Home Network - Sky CAT6

Pincher

Nilrem wrote: »

Are you sure?

The limits with speeds are mainly down to the physical medium used by the ethernet connection.

The physical product always exceeds specification, otherwise bridges will be collapsing every time you have a queue of fully loaded lorries. Latvian Supermarket is a good warning.


CAT5e is an enhanced specification on CAT5, which is already 100Mbps, so I have no doubt CAT5e will easily do 300Mbps+, especially when the cables are short.

I have a 15 year old 100BASE-T switch, through which I get about 50Mbps (according to Task Manager) when I do PC to PC file transfer (recorded Freeview shows 2GB typically ), with nothing else going on.


You seem to be saying the two pair CAT5 cable is using a point to point connection, and can fully utilitise the bandwidth without using the CSMA/CD protocol, which is the time waster when utilisation is high. When we were in the 10Mbps thin Ethernet era, IBM invented the token ring protocol to overcome this inherent problem. With token ring, you can run at say 80% utilisation, but I think bog standard Ethernet is no good above 50%.


It is possible that they have streamlined the protocol in the router somehow, so the collision detect is not such a big factor any more. I used to write X.25 protocol software for layer 3 and dabbled with the link layer, and when you see what liberties the French took on interpreting the CCITT red book (PVC 0 can be used as an SVC! Are they insane?), you never know what "improvements" people will make.


I assume the modem in question is capable of 80Mbps optical fibre speed, so it is logical to have a Gigabit port (with downward compatibility), unless the 100Mbps port has a few tricks up its sleeve.

OverRated

Either. It won't make any difference.

uddin_1995

OverRated wrote: »

Either. It won't make any difference.

Thanks for your response. Everything is set up and working fine. Using the standard cable provided and getting a download speed of 36mbps and in upload if around 8.70mbps this is with a wireless connection in my phone.

baby_frogmella

Nilrem wrote: »

Wireless does get congested easily if you're running at high speeds for your internet, it also has the problem that you can end up with dead or poor reception spots (let along potential issues if you've got neighbours using wireless, or anyone near you uses a wireless sender for their TV).

This is only true if you're using a cheap £20 wireless G router and its on 2.4ghz channel 1 which every man & his dog are using. I recently got fibre installed (65 down/15 up) and wired speedtests give me 50+ down and 10 up. Using Netgear's latest flagship router R7000 (has both 2.4 ghz & 5 ghz wifi) gives me exactly the same speeds on 802.11 AC wifi pci adaptor which is installed on the pc upstairs - router is downstairs. All of our 5 laptops are connected via wifi N and again everyone can watch online videos simultaneously anywhere in the house without any stuttering. Of course using a wired connection is always best, but if you don't want cables everywhere then using a top class dual band router such as Netgear R7000 and with 3 stream 802.11 N or AC wireless clients is almost as good as a wired connection.