Router that is actually capable of delivering close to 1Gbps on each individual LAN Ethernet port?

[TudorF]

My old router seems busted, it can no longer push traffic even above 200Mbps, even though I have 1Gbps internet.

When I plug the fiber-to-the-home cable in the mobo's Ethernet port and connect directly to the ISP I get something like 920Mbps download and 410Mbps upload.

But I need to create a setup that allows another computer in the house (an HTPC) to have access to the internet even when my PC is shut down.

That's why I need a router that can deliver close to 1Gbps download speed on ethernet ports.

 

I don't plan on using any special features, I don't even think we'll need Wifi tbh, since everyone in the house has internet on the phone. So I could do without a wifi access point.

I'm not interested in having a NAS or anything complicated, I basically want a switch that can also do network authentication with the ISP in one single point and then allow two separate PCs to connect to the WAN.

But from what I've seen other people say, apparently it's not enough for the router to have 1Gbps capable Ethernet LAN ports, if its CPU is just too weak to handle so much traffic on multiple ports.

 

So, I'm looking for some recommendations of routers that could meet these reqs and that doesn't cost too much. All I'm really asking for is to have close to 1Gbps wired connection in LAN ports, nothing else.

Can I find such a router for a price like 50-60 bucks?

 

Would any of these models be able to handle real 1Gbps per each Ethernet port:

 

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X

MikroTik RB760iGS hEX S L4

MikroTik RB951G-2HnD

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X-SFP

 

I'm listing some of the models I can find at my local retailer.

I could find more at retailers specialised in networking but it would take longer for them to ship one, since they don't have them in stock.

[Caennanu]

Gday,

 

I am using the ER-12. It's an Edgerouter with 12 ports. Passive PoE passthrough. 

So far, i've not had any issues other than the limiting factor of my 1gb ports.

According to the site it can handle 8Gbps. But from what i understand that is the switching capacity. port 8 - 12 are dedicated interfaces and should be able to handle 1gb each.

 

And as a bonus. i myself have configured port 11, with an SFP, to directly take the fiber from my ISP, without using any of their hardware. (caused some issues with routed TV, but all in all it's been good)

[LIGISTX]

40 minutes ago, TudorF said:

My old router seems busted, it can no longer push traffic even above 200Mbps, even though I have 1Gbps internet.

When I plug the fiber-to-the-home cable in the mobo's Ethernet port and connect directly to the ISP I get something like 920Mbps download and 410Mbps upload.

But I need to create a setup that allows another computer in the house (an HTPC) to have access to the internet even when my PC is shut down.

That's why I need a router that can deliver close to 1Gbps download speed on ethernet ports.

 

I don't plan on using any special features, I don't even think we'll need Wifi tbh, since everyone in the house has internet on the phone. So I could do without a wifi access point.

I'm not interested in having a NAS or anything complicated, I basically want a switch that can also do network authentication with the ISP in one single point and then allow two separate PCs to connect to the WAN.

But from what I've seen other people say, apparently it's not enough for the router to have 1Gbps capable Ethernet LAN ports, if its CPU is just too weak to handle so much traffic on multiple ports.

 

So, I'm looking for some recommendations of routers that could meet these reqs and that doesn't cost too much. All I'm really asking for is to have close to 1Gbps wired connection in LAN ports, nothing else.

Can I find such a router for a price like 50-60 bucks?

 

Would any of these models be able to handle real 1Gbps per each Ethernet port:

 

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X

MikroTik RB760iGS hEX S L4

MikroTik RB951G-2HnD

Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X-SFP

 

I'm listing some of the models I can find at my local retailer.

I could find more at retailers specialised in networking but it would take longer for them to ship one, since they don't have them in stock.

Any gigabit router should work…. They likely wouldn’t be able to do gigabit on every port at once, but you also don’t need that… you need the ability to actually pull gigabit from the internet and split that up to all devices trying to use it.

 

If only a single device is actively downloading, it will get all gigabit speed. If 2 are, each will get ~500mbps assuming both are from equally fast sources saturating your internet. You don’t need an over the top router for this.

 

As far as Wifi, why would you not want your mobile devices to benefit from fast LAN? I would definitely get your devices on Wifi…

 

Also, you really shouldn’t plug directly into a modem; that effectively is a totally open network, no firewall, no port blocking. Basically, that’s asking to get pwned because windows is not at all equipped to be sitting on an unprotected network - it will get hacked.

