Router caps 1Gbps connection at 200Mbps

[TudorF]

I have a TP-Link 450M Wireless N Gigabit Router (TL-WR1043ND) which was bought some years ago, maybe 5 or 6.

Back then, when I installed cable internet in the house, I used to get close to 1Gpbs (DL) and 500Mbps (UL) with this router, just as the contract specified.

But then, fast-forward a few years to now and all my tests when I connect through this router show only up to 200Mbps (DL) speed.

 

I suspected something must be wrong, so I called up my ISP and they told me to just plug the cable (fibre to the home), that they installed in the home, directly in the motherboard's Ethernet port and create a new dial-up broadband PPPoE connection with the credentials they gave me. I did that and my internet was once again running at 1Gpbs/500Mbps speeds. Obviously something was up with the router/modem I've been using for years.

 

So I updated the firmware to the most recent version and reset the router to factory settings. Established a new PPPoE connection, but the connection is just as slow as it was before (200Mbps max).

 

Not sure what more I could do to test whether the router has some rootkit or whether after 5-6 years of usage something got busted on its board.

It wasn't even a cheap router, it has lots of functions, but for some reason, it can't get past 200Mbps DL speed anymore.

 

During all these tests I used various cables, so I don't think this problem is caused by a particular cable. I also disabled Wifi, to make sure there are no other devices connected to the router except the computer I'm using to do these tests.

Is there anything I could do to get to the root of what's causing this significant drop in download/upload speed for this router?

 

I also tried using a switch instead of a router, but the problem is the ISP doesn't allow connecting with more than one client/computer at the same time, using the same credentials.

I've also considered installing a Wifi card in my computer, but that's a no-go because when I'm not at home, the others in the house would not be able to connect if the computer was shut down.

So that's why I'm stuck having to use a router which would first do the authentication as a single client, from which I could connect multiple computers.

[AndreiArgeanu]

It's probably time to replace your router since they can go bad over time due to heat stress and what not. If it's ISP issued and you're renting it then you should ask them for a new one. If it's your own, then order a new router, ideally from Amazon or some place that offers 30 day free returns just in case.

[Alex Atkin UK]

2 hours ago, TudorF said:

I have a TP-Link 450M Wireless N Gigabit Router (TL-WR1043ND). When I installed cable internet in the house, I used to have close to 1Gpbs (DL) and 500Mbps (UL), just as the contract specified.

But then, fast-forward a few years to now and all my tests when I connect through this router show only up to 200Mbps (DL) speed.

Surely that's not the same router you were getting Gigabit out of?  Its not nearly powerful enough.

[TudorF]

@Alex Atkin UK

It was the same router, but the way these companies name their products is meant to reflect their Wifi capabilities (hence the 450 number), rather than their Ethernet ones.

The router spec sheet clearly states that it has 1Gpbs WAN and LAN ports:

 

 

So the router had Gigabit capable ports and I was getting close to 1Gpbs tested speed with it (always above 900Mbps), but somewhere along the way, performance degraded.

At first, I thought performance got worse because there was a lot of traffic on the network, then I put it down to Windows rot or my system being old and unable to keep up.

 

But recently I've built a new computer with decent mid-range components (i5-11500, 16GB RAM 3200mhz CL16, 2.5Gbps LAN Ethernet port), ran new tests and realised the only bottleneck in this setup can be the router itself. Because when I plug the Ethernet cable directly in the motherboard, I get close to 1Gpbs speeds, without any router.

[TudorF]

@Alex Atkin UKHere is proof (pic attached) that back in 2017 with this router I could get above 900Mbps download speed:

 

Yes, I know that ISPs collaborate with Speedtest to inflate their numbers, but then I've done the same test with the same router recently and now I can only get about 200Mbps.

And that's even on the new much improved system. So it's quite clear this router is the bottleneck in the current setup.

It either picked up some rootkit or something on the board got busted due to bad heat dissipation.

 

[CerealExperimentsLain]

51 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Surely that's not the same router you were getting Gigabit out of?  Its not nearly powerful enough.

This was my take.  There's no way the previous results are accurate.  That router has at best a 650mhz single core MIPS CPU.  It is *not* doing NAT at 1gbps without maxing out well below that.  This is literally why I had to build a pfSense box when I got Gigabit, because my original Asus RT-AC66U, also with a MIPS CPU around 600mhz, basically choked at around 400mbps.

 

Clearly the router right now is working as designed and whatever the OP was testing years ago at 'Gigabit' is not accurate.

Maybe it's possible the old cable connection did an IP for each client PC and thus NAT on the router was disabled?  That's kinda an absurd scenario but it's the only way I can see it getting around the intense CPU demands of NAT on an old wireless N router.

 

[TudorF]

22 minutes ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

This was my take.  There's no way the previous results are accurate.  That router has at best a 650mhz single core MIPS CPU.  It is *not* doing NAT at 1gbps without maxing out well below that.  This is literally why I had to build a pfSense box when I got Gigabit, because my original Asus RT-AC66U, also with a MIPS CPU around 600mhz, basically choked at around 400mbps.

 

Clearly the router right now is working as designed and whatever the OP was testing years ago at 'Gigabit' is not accurate.

