>tfw I fell for the ethernet meme There is literally no fucking

>wifi card
Enjoy your tumors

>>57541427
>>tfw I fell for the ethernet meme
>There is literally no fucking difference in performance compared to my good WiFi card.

>T. faggot

No (you) for you

bad bait, but i'm the one replying, so i guess you won.

File: 1475527460559.jpg (109KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 900x900px

Bait

>>57541427
lol

File: 800.png (146KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 625x626px

>>57541427
Enjoy you're ping spikes and being the cancer in online multiplayer.
It all depends on the distance and obstacles/walls between you and the the router.

I've been think about ditching this retarded wire running through the house. Would this be good enough? To not suck shit ?https://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-450Mbps-Wireless-Express-TL-WDN4800/dp/B007GMPZ0A/

>>57541493
>Enjoy you're ping spikes and being the cancer in online multiplayer.
>>>/v/

>>57541493
and being the cancer in online multiplayer
I'm Plat in LoL and I've never been connected via ethernet.

>>57541546
This is the one I was using

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833166076

Plug n Play, very easy setup.

File: 09a5aa011d523125de2a0f49633a9215.jpg (31KB, 500x746px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x746px

>>57541427

bait

File: cff[1].png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>57541427

>>57541493
>gaymen

>>57541579
>plat
>good

k

>>57541493
multiplayer is for casual dudebros

>>57541427

Sure. Sustained 120 MB/s transfer speeds and <1 ms ping is totally feasable on Wi-Fi.

>>57541427
try shifting 100's of files or even a few large files, wifi can't keep up with ethernet even if it's the latest 80mhz tri-band wifi, even cat5 kicks its arse,

>>57541672
>try shifting 100's of files or even a few large files

Why? This is a computer for gaymen not some sort of pencil pushing dead end job.

>>57541692
>gaming over wifi
enjoy huge lag and lost packets when your neighbour uses their microwave.

>>57541692

Not using something != Their performance is equal

>>57541579
Plat isn't good and League of Legends isn't difficult at all.

>>57541707
Microwaves don't affect the 5ghz band

>>57541707
Microwave ovens operate at around 2.4 GHz
Modern WLAN operates at 5.0 to 5.2 GHz

>>57541734
>Plat isn't good and League of Legends isn't difficult at all

>t. Cardboard 7 adc main

It still requires a good connection with no ping spikes or packet loss you mong

>>57541707
Wow I didn't know those operated at 5ghz. Oh wait they don't.

Must suck to be you where you can't even afford dual band equipment.

>>57541796

not that guy, but environment and device really affects whether 2.4 or 5 is actually going to be functional. you can't just assuse that 5 band always is the best.

File: 81152269.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>57541766
>>57541777

Yeah, and harmonics from an almost 2kW RF source will be practically non-existent one octave higher.

>>57541885
The octave is far above 5 GHz.

File: rated b for bait.png (14KB, 220x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x300px

>>57541427
(You)

>>57541579

it probably matters more in fps games than moba

league having its servers west coast only might also matter more than an abnormally dropped amount of packets though

especially a piece of shit like csgo where every fight comes down to milisecond reaction times and netcode luck and whoever gets the spread luck on their side for that particular fight

My ethernet is worse because cable modem router combo is just shit it or maybe a 10m cable is too long for it.

>>57541692
When you want to copy files over different PC, you don't want 2 MBps.

>>57541427
In a situation where only one device at a time is generating heavy traffic (HD Streaming or whatever), then yeah... you're not going to notice much of a difference.

Try running a media server and streaming 1080p to two or more clients over wifi, especially on a consumer grade router, and you'll quickly see why people like ethernet.

>>57541427
if you had said no noticeable difference I'd agree with you.
It's pretty hard to tell the difference between 700-900Mbps and solid 1000Mbps outside of copying very big files

>>57542497
There's latency, consistency, security, being full duplex, higher throughput available, etc. Wired connections are just superior. Wi-Fi is for convenience.

