is gigabit ethernet significantly faster?

On June 23 2011 17:58 OpTicalRH wrote:
Gigabit ethernet (1000mbps) vs regular ethernet (100mbps)

The number shows it might be siginificantly faster, but is there any bottleneck from the hardware or the cable that causes no vast difference?

I'm deciding between returning WNDR3400 router and getting Linksys 1000 because although wndr3400 is better than the linksys one overall, it doesn't support gigabit.

I've been getting average of 250ms in pings when someone is downloading, but would gigabit lower the ping as well?


Thank you always for the advices.

On June 23 2011 18:10 OpTicalRH wrote:
I have upgraded my internet service to optimum online boost plus, but I have not found the wording on the gigabit support, so it won't matter even if I get a gigabit capable router?

Edit.
I changed from wireless to wired using 200ft cat5e cable, set QOS on my router, set my MAC address as highest priority and all the others as low priority, and even purchased netcontrol and limited the bandwidth for p2p programs, but the ping still idels around 200~300ms. I don't see what is the problem still..

On June 23 2011 18:39 GarlicSauce wrote:
If you have multiple computers on your home-network it's always better to go for gigabit (like 2 desktops, a laptop and some wireless devices). Because your connection will be faster if there's no additional traffic on your Lan.

(a computer transferring gigabites of data to another takes forever on 100mbit)

I noticed with my old 100mbit router significant internet download slowdowns whenever other computers in the network were transferring files on my Lan. No issues like that with my Gigabit router. Ofcourse newer routers have better capabilities in dividing different data-streams. (like 'gaming'-routers, where ping/lag is not so much affected when other computers in your network are downloading)

Also, keep in mind 100mbit means effectively around 50-60mbit due to overhead etc ... there are definitely internet connections faster than that.

On June 23 2011 19:35 lisward wrote:
I switched from regular ethernet to gigabit ethernet because I've been having bottlenecks everytime I play xbox live, but now it's working perfectly fine, am I wrong to say that gigabit ethernet ports help manage bottlenecks better?

On June 23 2011 19:34 grs wrote:
No, read this. The age of hubs is over.

I don't know where you get these numbers from. We are talking about Fast Ethernet (100BASE-X) which is 100 Mbit/s = 12.5 MB/s; there is no overhead on the physical layer. Overhead comes into play when you factor in a protocol sending data and the overhead is completely different for different protocols and depends on a lot of factors, but 100 Mbit/s, stays 100 Mbit/s.

On June 23 2011 18:08 Taf the Ghost wrote:
Your ping to outside servers is hitting 250ms because the Internet connection is being flooded (which probably means Bittorrent), your ethernet won't change that. Unless you need to move files or your internet connection is faster than 100 megabit, it won't matter for flooding. Quality of Service is what will deal with flooding, but that's more technical than I have on routers these days.

On June 23 2011 20:27 Jedi Master wrote:
You are so stupid. 1000mb LAN doesn't give you a better ping. It's just network bandwitch and has nothing to do with your internet connection!

On June 23 2011 18:10 OpTicalRH wrote:
I have upgraded my internet service to optimum online boost plus, but I have not found the wording on the gigabit support, so it won't matter even if I get a gigabit capable router?

Edit.
I changed from wireless to wired using 200ft cat5e cable, set QOS on my router, set my MAC address as highest priority and all the others as low priority, and even purchased netcontrol and limited the bandwidth for p2p programs, but the ping still idels around 200~300ms. I don't see what is the problem still..

On June 23 2011 21:44 GreEny K wrote:


Yeah, way to come in here and call people stupid and then not have proof of what you're talking about. IF you want to sound credible you might want to add in a reliable link that supports your statement. Don't be a dick, you won't last long on TL.

On June 23 2011 22:44 Apokalipse wrote:
Bandwidth is not latency.

Bandwidth is the amount of data going through per second.
Latency is the time it takes for a piece of data to travel to its destination.

If you have two computers, each with 1000mbps connection to the one router, you can send/receive much more data per second between those two computers than with 100mbps.