 

Back to the question tho. I have had good luck with google wifi, it’s a nice simple solution that “just works” in my experience. I do only have 500 mbps internet tho, but it easily saturates that and would be shocked if it had any issues with gigabit. That plus a gigabit switch and your hood to go. (You need a router, for the firewall, but also if you want multiple things to access your internet you can just use a switch, a switch doesn’t operate in a way that will let multiple things talk to the internet, switches are only for internal networking). Ubiquity certify works as well, but you likely will just be creating more headache for yourself if you go that route. They are prosumer/small enterprise level devices, they are not really just plug in and use.

 

What is your current router? And are you using at least cat 5e Ethernet cable? Seriously, any halfway decent router will meet your needs, and google wifi has proven to work well for me in many places; I have it deployed in 4 different networks. Maybe do a google search go see how it does with gigabit internet, but I’m sure it’ll be fine. Place a few of their Wifi pucks around your house and you will have great Wifi coverage because their mesh network actually works very well. 

[GuiltySpark_]

5 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Any gigabit router should work…. They likely wouldn’t be able to do gigabit on every port at once, but you also don’t need that… you need the ability to actually pull gigabit from the internet and split that up to all devices trying to use it.

 

You don’t need an over the top router for this.

 

 

Many home grade routers, even ones that cost multiple hundreds of dollars cannot handle 1Gb/s of WAN throughput. When I thought my Verizon FiOS supplied Quantum router was causing an issue I replaced it with a nearly $300 Netgear that turned out could only manage ~650Mb/s of wired WAN throughput before its CPU was fully utilized. 

 

Went back to the Quantum router and was able to achieve ~950/950Mb/s again. 

 

The models he listed will be much more up to the task.

 

[TudorF]

23 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

As far as Wifi, why would you not want your mobile devices to benefit from fast LAN? I would definitely get your devices on Wifi…

Give me a shipping address and I'll send you the devices to get them on wifi, then.

[LIGISTX]

12 minutes ago, rickeo said:

 

Many home grade routers, even ones that cost multiple hundreds of dollars cannot handle 1Gb/s of WAN throughput. When I thought my Verizon FiOS supplied Quantum router was causing an issue I replaced it with a nearly $300 Netgear that turned out could only manage ~650Mb/s of wired WAN throughput before its CPU was fully utilized. 

 

Went back to the Quantum router and was able to achieve ~950/950Mb/s again. 

 

The models he listed will be much more up to the task.

 

Just a quick google search:

https://www.rustybrick.com/gigabit-wifi-test.html
 

seems google wifi can handle wired networks about as well as a more prosumer level device. But either way, dropping down to the speeds OP was stating shouldn’t be happening and is a sign of either outdated hardware (router) or insufficient Ethernet cabling. I don’t disagree ubiquity would perform better, but it’s more of a max user benefit, not so much a single user benefit, things other things. 

3 minutes ago, TudorF said:

Give me a shipping address and I'll send you the devices.

What..?

[LIGISTX]

14 minutes ago, TudorF said:

Give me a shipping address and I'll send you the devices to get them on wifi, then.

..? Is there a joke here I am missing?

 

Why would you pay for fast internet just to relegate most of your devices to slow cell service? No tablets, Netflix/Disney+/Roku/smart tv/laptops/other computers? Wouldn’t want to be able to stream over lan to your phone via plex? 

[TudorF]

@LIGISTXT'was a joke. I was referring to this reply you wrote: "I would definitely get your devices on Wifi… "

 

Anyway, that's also what I thought, if the router says it does gigabit per each LAN port, then that's what it does.

But apparently what people report varies. Some say they're not getting that speed, because the CPU on these consumer-grade routers is not capable enough.

There were some ppl on this forum who even doubted I had close to 1Gbps with this kind of consumer router from TP-Link that had a CPU of only 750MHz (Qualcomm Atheros QCA9563). Even though I showed them a screencap with my actual download speed on wired, that went above 900Mbps.

 

Maybe what they doubt is that you can get stable ~1Gbps multiple concurrent connections with such a consumer-grade router.

But tbh I don't even need that, because the other computer in the house is an HTPC used for web browsing.

So maybe one of those entry-level routers from Ubiquiti or MikroTek should be enough for such a simple use case.

[LIGISTX]

4 minutes ago, TudorF said:

@LIGISTXT'was a joke. I was referring to this reply you wrote: "I would definitely get your devices on Wifi… "

 

Anyway, that's also what I thought, if the router says it does gigabit per each LAN port, then that's what it does.