Both my roommates are Ethernet fags and I'm sick of all these cables running all over the house.

>>57541427
> need internet on attic
> big ass house
> 200$ router
> get 78 mbps
> buy 25 meter cable
> hit 500 mbps on cable

>>57542497
>if you had said no noticeable difference I'd agree with you

I should've worded the OP better, that was what I was going for.

File: Screenshot from 2016-11-16 01-45-23.png (68KB, 953x431px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 953x431px

6/10 too obvious.

Still chuckled.

>good WiFi card

even a wifi from 10 years ago can max out average comcast "broadband"

>no drivers to have to deal with
>no WPA or any other security cause its not needed
>basically always connected
>no flooded channels
>can connect to the internet without any addition cards or other nunfuckery
>never had an ethernet port just stop working

>>57541427

λ sudo ping -c100000 -f virgo 
PING virgo (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
 
--- virgo ping statistics ---
100000 packets transmitted, 100000 received, 0% packet loss, time 30064ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.112/0.240/1.714/0.077 ms, ipg/ewma 0.300/0.226 ms

WLAN fags report back

>>57542634
this

>>57542652

Maxing out a 25 Mbps service is one thing. Streaming or file transfer over the network is another.

2/10 retarded.

>>57542546
ignore that last post if you saw it, I clicked far above the submit button but it sent it anyways

latency has always been less than 1ms for me on wifi. Even on my POS thinkpads wireless card it's 1ms or less
and unless you are across the house, or have 700 wireless networks around you (or have a shitty AP) then that isn't a problem either (and latency is still 1ms or lower)
And if you have any halfway decent wireless card/AP then you can be sending and receiving data at the same time.
and again, you most likely aren't going to need >800Mbps to your laptop 24/7, and I think you can wait 1 second longer to download that 1GB file

If you notice your wifi is faster than wired, maybe it's time to upgrade to gigabit ethernet.

Those things are cheap now, no need to stick to 10baseT forever, no matter the retro feel of it.

>>57542682
>Even on my POS thinkpads wireless card it's 1ms or less
That's still much slower than the 100-300ns ping times for my ethernet network.
>And if you have any halfway decent wireless card/AP then you can be sending and receiving data at the same time.
I can't think of any consumer equipment that supports this. Regardless, all bandwidth is shared with Wi-Fi.

>>57542702
nah we should all go back to baud modems

>>57542702
>>57542707

REPEAT AFTER ME

OLDER IS ALWAYS BETTER

(also, legaler)

>>57542293
League serves aren't on the west coast anymore.

>>57542706
>That's still much slower than the 100-300ns ping times for my ethernet network.
>implying that you can notice that

>I can't think of any consumer equipment that supports this. Regardless, all bandwidth is shared with Wi-Fi.
nigga you retarded?
this has exist in consumer grade devices for YEARS
even my 2011 macbook pro has 3x3 wireless antennas on it, and my apple dildo router has 3x3
shit you can get one for $25 on amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Wireless-AC-Network-Bluetooth-7260-HMWWB-R/dp/B00N7474CS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1479327161&sr=8-2&keywords=intel+ac+7260

>>57542842
MIMO is not full duplex, it's just aggregating a bunch of half duplex links.

>>57542706

All wireless transmits in half-duplex, so you are correct. Whether cell phones, wifi, UHV, etc. However, the TX/RX can be so quick, it seems to be at the same time.

>>57542842

Nigga are YOU fucking stupid MIMO = Multiple input, Multiple Output. Not I/O at the same time. It increase the bandwidth of either the send of the receive.

Schmuck.

All wireless operates at half-duplex. Either it TX or it RX.

Go into wifi card settings, and show me where you can put the mode to full-duplex.

>>57542882
No, there are full duplex wireless links (mostly for PTP backhaul applications). Wi-Fi just isn't one of them.

>>57542921

No, there is full deuplex emulation like TDMA and CDMA. No radio channel can be both tx and RX. impossible.