Maybe it's possible the old cable connection did an IP for each client PC and thus NAT on the router was disabled?  That's kinda an absurd scenario but it's the only way I can see it getting around the intense CPU demands of NAT on an old wireless N router.

 

Your choice to believe whatever you believe. I had download speeds on every program I used above 900Mb/s or 90MB/s.

Too bad I don't have all the screencaps from those years, I only have the one I posted above.

If Speedtest.net was inflating the results 4 years ago, then there's no reason they stopped doing that now when I get 200Mbps tops with the same router, using the same cables and having the same subscription plan.

 

If the technical specsheet clearly states the LAN and WAN ports are gigabit capable, why would anyone buy such a product if it never worked close to the spec sheet. It would be disclosed as a lie and the product would be labelled a scam.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

1 minute ago, TudorF said:

Your choice to believe whatever you believe. I had download speeds on every program I used above 900Mb/s or 90MB/s.

Too bad I don't have all the screencaps from those years, I only have the one I posted above.

If Speedtest.net was inflating the results 4 years ago, then there's no reason they stopped doing that now when I get 200Mbps tops with the same router.

 

If the technical specsheet clearly states the LAN and WAN ports are gigabit capable, why would anyone buy such a product if they never worked close to the spec sheet.

Oh you can run 1gig through the switch ports all you want.  But NAT requires a lot of CPU resources an the more packets per second the more it demands.

Like, I'm sorry but there has to be some circumstance, such as where maybe you didn't rely on NAT before, where you got 900mbps.  But you flat out can't get anywhere close to 900mbps, with NAT, on a a single 650mhz MIPS core.  It doesn't have that much power.

[TudorF]

@CerealExperimentsLain

Yes, I had a simple setup. The fibre-to-the-home cable from the IPS was going in the router's WAN port and two patch cables were connected to the LAN gigabit ports.

These cables connected two separate computers to the WAN: one computer that was used more intensively (on which I tested and got close to 1Gbps speeds consistently for a few years, until recently when performance got worse) and another, more modest computer (an HTPC), that was rarely used, mostly for web browsing.

 

So the router was basically used like a modem and switch in one piece, that's all. I needed a box that could do the authentication with the ISP credentials, from which the internet signal could be split to be used by two PCs. A switch alone couldn't have done that, since my ISP doesn't allow more than one authenticated connection, using the credentials (username and password) from the contract.

 

I don't think I had any special features enabled, no NAS, no printer in the LAN, nothing special.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

1 minute ago, TudorF said:

@CerealExperimentsLain

Yes, I had a simple setup. The fibre-to-the-home cable from the IPS was going in the router's WAN port and two patch cables were connected to the LAN gigabit ports.

These cables connected two separate computers to the WAN: one computer that was used more intensively (on which I tested and got close to 1Gbps speeds consistently for a few years, until recently when performance got worse) and another, more modest computer (an HTPC), that was rarely used, mostly for web browsing.

 

So the router was basically used like a modem and switch in one piece, that's all. I needed a box that could do the authentication with the ISP credentials, from which the internet signal could be split to be used by two PCs. A switch alone couldn't have done that, since my ISP doesn't allow more than one authenticated connection, using the credentials (username and password) from the contract.

I dunno what to tell you other than there's no way you're doing NAT at 1gbps on a single core MIPS processor on an old Wireless N router unless you had something else doing NAT instead.

 

Hands down, even much newer consumer routers crapping out on NAT when users get gigabit is a big issue.  You need a fair bit of performance to do NAT at high bandwidth.

 

Like, I'm literally running my 1gbps fiber connection through an Intel J4005 powered pfSense box because my RTAC66U, a much newer router, maxed out the CPU at not even 500mbps.  I had the choice between buying a much newer all in one router, typically the ones suitable have multi-core ARM CPU.  (So do the newer RT-AC66Us, they got a mother board revision that went from a 600mhz MIPS to a dual core 1ghz Arm but I have the old one) or build a box.  I built a pfSense box instead and just use the AC66U as an access point only.  With the intel CPU doing NAT it can push 1gbps no problem.

 

I don't know how you were pushing 900mbps through the WAN port using NAT on that router before but the key is; It shouldn't even be possible.

[TudorF]

@CerealExperimentsLain

Which routers would be capable of close to 1Gbps per LAN port that won't cost an arm?

 

Would Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X or MikroTik RB750GR3 HEX be able to do that?

 

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X

 

MikroTik RB750GR3 HEX

[Alex Atkin UK]

22 hours ago, TudorF said:

@Alex Atkin UKHere is proof (pic attached) that back in 2017 with this router I could get above 900Mbps download speed:

 

Yes, I know that ISPs collaborate with Speedtest to inflate their numbers, but then I've done the same test with the same router recently and now I can only get about 200Mbps.

And that's even on the new much improved system. So it's quite clear this router is the bottleneck in the current setup.

It either picked up some rootkit or something on the board got busted due to bad heat dissipation.

 

Ah I see the confusion, they re-released a newer router under the same model number - really really dumb. https://www.tp-link.com/uk/home-networking/wifi-router/tl-wr1043nd/

 

In which case check for the Hardware NAT setting in the router, without that on it would indeed perform as poorly as we described.