But apparently what people report varies. Some say they're not getting that speed, because the CPU on these consumer-grade routers is not capable enough.

There were some ppl on this forum who even doubted I had close to 1Gbps with this kind of consumer router from TP-Link that had a CPU of only 750MHz (Qualcomm Atheros QCA9563). Even though I showed them a screencap with my actual download speed on wired, that went above 900Mbps.

 

Maybe what they doubt is that you can get stable ~1Gbps multiple concurrent connections with such a consumer-grade router.

But tbh I don't even need that, because the other computer in the house is an HTPC used for web browsing.

So maybe one of those entry-level routers from Ubiquiti or MikroTek should be enough for such a simple use case.

Oh, I understand. Play on words…

 

But, no, you won’t ever get concurrent gigabit streams. Your ISP delivers you a 1gbps pipe, that has to flow all to your house through it, it’s not 1gbps per device….. no consumer grade router would be able to support that, that is correct, but your ISP is not providing that, you would need much faster internet (and a much better modem) for this. 
 

The router is going to take your 1 gbps connection and split it up between all devices connected. If only 1 device is really doing much, it’ll get all the bandwidth. If 5 are, then each will get ~200 mbps, etc.

 

Google Wifi really is a simple setup, you instal the app on your phone and it mostly just works. I have recommended it to many people and have never had anyone have issues. 

[TudorF]

9 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Why would you pay for fast internet just to relegate most of your devices to slow cell service? No tablets, Netflix/Disney+/Roku/smart tv/laptops/other computers? Wouldn’t want to be able to stream over lan to your phone via plex? 

Because mobile works well enough today for basic web browsing on a phone. And tbh I don't need much more than that in the house. If I need to watch video or streams, I'd rather do it on a big screen connected to a capable computing device, not a pocket device that will overheat if you're watching video/streams on it for too long.

 

No, we don't use those services much here (Eastern Europe). And personally, I don't like watching videos on a phone, because the screen is too small, the phone overheats and it's just not the best viewing experience. For content consumption, imo, big screens are the best.

I'd only use phones to watch content if I'm outdoors and that's the only way to have access to that content.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

A small pfSense box will also to the job.

 

 

 

[TudorF]

Idk, it seems overkill for my house to run a fullblown computer just to split the internet connection between a main computer and an htpc used for browsing the web.

[Donut417]

8 hours ago, TudorF said:

if the router says it does gigabit per each

Thats not how it works. The router performance NAT which allows you to share the IP that your ISP provides you with multiple machines. The issue is you need enough processing power to do NAT at 1 Gbps. You need to look at the WAN to LAN and LAN to WAN throughput of each router to determine what speeds it can handle. If that number is near enough to a Gigabit then thats the device to go for. Having Gigabit ports means not a damn thing because, you need Gigabit ports to push anything more than 100 Mbps. Ethernet ports come in 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, 2.5 Gbps, 5 Gbps and 10 Gbps. So if you have greater than 100 Mbps speed then the router will have Gigabit or better ports. Plus many consumer grade routers have built in Gigabit switches. 

[TudorF]

36 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

You need to look at the WAN to LAN and LAN to WAN throughput of each router to determine what speeds it can handle. If that number is near enough to a Gigabit then thats the device to go for.

And where do I find that, I haven't seen this specified in routers' technical sheet so far.

But then, if I'm planning on using such a router only to allow a smaller htpc computer to be able to browse the web (while I'm using another computer for more intensive stuff), is this really going to have much of an impact? Is the speed available to the more powerful computer much impacted by whatever the htpc can use to just browse the web?

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, TudorF said:

And where do I find that, I

Smallnetworkbuilder.com has some info as they done tests. But most router manufactures dont include that info in their data sheets. OR you have to really dig in to their data sheets to find that info. Thats part of the issue with Gigabit, and why many people choose to build a PFsense box for Gigabit internet. 

 

2 minutes ago, TudorF said:

Is the speed available to the more powerful computer much impacted by whatever the htpc can use to just browse the web?

The speed you get is a total of 1 Gbps. That is share on all your devices. Essentially your ISP gives you a pipe, that pipe might do 200 Mbps or might do 2 Gbps, at the end of the day all your devices share that pipe. So technically others on your network can impact your experience on your Internet connection. For example, My ISP only provides us with 10 Mbps upload. So if my sister, my niece and my nephew were all in zoom calls due to work and school, my ability to game online could be effected because our upload is being strained heavily. On Fiber connections you might not see this issues as bad because most times you have symmetrical speeds. 