File: your_shit___fuck_it.png (196KB, 485x409px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 485x409px

>>57541427
Take it from someone who streams steam games.

You're wrong.

>>57542945
Yes, that's why those systems use multiple channels.

>>57542955
>Take it from someone who streams steam games

You're lower than /v/ fags

>>57542968

no, they use multiple frequencies.

>>57542975
Ok.

>>57541906

2 x 2.45 GHz is 4.90 GHz bruh.

>>57541427
go suck a dick, OP
i bet you have an iPhone.

>>57542975

>yes, they use multiple frequencies.

FTFY

>>57541427
I agree, and that's why I only use it with stuff that doesn't move around frequently.

>>57542955
i only stream walmart games

>>57541427
>muhh weeefee card
Normalfag
Wireless NIC

>>57543207
There's nothing wrong with saying Wi-Fi card.

>>57541493
>gaming
kys

>>57543207
That's such a fucking non-issue that to imply otherwise is the peak of faggotry.

That's like making a big deal that people say "apple" instead of "Malus pumila"

>>57543207
Normans refer wireless networking to just Internet or facebook now and Ethernet as "Wifi cable".

>>57543333
Does this mean just knowing how to use a keyboard guarantees job security?

>>57543272

If it's actually PCI(e) or PCMCIA then I'm okay with it.

>>57543347
Of course. You don't even need to know what the numpad is for because only accountants use that according to /g/.

>>57543425
the fuck else is it supposed to be?

>>57543425
I've never seen any laptop with an integrated Wi-Fi NIC, actually.

>>57541427
If you see no difference between WiFi and ethernet, you're internet speeds are so slow the bottleneck of WiFi isn't limiting you yet.

>>57543515

USB I'm afraid.

What's the best laptop wifi card with 3 antenna pins?

>>57543661
Intel or Broadcom AC units.

ITT: A bunch of normies with casual use network demands so OF COURSE they don't understand why you might need something better.

>>57543574
>you're internet speeds are so slow

I get 170/20

>>57543737
Thanks for proving my point.

>>57543760
Thats top of the line here in burgerland

>>57543846
>burgerland
Found your problem.

>>57543574
The problem with wifi is the quality drop-off with distance. If you're immediately next to the access point, you get LAN latencies.

If you're a room or two away, your connection starts to degrade fast. Enjoy your random latency spikes and dropped packets.

>>57541427

I've never in my life gotten 10+ MBPS on a download on my WiFi network, even though I have a good router.

Plugged in to the same router, on the same connection, I easily download at 15+ MBPS.

>>57543863
The biggest issue with WiFi is it's half duplex.

>>57541778

>plat
>good

what the fuck ? holy shit.

File: gold_star_great_job.jpg (24KB, 324x324px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 324x324px

>>57541427
>Not realizing the difference is dependent on interference.
Great job dumbass. Have a gold star.

>>57541493
>just don't reply.jpg
>replies

if you want to get cancer in life for a minor pleasure you'd might as well continue using ethernet and go fuck hookers and get HPV

>>57543952
(You)

>>57543888
And that it's subject to interference. And bandwidth is shared between all connections.

File: lan speed test.png (16KB, 412x437px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 412x437px

>>57541427
>There is literally no fucking difference in performance compared to my good WiFi card.
You get around 1Gbps on your wifi?

>>57541442
>>There is literally no fucking difference in performance compared to my good WiFi card.
But there's an enormous difference in terms of reliability and security.

File: Bait.webm (785KB, 760x314px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 760x314px

>>57541427

File: 1472792530007.jpg (56KB, 1134x692px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1134x692px

>>57541493
>>57541482
>>57541461
>>57541632
>>57541620

I use this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106251

And I end up getting the same speeds as if I were using a wired connection. I just attached the antenna to my wall as high as a could for the best signal.

>>57544157
>You get around 1Gbps on your wifi?
Not because I don't get Gbps internet?

