Wifi 6 vs Ethernet

[thefish]

Hi All,

I have had this question for a while. I am trying to work out if I am going to see any significant benefit in the hassle of running a direct ethernet cable to my PC. All the traditional wisdom is that ethernet is best but from what I can tell, I cant see where I will see any benefit in the switch.

 

• My Wifi 6 Archer AX73 AX5400 is in a different room so I would need to run and ethernet under my carpet to my PC which will be a hassle.
• I live by myself so I don't notice any connection stability issues, and there isn't any other significant traffic on my Wifi
• Router only has 1Gbit ports
• I am fairly close to the Wifi 6 point so windows says I have a link speed of around Send/Receive - 1800/800mbps .
• With a tracert check the local jump to my router is only 1ms.
• My internet speed is only 100mbps so I am not even close to maxing link speeds.

 

Am I going to see any real difference in getting an ethernet cable run to my PC?

[TomChaai]

Nope. I'm still using 802.11ac and couldn't run it full with my 500mbps broadband anyway.

Based on principle of least effort, don't change anything without any gain.

[mariushm]

Wired ethernet will give you consistent low latency and slightly less cpu usage. 

You may have 1ms between wireless card and router, but that doesn't account how much time was spent by the driver and the card to convert the bits into radio waves, until the actual transfer starts? It's nanoseconds, but it's more than proper ethernet.

 

You can buy flat ethernet cable if you want. 

 

It probably wouldn't be worth the investment, sounds like your wireless works fine, but you have it as an option should you get into some multiplayer games that are more sensitive to latency fluctuations.

[Alex Atkin UK]

3 hours ago, thefish said:

• With a tracert check the local jump to my router is only 1ms.

You want to be using ping here, so you can see over several seconds how the latency varies.

 

Over wired I get:

64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.132 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.136 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.133 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.136 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.134 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.134 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.131 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms

Over WiFi I get:

64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.350 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=5.961 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=6.019 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=14.801 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=6.214 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=2.972 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.075 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=3.049 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.788 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.729 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.178 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=2.509 ms

So you are very lucky if you are only getting 1ms over WiFi, its typical to see much higher.

 

Its harder to see slight variations on windows as it rounds up to the nearest 1ms, whereas other OS show like above.

[thefish]

2 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

You want to be using ping here, so you can see over several seconds how the latency varies.

 

Over wired I get:

64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.132 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.136 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.133 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.136 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.134 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.134 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.131 ms
64 bytes from Router.lan (192.168.1.254): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms

Over WiFi I get:

64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.350 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=5.961 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=6.019 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=14.801 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=6.214 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=2.972 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=3.075 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=3.049 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.788 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.729 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.178 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=2.509 ms

So you are very lucky if you are only getting 1ms over WiFi, its typical to see much higher.

 

Its harder to see slight variations on windows as it rounds up to the nearest 1ms, whereas other OS show like above.

 

I tired Ping, results of it running for 30 seconds or so are as follows.

 

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 115, Received = 115, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 1ms

 

Even rounded I assume I am not actually going to notice an extra 7ms in any setting really, Even gaming?

[Alex Atkin UK]

12 hours ago, thefish said:

 

I tired Ping, results of it running for 30 seconds or so are as follows.

 

Ping statistics for 192.168.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 115, Received = 115, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 1ms

 

Even rounded I assume I am not actually going to notice an extra 7ms in any setting really, Even gaming?

Its not that you'd notice 7ms if it was consistent, but spikes in latency (jitter) is what causes stuttering in online games.

[wseaton]

My Ubiquiti AC lites add 2-3ms, and this is with a few dozen smartphones attached. These aren't exactly high end APs'.

 

 

[steelo]

Ethernet will usually (if not 99% of the time) have lower ping times than wifi6. Whether it is worth it to wire up your house is up to you.

[Alex Atkin UK]

On 7/8/2022 at 6:55 PM, wseaton said:

My Ubiquiti AC lites add 2-3ms, and this is with a few dozen smartphones attached. These aren't exactly high end APs'.

That's the thing though, WiFi inherently will add a few ms when there is no interference, but once there IS interference that added latency can go through the roof.

[maxtch]

Well, for Ethernet, if you have multiple wired devices with open PCIe slots (desktop PCs) you can upgrade the LAN connection to 10Gbps using some cheap used Mellanox 10Gbps Ethernet cards and a relatively cheap TP-Link 10Gbps Ethernet switch.

[Falcon1986]

On 7/7/2022 at 1:47 AM, thefish said:

I am trying to work out if I am going to see any significant benefit in the hassle of running a direct ethernet cable to my PC.

Well, are you seeing any problem with the setup you have? If not, I wouldn't worry.

[thefish]

1 hour ago, Falcon1986 said:

Well, are you seeing any problem with the setup you have? If not, I wouldn't worry.

Yeah, it's obviously still pretty good, I haven't really noticed any issues. So I probably won't. I have just been curious, wondering if I had been missing something obvious.