Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Wifi 6 vs Ethernet

thefish
 Share

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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Router:  Intel Celeron N5105 (pfSense) WiFi: Zyxel NWA210AX (1.44Gbit peak at 160Mhz 2x2 MIMO, ~900Mbit at 80Mhz)

Switches: Netgear MS510TXUP, Netgear MS510TXPP, Netgear GS110EMX
ISPs: Zen Full Fibre 900 (~915Mbit) + Three 5G (~500Mbit average)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Router:  Intel Celeron N5105 (pfSense) WiFi: Zyxel NWA210AX (1.44Gbit peak at 160Mhz 2x2 MIMO, ~900Mbit at 80Mhz)

Switches: Netgear MS510TXUP, Netgear MS510TXPP, Netgear GS110EMX
ISPs: Zen Full Fibre 900 (~915Mbit) + Three 5G (~500Mbit average)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Router:  Intel Celeron N5105 (pfSense) WiFi: Zyxel NWA210AX (1.44Gbit peak at 160Mhz 2x2 MIMO, ~900Mbit at 80Mhz)

Switches: Netgear MS510TXUP, Netgear MS510TXPP, Netgear GS110EMX
ISPs: Zen Full Fibre 900 (~915Mbit) + Three 5G (~500Mbit average)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The Fruit Pie: Core i7-9700K ~ 2x Team Force Vulkan 16GB DDR4-3200 ~ Gigabyte Z390 UD ~ XFX RX 480 Reference 8GB ~ WD Black NVMe 1TB ~ WD Black 2TB ~ macOS Monterey amd64

The Warship: Core i7-10700K ~ 2x G.Skill 16GB DDR4-3200 ~ Asus ROG Strix Z490-G Gaming Wi-Fi ~ PNY RTX 3060 12GB LHR ~ Samsung PM981 1.92TB ~ Windows 11 Education amd64
The ThreadStripper: 2x Xeon E5-2696v2 ~ 8x Kingston KVR 16GB DDR3-1600 Registered ECC ~ Asus Z9PE-D16 ~ Sapphire RX 480 Reference 8GB ~ WD Black NVMe 1TB ~ Ubuntu Linux 20.04 amd64

The Question Mark? Core i9-11900K ~ 2x Corsair Vengence 16GB DDR4-3000 @ DDR4-2933 ~ MSI Z590-A Pro ~ Sapphire Nitro RX 580 8GB ~ Samsung PM981A 960GB ~ Windows 11 Education amd64
Home server: Xeon E3-1231v3 ~ 2x Samsung 8GB DDR3-1600 Unbuffered ECC ~ Asus P9D-M ~ nVidia Tesla K20X 6GB ~ Broadcom MegaRAID 9271-8iCC ~ Gigabyte 480GB SATA SSD ~ 8x Mixed HDD 2TB ~ 16x Mixed HDD 3TB ~ Proxmox VE amd64

Laptop 1: Dell Latitude 3500 ~ Core i7-8565U ~ NVS 130 ~ 2x Samsung 16GB DDR4-2400 SO-DIMM ~ Samsung 960 Pro 512GB ~ Samsung 850 Evo 1TB ~ Windows 11 Education amd64
Laptop 2: Apple MacBookPro9.2 ~ Core i5-3210M ~ 2x Samsung 8GB DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMM ~ Intel SSD 520 Series 480GB ~ macOS Catalina amd64

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×