>>57541906
Do you know what an octave is?

File: Router-640x368.jpg (23KB, 640x368px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x368px

>>57541427
>There is literally no fucking difference in performance compared to my good WiFi card.
This only holds true if you have a high-end 802.11ac router and your devices support 802.11ac wifi signal.

Unfortunately that means having to buy hideous and expensive routers like pic related.

As for everyone else that has routers and devices that use plain old 802.11g, you're fucked especially if you connect more than a single device and you're limited to a theoretical 54Mbps maximum bandwidth (like 30Mbps irl).

>tl;dr wifi except for 802.11ac wifi is fucking dogshit and not a replacement for a 1000 Mbps ethernet cable.

>>57544453
Er, no. I have an Asus rt56u which doesn't support ac and I still get my full connection

>>57544453
Even 802.11ac/ad are THEORETICAL replacements for cable. Wi-Fi runs on unlicensed spectrum, so more devices talking = more noise = lower speed. Devices that have older standards for wifi/are further away physically get lower rates, which lowers the effective rate for other devices on the same radio band. 5ghz is often only effective within a room or one room over.

>>57544453
>This only holds true if you have a high-end 802.11ac router and your devices support 802.11ac wifi signal.
No, it's not true. A gigabit link is a gigabit link. It's not shared with any other devices. This isn't true with Wi-Fi.

>>57541427

i have that same exact ethernet cable, op

>>57544476
>Er, no. I have an Asus rt56u which doesn't support ac and I still get my full connection
You don't. Go do a 100MB speed test at testmy.net on ethernet and wifi (10 meters away from router). They won't be same same.

802.11ac not only increases bandwidth and how many people can connect to the router without jamming it but also increases the range of the "good" wifi signal.

>>57541427

i've never had wifi that gave me 2 mbps per second. wifi sucks
ethernet is master-race. with my charter enternet i get 7 mbps per second

>>57544538
>Even 802.11ac/ad are THEORETICAL replacements for cable.
At 10 meters high-end 802.11ac routers have been documented transferring at 1Gbps.

>Wi-Fi runs on unlicensed spectrum, so more devices talking = more noise = lower speed.
>what is MU-MIMO in 802.11ac

>Devices that have older standards for wifi/are further away physically get lower rates, which lowers the effective rate for other devices on the same radio band.
Re-read what I said.

>5ghz is often only effective within a room or one room over.
It depends on the 802.11ac router and the signal strength it outputs. Of course your ching chong dingdong 802.11ac router from gearworst will only cover 1 meter before the signal goes to shit.

File: no_face_YotsubaB_3641256.png (1KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 500x500px

>>57541427
>wired the main backbone of my house Cat 7
> everything else wired Cat 6a
> 3 years ago
> because 10 Gbps was "just around the corner"

MFW, I have no face for this.

Where the fuck is my 10 Gbps? It's the current year already, I was promised this.

>>57541427
if you do not play vidja gaems there is no difference. Things that require high packet usage at high speeds, wifi is bad. Fighting games is a prime example. You drop 1 packet and the whole fucking thing desyncs.

>>57544601
see >>57544453

>>57544668
Whatever bud. I beta tested for a router manufacturer in a single story detached home an AC1900 router with an AC1900 PCI-e card in the same room and I couldn't break a gigabit because I don't live in an anechoic chamber

>>57544681
Whats the difference between Cat6 and 7? Shielding?

>>57544668
>At 10 meters high-end 802.11ac routers have been documented transferring at 1Gbps.
Great, now do it with multiple users :^)
>what is MU-MIMO in 802.11ac
Nothing? It doesn't solve any of the problems, it just masks them because now you can do diversity and aggregation.
>It depends on the 802.11ac router and the signal strength it outputs.
Not really, they all run up against the maximum allowed transmit power.

>>57544729
So you tested non high-end 802.11ac routers. Thanks for the input.