 

But at the end of the day, the router still has to have enough power to do NAT at the max speed of your internet or you WONT get all that you're paying for. 

[TudorF]

@Donut417

Well, I'm checking the page on Ubiquiti's site on the Edgerouter X, it says it has these hardware specs:

 

 

The CPU used in the SoC is MediaTek MT7621A.

On Mediatek's site, it says this SoC is capable of 2Gbps routing:

https://www.mediatek.com/products/homeNetworking/mt7621

 

Quote

 

CPU Type:

MIPS1004Kc

CPU Bit:

32-bit

CPU Core:

Dual (2)

CPU Frequency:

880MHz

Network Accelerator:

2Gbps IPv4/6 routing,  NAT,  NAPT+HQoS

DRAM:

16b DDR2,  16b DDR3

Flash:

SPI,  SLC NAND

Storage Accelerator:

Yes

 

 

So, it seems capable of routing close to 1Gbps on one LAN port if the other doesn't use much connection bandwidth, since it's mostly browsing simple web content.

 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, TudorF said:

So, it seems capable of routing close to 1Gbps on one LAN port if the other doesn't use much connection bandwidth, since it's mostly browsing simple web content.

Here is what you gotta understand. Doesnt matter how many LAN ports you have. Most routers have a 1 Gbps switch built in so you can do local transfers at Gigabit speeds. At the end of the day your ISP gives you 1 Gbps. Thats not per device, that is 1 Gbps PERIOD for all devices in your home. All devices are on the same internet pipe. NAT only occurs when traffic heads out to the internet or comes in to the internet. Remember your router connects you to two networks. One is a private network inside your home. The second is your ISP's network. 

 

If they claim 2 Gbps then hopefully it works for you. Keep in mind that certain features might not be able to be used. Deep packet inspection and stuff like that uses lots of CPU horse power, same thing with VPN's. So if you enable certain features that 2 Gbps will drop. If all your running is a basic internet connection and not doing too much other stuff then it should work fine. 

[LIGISTX]

24 minutes ago, TudorF said:

@Donut417

Well, I'm checking the page on Ubiquiti's site on the Edgerouter X, it says it has these hardware specs:

 

 

The CPU used in the SoC is MediaTek MT7621A.

On Mediatek's site, it says this SoC is capable of 2Gbps routing:

https://www.mediatek.com/products/homeNetworking/mt7621

 

 

So, it seems capable of routing close to 1Gbps on one LAN port if the other doesn't use much connection bandwidth, since it's mostly browsing simple web content.

 

What exactly is your use case anyways… and does your ISP not provide a modem and a router (usually they do for gigabit, since most consumers don’t have hardware capable of handling it). But again, most importantly, what is your use case? It’s still very confusing to me why you would want to not put all your devices on your very fast LAN. Why pay for an awesome service just to use cell service on your phone when your at home. Why would you not just use Wifi? If there is a specific reason, we may be able to help provide information or potential solutions to whatever the reason or concern is.

 

Based on the responses, and believe @Donut417explained it well, you only get 1 pipe, all devices have to share that pipe. So yes your HTPC will “take” bandwidth from the overall potential of 1bgps, but so few websites can actually provide you with content at that speed anyways, so it’s almost a moot point. Steam can, AWS can, and google can, and not much else can. Sure downloading a nvidia driver will likely max that out as it’s probably being hosted in AWS anyways, but not much on the internet needs that much bandwidth; it won’t even utilize it, thus my original question of use case… gaming doesn’t need gigabit, streaming doesn’t need it, web surfing doesn’t need it. Just trying to understand so I/we can properly help.

[TudorF]

@Donut417

Yeah, I got the idea, I can't pull traffic from the WAN above 1Gbps. That 2Gbps speed refers to the router's internal capacity to manage traffic by doing IPv4/6 routing,  NAT,  NAPT+HQoS.

I don't have any plans on using deep packet inspection or other complex stuff, at least not often. I just want to be able to allow 2 separate computers to just access the internet, one of which is going to just do light web browsing, not more.

For this kind of workload, the Ubiquiti Edgerouter X seems fine.

Unless someone has a better suggestion, that's why I made this thread.

