to 8.8.8.8

PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=16.2 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=15.3 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=15.7 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=18.8 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=15.6 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=17.8 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=15.7 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=20.1 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=16.0 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=55 time=15.2 ms

--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9011ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.255/16.682/20.128/1.595 ms

So essentially the same speed, however I suspect it might depend as much on the quality of the router as the network card. Did you see the same problem across multiple devices?

[kalniel]

That is impressive.

No I've not bothered to test different devices. Router is terrible at the moment (O2 wireless box II) but it will hopefully become the home hub 5 which should be a bit better (along with fibre and all that jazz). Just trying to work out if it was worth trying something better than el-cheapo adaptor. We'll see I guess

[DanceswithUnix]

Interestingly pinging the other way from Windows box to Linux box shows:

>ping -n 10 gate

Pinging gate.internal [192.168.100.1] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.100.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.100.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 4ms

I expect the >10ms packets are caused by the webcam data being sent from another homeplug so there is some contention going on.

[shaithis]

I just did ping tests on my Dell Latitude E6400 and E7440 laptops fitted with Intel 5300 and 7260 cards respectively, both average 1ms ping to the WiFi AP in the next room.

For a desktop, I can recommend the same Intel based mini PCIe cards with a mini PCIe to PCIe adapter, such as these:

I'm using the 7260 in my HTPC and laptop, can't really grumble with them either. Very good performance and still cheap if you shop around. IIRC I managed to grab the desktop kits for around £30.

[kalniel]

So new broadband is better, but home hub 5 is actually a bit slower in latency terms than the old O2 wireless box 2 (with the same cheap adaptor)

PS C:\> ping -n 10 192.168.1.254

Pinging 192.168.1.254 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6
Reply from 192.168.1.254: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=6

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.254:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 4ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 4ms

PS C:\> ping -n 10 8.8.8.8

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53
Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
    Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 14ms, Average = 13ms

Worst thing is the TP-Link drivers - even latest ones available are causing DPC latency spikes that may get in the way of my audio work, need to test effect.

[abaxas]

All depends on the game. If it's ping to win (ie FPS) then use either homeplugs or a proper cable.

If not, wireless is fine. Just make sure it's on the right channel and it's not 'rate flapping'.

[MrRockliffe]

I've currently got a TP Link 5GHz wireless kit. Pretty good range, but I feel I need AC at times for that extra through-put when streaming to devices in the house.

Could someone recommend a good wireless AC kit and where to get the stuff? PCIe preferably. Or, maybe a wired home plugs (good for gaming).

Currently get roughly 18 ping in games such as titanfall.

[w0463167]

Not pcie, but im using a usb3 asus 1200ac adaptor, and its been brilliant

[MrRockliffe]

Prefer PCIe because I easily fill up USB ports on my computer with peripherals and external hard drives

[herulach]

Prefer PCIe because I easily fill up USB ports on my computer with peripherals and external hard drives

I sound like a stuck record, but I tried quite a few ac setup's and found for throughput I couldn't beat the top end Asus kit, as you'd expect given the price. That may be as much to do with antenna positioning due to the nifty little antenna stand you get.

As far as ping goes, even on 2.4ghz n kit that the current lot replaces (connected direct to a 'super'hub 2 no less) I was still reliably pinging sub 15 to most bf4 servers and noticed no difference at all over a wire.

Top tip, connect all the stuff you care about over 5ghz and the rest on 2.4. Provided everything I'd n it should be able to manage everything (we regular I have 2hd video streams on the 2.4g network and game e quite happily on the 5g

[MrRockliffe]

I only have my laptop and computer connected via 5GHz, everything else is wired or 2.4