>>57544764
Yes. Cat 7 can do 40Gbps for short distances, I imagine (~55m). Cat 6 can only do 10Gbps for short distances (~55m).

>>57544836
That's fucking stupid. The way you get an AC3200 router is to put a 2.4GHz band that tops out at 600MBPs and two 5ghz bands that top out at 1,300mbps each, where the total tops out at 3200.

Beamforming has very little practical impact in reality.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32329-does-beamforming-really-work

And MU-MIMO is in barely anything from a client perspective:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32898-is-mu-mimo-ready-for-prime-time

>>57542652
I disagree

WiFi cards are such unstable monsters, every card i've ever dealt with has been inconsistent with weird bottle necks and heat issues. Assumably paying more might bypass these issues but if you can solve a problem with a Cat5e and a $20 hub I don't see why you wouldn't.

>>57544904
>$20 hub
Who is buying hubs, never mind spending 20 bucks on them?

>>57544842
I feel like at that point the bottleneck has to be the HDD right? even the language talking to an SSD can't be capable of almost 10GB/s

>>57544913
people who need hubs? like shit
> run ethernet cord to a room
> room has multiple wired devices
Boom, hub

>>57544982
There is no reason to ever use a hub. You should not be using hubs.

File: tumblr_inline_nzcxuoZndv1qkbjvm_500.gif (1MB, 268x268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x268px

>>57544994
> "Who even uses ____?"
> Give example of using ____ in a relate-able scenario
> not using ___ in that scenario would be wasteful and tedious
> "People should not be using ____"

>>57544994
You should be usng a switch. Hubs are for beginners.

>>57544829
>>At 10 meters high-end 802.11ac routers have been documented transferring at 1Gbps.
>Great, now do it with multiple users :^)
>>what is MU-MIMO in 802.11ac
>Nothing? It doesn't solve any of the problems, it just masks them because now you can do diversity and aggregation.
>I don't know what MU-MIMO is
k

>Not really, they all run up against the maximum allowed transmit power.
They vary, the maximum is 1,000 mW for wifi which is actually a fuckton and only high-end 802.11ac get close to that. Most just output around 200 mW and call it a day.

>>57544764
>Shielding

Pretty much. Note that Cat 6a > Cat 6, also.

In my house, I have three runs of ~45-50 meters where I use Cat 7. I probably don't really need it, but they are "sort of" long-ish runs (two from fiber optic modem to routers, and one from router bridged to another router), and they are threaded through a lot of electrical wiring, metal ductwork and copper pipes. Since I got several coils cheap (nearly the identical price to Cat 5e at the time), it was a no-brainer for reliability insurance.

Yeah, I also had a dream of affordable 10 Gbps home network at the time, but hardware prices have remained way out of reach instead of just slightly out of reach.

For short runs, connecting routers to switches and individual devices to switches & routers, I use Cat 6a, usually 15 foot to 25 foot runs or so.

One other small advantage is if you need to draw power over your ethernet, the Cat6/6a & Cat 7 cables support heavier power draw. So, theoretically, I can connect several PoE cameras w/ 1080 video plus audio in/out, and infrared LEDs for night seciruty, and feed/operate them over a couple hundred feet of ethernet cable without having to worry about any interference or other degradation to any other activity on the network.

AND it should all work with 10 Gbps ... if I could afford 10 Gbps NICs & switches & routers.

As it is, I ended up with a wired house with an exceptionally stable network ... it's just bottlenecked at 1 Gbps because that's the consumer-level hardware that's affordable.

Fortunately, because I shopped around and got some good deals, I was able to do it for very nearly the same price as Cat 5e. So, totally worth it.

>>57545039
Hubs are for no one, this isn't 1992.

>>57545067
You can get affordable 10Gbps gear, now.

>>57541778
bwahahahahahaha
stay delusional, faggot
fuck off to >>>/vg/

>>57544894
>tests done using chinkshit
opinion discarded

>>57544964

10 GB/s is not 10 Gbps.

Bytes vs. bits.

