| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 111407 | 2010-07-26 03:06:00 | Wireless for desktop question | Mcpisik (4924) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1122386 | 2010-07-26 23:45:00 | wireless N runs up to 300Mbps 100Mbit and 1,000Mbit ethernet run at up to 100Mbps and 1,000Mbps respectively :p that is theoretical speed. I was mentioning real world speeds. Also be aware that wireless bandwidth is split between all the wireless clients like a hub. |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1122387 | 2010-07-26 23:46:00 | And it's also half-duplex, isn't it? | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1122388 | 2010-07-26 23:49:00 | that is theoretical speed. I was mentioning real world speeds. Eh? A gigabit/1000Mbit ethernet connection can do a lot more than 300Mbps. In fact it can pretty much do the whole 1Gbps. Maybe you're thinking of MBps, in which case it would be 125MBps minus overhead. I can routinely crank 120MBps through my gigabit router to a NAS drive. |
pablo d (15490) | ||
| 1122389 | 2010-07-27 00:01:00 | Sorry to burst your bubble, but the maximum speed for 802.11n wireless is up to 160Mbps only. Not 300. you should double check your info... yes there is gigabit ethernet but you also have to have your CAT5e cable done properly or have a CAT6,6a or 7 cable. and all that above is usually used for internal networkin in any case |
GreacherTech (15784) | ||
| 1122390 | 2010-07-27 00:03:00 | Maybe you're thinking of MBps, in which case it would be 125MBps minus overhead. 8 bits in a byte. 1024 MB in 1GB 1024 / 8 = 128 so it's 128MBps.... sorry it may only seem like a small error to you but 3MBps is going to make a difference. |
GreacherTech (15784) | ||
| 1122391 | 2010-07-27 00:10:00 | Sorry to burst your bubble, but the maximum speed for 802.11n wireless is up to 160Mbps only. Not 300. you should double check your info... yes there is gigabit ethernet but you also have to have your CAT5e cable done properly or have a CAT6,6a or 7 cable. and all that above is usually used for internal networkin in any case Sorry to burst your bubble, but Wireless N operates at up to 300Mbps (minus a small amount of protocol overhead) by using channel bonding. Look it up :) 8 bits in a byte. 1024 MB in 1GB 1024 / 8 = 128 so it's 128MBps.... sorry it may only seem like a small error to you but 3MBps is going to make a difference. Yeah ok I did the lazy man's computation :p Still closer than 300Mbps/37.5MBps which was the figure I was disputing. Nerd wars! |
pablo d (15490) | ||
| 1122392 | 2010-07-27 00:20:00 | Eh? A gigabit/1000Mbit ethernet connection can do a lot more than 300Mbps. In fact it can pretty much do the whole 1Gbps. Maybe you're thinking of MBps, in which case it would be 125MBps minus overhead. I can routinely crank 120MBps through my gigabit router to a NAS drive. For me, gigabit actual is 300Mbps = 35MB/s, a bit over the speed I get from an external USB2.0 drive If reading from memory, i've found gigabit can do about 70MB/s, which is still just over half what you are getting. What equipment do you have? My internal SATA2 drive plugged into the motherboard can only do about 120-130MB/s, so I find it hard to believe you're getting full speed from an external drive over a network. 8 bits in a byte. 1024 MB in 1GB 1024 / 8 = 128 so it's 128MBps.... sorry it may only seem like a small error to you but 3MBps is going to make a difference. Its actually 1024 bytes in a kb, 1024kb in an mb, 1024 mb in a gb so it is actually closer to 119MB/s. Which means Pablo is getting faster than line speed. Which I highly doubt.... |
utopian201 (6245) | ||
| 1122393 | 2010-07-27 00:27:00 | For me, gigabit actual is 300Mbps = 35MB/s, a bit over the speed I get from an external USB2 . 0 drive If reading from memory, i've found gigabit can do about 70MB/s, which is still just over half what you are getting . What equipment do you have? My internal SATA2 drive plugged into the motherboard can only do about 120-130MB/s, so I find it hard to believe you're getting full speed from an external drive over a network . Its actually 1024 bytes in a kb, 1024kb in an mb, 1024 mb in a gb so it is actually closer to 119MB/s . Which means Pablo is getting faster than line speed . Which I highly doubt . . . . The last NAS drive I used had two 1TB WD Black drives in RAID0, and I could shift ~120MBps in and out of it - there or thereabouts, sorry for using approximations but it was obviously using the GigE network to its full potential, whatever that may be (the transfer speed reported by Windows Explorer is never terribly accurate anyway) . |
pablo d (15490) | ||
| 1122394 | 2010-07-27 00:31:00 | I'm sure results may vary between different NICs and routers anyways. | pablo d (15490) | ||
| 1122395 | 2010-07-27 01:12:00 | Its actually 1024 bytes in a kb, 1024kb in an mb, 1024 mb in a gb so it is actually closer to 119MB/s. Which means Pablo is getting faster than line speed. Which I highly doubt.... I was refering to the fact that you would be dividing it by 8. last time i checked when converting bits to bytes you devide by 8. 1024/8=128. |
GreacherTech (15784) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||