LAN splitter/switch

getmore4less

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Question:

When you use a switch & have one cable from the router feeding that switch & then say, a PC plugged in to the switch & then say a games console ....

Do they both get the same speed as if they were connected directly to the router, or is it halved?

It's shared,
both can have full speed each on their own.
if both are trying to send/recieve then they get a bit each.

prowla

I would recommend a gigabit network switch.

The way a switch works is that each connection is gigabit capable, so in this case there would be three things connected to the switch: i. the BB router, ii. the PC, iii. the games console; each line is capable of handling a total of 1 Gb/s.

Now, if two items are connected and actively communicating with the same thing (eg. a PC and a games console both talking to the router) then they will share the 1 Gb/s capacity (bandwidth) of that line. Of course, if only one is on, or the other isn't doing much, then there won't be much contention.

However, it is unlikely that anything would use a full 1Gb/s throughput, so the likelihood of issues would be very low; perhaps if copying a huge file over the network, whilst watching a streaming video whilst playing a game. But, it is unlikely that it would be the switch itself which was the bottleneck anyway.

My guess is that the router will probably only have 100 Mb ports anyway, but I'd still go for the gigabit switch.

Given that most people's Internet connections are 10s of Mbs, it's unlikely that two machines sharing a 100 Mb connection via a switch will even notice each other is present.

Regardless of the speeds of the connecting kit, I'd still recommend a Gb switch.

fred246

I always feel sorry for the OP on these threads. They are just asking for simple advice but all they get is 'gadget boys' who just like to prove that their gadgets are superior to everybody else's. They ask for advice on a £6 switch that runs at 100Mbps. It's perfectly adequate and will do the job required for years to come. The vast majority of people just want to share the broadband connection. Average broadband speed is 20Mbps. So no problem there. Lots of people use wireless that is running at far less than 100Mbps. You'd only notice a difference if you were transferring massive files between the PC and PS4 which very few people would do. The idea that 100Mbps is end of life (EOL) is crazy. Just look at the reviews from normal people buying the product for normal use.

RichardD1970

Thanks for all the replies.

Had previous routers etc but the wife made me clear them all out a while ago in a big sort out before decorating:doh: I told her they would come in useful (along with the draw full of cables and connectors dating back to VHS days ) but she insisted.

Used some home plugs for the kids PC's a while ago and they were fine for homework, Googling etc but no good for the lads on-line gaming, too much interference etc and we got better speed with Wi-Fi.

kwikbreaks

Why is there always this big argument about 10/100 or 10/100/1000 switches? The far faster gigabit switches are just a few pounds more expensive and will handle any foreseeable need for their probable lifetime. Sure a 10/100 switch may be fine for quite a while but data needs are increasing at one hell of a rate.

I just replaced a 5 port gigabit switch with no spare ports for an 8 port one just to give myself a little headroom. It was a branded one (Netgear) from Amazon in a metal case (for most people irrelevant) and cost £13 delivered although I did get something else at the same time to get free delivery. My fibre BB is only 70Mbps, my ageing NAS only has a 10/100 port, and I rarely do any time critical machine to machine transfers. So did I consider saving myself a couple of quid by just getting a 10/100 switch instead. Absolutely no way. My BB speed may increase (I could go back to VM although admittedly hell would need to freeze over first), I may update my NAS box but even if I do neither the tiny saving isn't worth the future proofing gigabit networking offers imo.

JustAnotherSaver

fred246 wrote: »

I always feel sorry for the OP on these threads. They are just asking for simple advice but all they get is 'gadget boys' who just like to prove that their gadgets are superior to everybody else's. They ask for advice on a £6 switch that runs at 100Mbps. It's perfectly adequate and will do the job required for years to come. The vast majority of people just want to share the broadband connection. Average broadband speed is 20Mbps. So no problem there. Lots of people use wireless that is running at far less than 100Mbps. You'd only notice a difference if you were transferring massive files between the PC and PS4 which very few people would do. The idea that 100Mbps is end of life (EOL) is crazy. Just look at the reviews from normal people buying the product for normal use.

Indeed. I don't know of anyone around here that has anywhere near 100MBps.

Maybe in cities like London, but let's not get like the Americans & think there's only 1 place in the world - where we live.

I personally get 38MB/s & around here i'm doing quite well.

jbainbridge

OP - the answer is yes.

ChiefGrasscutter

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Indeed. I don't know of anyone around here that has anywhere near 100MBps.
Maybe in cities like London, but let's not get like the Americans & think there's only 1 place in the world - where we live.

I'm in a rural area and I have a 100Mbps symmetrical - ie both download and upload full fibre FTTP connection from Gigaclear - as do probably near on 50% of my village by now.

John_Gray

Thank heaven for that!
You will be able to download all the Windows Updates so much more quickly than most other people...

londonTiger

Get NETGEAR GS105 it's just shy of £20 and is a good balance of value and performance. I will err against tp-link and the like. The cheap brands can have reliability issues when you connect another cheap client devices which the switch isn't 100% agreeable with.

netgear are used by big companies and have a better rep in the industry.