The number of packets sent/received per second is higher, but the time it takes each packet of data to get there won't really change.

If one computer had a 1000mbps connection, and one had a 100mbps connection, you can still only send/receive data at up to 100mbps between the two computers.

If you connect to your router at 1000mbps, but your router connects to the internet at 20mbps, you can only send/receive data at up to 20mbps over the internet.

On June 24 2011 00:14 OpTicalRH wrote:


This is how I set up my QOS, and there are normally 2 more computers attached to my network.

For the reminder, I'm using Netgear WNDR3400 router and 50mbps/8mbps internet connection.

It is ridiculous that I spent about 30 dollars on the bandwidth controlling software and paying 15 dollars extra per month for the upgraded connection speed but the ping problem still persists.

Besides, it is not bittorrent that people are using, it is some retarded korean downloading program that doesn't even have a limit on the dled/upload speed.
I don't even know what else to do anymore..

On June 24 2011 06:18 enderwiggnz wrote:
I would look at that checkbox that says "Turn Internet Access QoS on", and make sure that it's checked.

A gig/100 switch isnt going to change anything in a material fashion, as many have already pointed out, your upstream connection is slower.

The best suggestion so far has been to plug your computer right into the upstream router. you may need a crossover cable to do this, although gigabit standard will auto-detect this and do the crossover cable, without a crossover cable, so you don't need one if your computer has gigabit.

On June 24 2011 09:48 xarthaz wrote:
If you get a good brand name card then the giga bit really doesa lot of difference. the internet weill be more stable, load faster, etc. just generally better even if your isp isnt using full speed.

On June 24 2011 01:52 MrTortoise wrote:
If you are not 100% positive of what you are talking about why answer a technical support question?
Who gives a fuck about the difference between a router and a switch? The problem is his connection.

doing it by mac address is a far better idea than doing it by port tbh. The router has the NAT, so it has access to any port data, it also can work by mac address. A lot of companies mange their network devices this way. Its a lot easier to turn a device off and manage it by mac address ... so before you say his settings are wrong go and do some research.

As for the 1 gig thing .. your hard disk will probably max its read speed out at about 50 megs/sec. You wont use anywhere near that much bandwidth ... 1 gig networks are helpful at lan parties as a backbone for several 100 meg subnets.

Anyway the problem is your PING ... that is between your router and an external website. What the cretins above are saying is that your bandwidth determines how much data per second you can send.

Then some people are saying that the extra packets from BT are stopping others from your game getting through ... that is correct and will lead to lack of data which you may feel a bit like packet loss.

But your ping shuoldnt be that high even with bit torrent running. to say that bit torrent will increase your ping is to say that the use of bit torrent will slow the speed your router responds to things down. In this case your router is not fit for purpose. Internet traffic is TINY in comparison to what a 100meg router can handle.

the ONLY post you want to read here is the one where the guy says check your ping when noone is using bit torrent. My guess is that it will still be high.

There will be a problem at your exchange or your isp is using loopbacks to help manage peaks and troughs in its traffic.

If you are running programs like bit torrent your ping *will* change but not goto 200 ... its packet loss you will be feeling most of all. Stuttery performance rather than laggy. I suspect your feeling when playing the game is that it will pause for periods and then speed up or just stutter in a painful sick inducing manor. I play games all the time with torrents running - the problems come when the game needs to get a large amount of data to you quickly and constantly (eg when i multitable 20 tables on a poker site). things like SC2 are really good at coping with lag, but *terrible* with packet loss. FPs games are another matter (but they use so much interpolation these days that you may as well be using a stipple effect in paint to shoot with).

Its wierd as internet got quicker ... the problems changed from ping to packetloss. I suspect it is the latter that you are suffering from which is why i suggest using tracert (if you see stars you are dropping packets)

Do a LOT of trace routes (i mean like 10 a day for 2 weeks to 4-5 different sites and then armed with your data goto your isp and tell them to fix whatever thing it is that is slowing your conenction down.

really the problem is that you didnt try and get quakeworld working with settings that were playable