An SSD can hit theoretical 6 GB/s on SATA III, but it can do even better on a 4x PCIe 3.0 slot.

So, technically/theoretically, if you have a high end SSD on several high end computers, you could experience a bottleneck on even 10 Gbps ethernet.

Not that you'd notice a bottleneck on a data pipe like that ... unless you are running an 8K 120 fps 3D space war simulation in real-time combat with several other people on your network. After consuming a small vat of espresso.

But .... equivalent such applications/games aren't really that far off.

>>57545189
>An SSD can hit theoretical 6 GB/s on SATA III
No, it can't. SATA III can only handle 600MB/s.


There is no SSD yet that will push 6GB/s.

>>57545113

Define "affordable."

I'd need to replace four switches and three routers, plus put a 10 Gbps NIC into at least 5 PCs, if not 8.

Last I looked (during the summer) an 8-port switch was running at least $300 for entry-level, and could easily go $1000-$1200 for more pro-grade gear. NICs can still run $150-$200 each, and up ... haven't even looked at decent routers this year, but I don't see them going any less than switches.

A partial network upgrade for connecting one room to one other room involving 3 PCs would be something like $2000 minimum, if not $2500-$3000.

Not my idea of affordable.

If 10 Gbps NICs were ~$20-$30, switches were ~$40-$50 and routers ~$80-$100 ... I would call that affordable.

And, the sick & honest truth of it is that those are probably the wholesale level prices for that gear, but normalfag consumers won't get access to those prices. Unless lucky enough to have an inside industry connection.

>>57545342
>I would call that affordable.
Then you don't even have decent gigabit gear if it's costing that little, except NIC cards.

>>57545189
>An SSD can hit theoretical 6 GB/s on SATA III
eat your own dogfood nigger, SATA is 6 Gbps not GB/s

It's also not called SATA III

>>57545189
>8K 120 fps 3D space war simulation in real-time combat
the fuck has resolution got to do with network overhead? Games usually only need like 100 kbps, even fast-paced realtime games

>>57544994
Nigger when people say hub they mean switch. You can't even buy actual layer 1 hubs anymore

>>57545598
They should use the correct terminology, then.
>You can't even buy actual layer 1 hubs anymore
Sure you can. I saw one for sale just last week.

>>57545635
Why would anyone buy a hub? And you must be talking used because I don't know why anyone would still manufacture hubs.

>>57545687
>Why would anyone buy a hub?
You shouldn't, but apparently people do.

Stupid question, I have a 4 people using one modem wirelessly. Is using a router needed even if the house is not that big?

>>57545783
A router/switch/firewall is integrated into the modem. You only need a separate unit for functionality the ISP box does not have.

>>57545783
>>57546878
If you're planning to be there a while with that ISP, you may save money by getting your own equipment instead of renting. This shifts the demarcation point slightly.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, retard.

File: Boot Disk.png (40KB, 866x746px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 866x746px

>>57545490
>his SSD cant hit 6GB/sec
laughingsluts

>>57547406
>1 GB test set
lol, nice ram cache

>>57545490
>It's also not called SATA III
How old are you? It sure is.

>>57547581
https://www.sata-io.org/sata-naming-guidelines
>Do not use the terms "SATA II" or "SATA III," which are incorrect and have no meaning.

>>57547646
Welp.

Is this the latest meme?

>>57542915
>>57542873
But here's the thing
you can have one sending, and one receiving at the same time.
That's effectively full duplex
inb4 "I need to send and receive multi GB files back and forth" or some dumb shit like that

>>57544453
Is ac even a full replacement? I assume that in practice it only reaches the theoretical with only two wireless clients, one direction transfer, no neighbors, vacuum etc. Meanwhile Gbit ethernet is full duplex.

>>57549014
no

>>57550097
>you can have one sending, and one receiving at the same time.
No, you can't.

>>57552293
What?

>>57554532
No, you can't.