Read more.Quote:
When wireless beats wired.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
When wireless beats wired.
It's a bit unfair to compare Wifi 6 to Gigabit ethernet and then say "wireless beats wired"....well of course it will in the right situation!
It would be much fairer to compare against a 10GBe card, which will far outperform Wifi6.
Don't get me wrong - wifi6 is brilliant and yes it does beat my gigabit network cards at home.....just about...but still has latency issues compared to wired (albeit a difference of only a few ms, but still) and I have found the signal to be inconsistent. This is on a 4x4 router (but 2x2 clients obviously). I use my 10gbe port for my PC.
This card seems really cheap though for it's performance - half the cost of an entry level 10gbe card, and provided your router has wifi6 support it will work for far more people than a wired connection will.
No latency test? Isn't that kind of the important stat?
And this is why many of us feel that 2.5G or even 5G ethernet should be standard these days....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
Yes, and they should test it with 5-10 mobile devices accessing the same AP to simulate a 'normal' scenario too
In terms of the throughput, it should be noted that the wired connection can do that speed full duplex (both transmit and receive simultaneously) so you should be able to double that figure. Full duplex on the wifi would be interesting.
And yes that is cheaper than a 10GbE card, but more expensive than a 2.5GbE card which last I looked you could get for £30 on Amazon. Not seen any 5GbE ones.
And with other nearby wireless networks polluting the airwaves. That will have zero impact on the wired connection but I'd like to see how much it affects the wireless.Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidmunkee
No latency test is a huge problem. OFDM should keep link quality solid in congested areas but when you get two or three routers in a neighbourhood fighting over channels, it gets messy. I tend to do an area survey before bothering to / suggesting people fork out for expensive hardware. If it's clear airwaves and there's no microwave / cupboard full of tins in the way, it's not really worth worrying about expensive adaptors. Also, when they start going on about saving CPU resources, you know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I don't think the price is absurd as I pay that quite happily for a specialist wireless adaptor.
I do think the location of the antennae is just beyond daft. Most 'hardcore' users of such stuff will plug in their own directional, high gain antennae which will be on a lead but I really think a high end product needs those antennae locatable without paying more for two movable antennae or extension wires and taping them to the wall....
There's no point in bundling two reasonably high gain antennae like those and then having them stuck in the worst possible place. Either put them on a lead or bundle cheapo ones, drop the price and explain you expect the real hardcore users to put their own 'specialist' antennae on it. Then sell them some overpriced "killer" antennae.
This smells... cabled is always better than wifi... if you are that much into killer network for eg. games and such.... why in the heck would you even consider a wireless solution.
Also why no comparison to actual wireless solutions?
Fast, great. But for most people it's willy waving. How much of your time do you spend transferring data around the house? Most people will be transferring data in and out of the house and an average UK broadband speed of 68Mbs means that the Killer is well over specced and broadband isn't really there yet. Our Virgin at around 385Mbs isn't going to affect it either. I'll stay fully wired through the house and garage, 1Gbs over Cat6 is fine.
I would probably add there aren't many laptops with wifi6 enabled in stores right now, smartphones are beginning to include it. Factor in router cost right now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrontis
Well the router for my gigabit cable connection, i doubt it can do the 1 gbit DL speeds.
On my 2019 phone i only get a little over 410 mbit over wifi.
Of course i know not what wifi standard my phone or router support, it is not something i use under normal circumstances, when i want to use my laptop i have to go to the router and press the wifi ON button first.
Actuallu i have never benched the wifi speed on my laptop, damm it now i feel like turning it on just to see,,,,, but i have to get up of chair and walk 6 - 7 paces to get there and back to my chair.
[QUOTE=Gentle Viking;1338941]Well the router for my gigabit cable connection, i doubt it can do the 1 gbit DL speeds.
On my 2019 phone i only get a little over 410 mbit over wifi.
You are quite correct about the router download speeds. I had to upgrade from an older Draytek (can't remember the model) to a newer Vigor 2960 so that I could get the 350Mbs Virgin download speeds. The Vigor is only rated to 500Mbs, so if Virgin offer me an upgrade to 1000Mbs, I will have to upgrade to the Draytek Vigor 3900 or to fully future proof the Vigor 3910, which at the thick end of £700 is a bit of a commitment for a home network. But hey I like the Draytek stuff and it's made in Taiwan, not china.
Virgin here and stuck on 10/100 ethernet......
This is a bigger issue than better wifi for me as I can easily saturate the network with powerline adapters as it is a rented flat and I can't run wires
with virgin the biggest issue is latency not a speed, they have one of the worst routs everQuote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
no issues here to be fair and on a par with other networks available. I'd not swap as we also have Virgin TV and we can't get the same package at the same price or anywhere near...Quote:
Originally Posted by half_empty_soul
Now I know people will wince at this we pay £99 a month for Virgin. But we do get 2 x V6 boxes, 500 meg tinternet, phone line and a SIM which has unlimited calls, texts and data
Jeeze, for that sort of money I think I would be building my own router that I knew could keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrontis
The SCAN listing suggests that this also adds BT 5.1 connectivity which is not mentioned anywhere in this review. Maybe people won’t use it, but if indeed it does, that is a further value add if you’re comparing it to a wired NIC surely?
People are harping on about the price of this thing comparing it to 2.5 and 10GbE cards when you should actually be comparing it to other PCI-E WiFi add in cards. Presumably it is that market that prospective customers are looking through I.e. people who’ve decided not to cable their homes. If you look at this in comparison it’s priced reasonably. You can get WiFi cards dirt cheap if you want a 300Mb N wireless one. But who does? Given that this is an Intel chip which have a good reputation and it’s backed up with useable software and no driver issues, there isn’t much to scoff at.
In which case powerline ethernet over mains is still generally the better solution for gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syphadeus
The Bad: Antennas not relocatable.
Extension cables can be had for £5 each if you're desperate...
OK. I know it's an extra expense, but not insurmountable.
Not in my personal experience. Though I know it’s not as variable, wiring quality can be a big issue for power line. I never got close to the 500Mb headline speed on either the TP Link or the Netgear sets I tried and the latency was not miles better than an AC wireless connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Just buy an e3-1225v3 based workstation, quad port Intel NIC and install Sophos Home XG on it and enjoy 500mb+ speeds with SSL decryption enabled. (e3-1225v3 is the processor in the 430 series appliance which is the minimum hardware Sophos recommends for gigabit management and costs around 10k for a year).Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Wouldn't touch powerline ever again after the TP-Link setup I had, constant collision packets over powerline which ended up slowing down the internet as the modem thought there was a line fault (when in fact it was the powerline adapters causing the issue). Now I'm using a couple of Amplifi routers (lesser version of Ubiquiti routers) and an ethernet backbone setup which is by far the better option where I live, the bonus being multiple SSIDs for wireless connections per router, depending on what is connecting and from where for the best signal and throughput.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Touch wood it solved my issues, and no massive dead spider router that really didn't do that great for wireless strength.
Oh the headline speeds are as much a joke as they are on WiFi, here I generally get about 50Mbps out of my 500Mb adapters. But the latency is good and it is stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syphadeus