[Donut417]

4 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

and does your ISP not provide a modem and a router (usually they do for gigabit, since most consumers don’t have hardware capable of handling it)

These tend to suck and they tend to change a monthly fee. Would you rather pay a one time fee and buy your own, or rent the same piece of crap for years and years and never stop paying? 

[TudorF]

@LIGISTX

My use case is just browsing the internet, occasional gaming, occasionally watching some streams, regular stuff.

The other computer, an htpc will only be used for casual web browsing, no gaming, no streams.

 

I used to have Wifi enabled but lately I kinda realised I don't really need it. Here, in Romania/Eastern Europe, we have pretty good internet, some of the best and cheapest on the planet, so we have pretty good mobile speeds too. So at this point, the difference between having Wifi enabled in the home and just using your own data plan is not significant. And I have so much free data on my phone, it doesn't matter if I'm using wifi or mobile connection. And since I don't want the router to be burdened by extra workload, I want to keep things simple.

[TudorF]

Yeah, my ISP gives you the option to get a router from them but you have to pay rent for it.

And it's one of those generic plastic boxes that was made as cheaply as possible.

[LIGISTX]

16 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

These tend to suck and they tend to change a monthly fee. Would you rather pay a one time fee and buy your own, or rent the same piece of crap for years and years and never stop paying? 

That has not been my experience. I know folks with "free" (obviously included in the price..... but wouldn't get a price reduction if they didn't use) router that actually performed perfectly for gigabit. I personally use pfsense, so not that I don't understand your point here. But, depending on the provided hardware, that can be plenty fine for lots of folks. 

 

15 minutes ago, TudorF said:

@LIGISTX

My use case is just browsing the internet, occasional gaming, occasionally watching some streams, regular stuff.

The other computer, an htpc will only be used for casual web browsing, no gaming, no streams.

 

I used to have Wifi enabled but lately I kinda realised I don't really need it. Here, in Romania/Eastern Europe, we have pretty good internet, some of the best and cheapest on the planet, so we have pretty good mobile speeds too. So at this point, the difference between having Wifi enabled in the home and just using your own data plan is not significant. And I have so much free data on my phone, it doesn't matter if I'm using wifi or mobile connection. And since I don't want the router to be burdened by extra workload, I want to keep things simple.

I mean id argue you likely don't need to really worry about your router, any decent router will get the job done. Will it give you full gigabit, maybe not.... but I know for instance google wifi would (although reading some report of the new nest wifi having issues with gigabit..... interesting, maybe don't go with this after all).

 

At the end of the day, connecting phones and stuff to your router is not going to "burden it", they are made to handle many, many devices. And again, for your use case, your not trying to be a pro gamer where every single milisecond counts (and even if you were, I would argue a phone connected to your LAN wouldn't make any difference at all), adding wifi is not going to change anything except provide your mobile devices a more stable and lower latency connection. So I do think you trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist in the way of not having WiFi, there is no burden or slowdown that you will experience from having it.

 

The Edge router should work fine if that is what you want to get. Since your ISP charges a rental fee, yea don't use theirs, that isn't worth it at all. And I suppose if you are set on the edge router, you can always add a ubiquity AP to the mix as well for not much more money to get WiFi going if you decide to do that, which I would, cuz it doesn't really make any sense not to, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

That has not been my experience. I know folks with "free" (obviously included in the price..... but wouldn't get a price reduction if they didn't use) router that actually performed perfectly for gigabit. I personally use pfsense, so not that I don't understand your point here. But, depending on the provided hardware, that can be plenty fine for lots of folks. 

Comcast literally provides a gateway with anemic WiFi for $13 a month, thats $156 a year out of your pocket, its $25 a month if you want unlimited data. AT&T's Fiber Gateway is known to be trash and thats like $10 a month, the only issue with the AT&T Fiber is your cant replace their gateway. You can do IP pass thru but your stuck using it at $10 month. 

 

Been with Comcast for two decades and this has been the policy at like 90% of the ISPs in the US. The only ISP I know that doesnt charge and provides a standard cable modem is Charter. But Comcast, WOW, Verizon, AT&T etc all charge rental fees of varying degrees. 

 

Also ISP's have backdoors in to all those boxes. They can change settings with or without user consent. Even heard they know what devices are connected.

[TudorF]

@LIGISTX

Yea, if I decide later I need Wifi , I'll just get a ubiquiti access point.