How to get 30 mbps

[Cozarkian]

My desktop connects to the internet using an old Abit Airpace PCI-e adapter, which claims it can get 54 mbps, through a router provided by Surewest that has 802.11 b/g capabilities.

I used to get 16-17 mbps on an internet service that maxed out at 18 mbps. After speaking with the customer retention department, I now get 30 mbps internet service, but according to speedtest, I'm maxing out at around 18.5 mbps (both download and upload).

Is there any way to boost my wireless connection speed without buying a new router and adapter (assuming that will even help)?

 

[smitbret]

My desktop connects to the internet using an old Abit Airpace PCI-e adapter, which claims it can get 54 mbps, through a router provided by Surewest that has 802.11 b/g capabilities.

I used to get 16-17 mbps on an internet service that maxed out at 18 mbps. After speaking with the customer retention department, I now get 30 mbps internet service, but according to speedtest, I'm maxing out at around 18.5 mbps (both download and upload).

Is there any way to boost my wireless connection speed without buying a new router and adapter (assuming that will even help)?

Yeah, an ethernet cable.

Otherwise, sorry. Your tested speeds seem about right for G. On a perfect G setup, you could get about 22-25mbps but you'd be better off spending $75 for a new adapter and router.

 

[JackMDS]

Otherwise, sorry. Your tested speeds seem about right for G. On a perfect G setup, you could get about 22-25mbps but you'd be better off spending $75 for a new adapter and router.

This!

18Mb/sec. is the typical G capacity when both the Router and the Adapter are b/g only.

 

[Cozarkian]

Thanks. I'm not surprised that is the answer, but I am a bit annoyed that a wireless adapter advertises "Up to 54Mbps Wireless Data Rates" if it can really only get a third of those rates.

Any recommendations on a new adapter and router? I'll be playing online MMORPGs and MOBAs and streaming Netflix. I am willing to pay for a quality connection, but don't want to purchase AC1900 if it doesn't have a noticeable benefit over AC1200, Wireless-N, etc...

 

[s44]

If you have a desktop, you really should stick to the bulletproof solidity of ether. How far is it from the modem?

 

[smitbret]

Thanks. I'm not surprised that is the answer, but I am a bit annoyed that a wireless adapter advertises "Up to 54Mbps Wireless Data Rates" if it can really only get a third of those rates.

Any recommendations on a new adapter and router? I'll be playing online MMORPGs and MOBAs and streaming Netflix. I am willing to pay for a quality connection, but don't want to purchase AC1900 if it doesn't have a noticeable benefit over AC1200, Wireless-N, etc...

Unless you really have a need for wireless AC (large file transfers across a wireless network), you'd be better off with a good n300, n450, n600 or n900 router. At least until AC matures a little further. It has worked well for me, but after I had it for awhile, the novelty wore off and now I'm like.... "I shoulda just gotten a cheaper N router".

Check out the router charts on www.smallnetbuilder.com. They are usually a pretty good indicator of overall quality.

Asus makes some really good ones.
NetGear, LinkSys, D-Link, TrendNet, TP-Link, Buffalo are all good names

 

[imagoon]

Thanks. I'm not surprised that is the answer, but I am a bit annoyed that a wireless adapter advertises "Up to 54Mbps Wireless Data Rates" if it can really only get a third of those rates.

Because is a shielded pristine environment with only an AP and a wireless card at 3 meters, it would.

Wireless is always best effort because your microwave / neighbors / car / walls all cause interference.

 

[grendel19]

54mbps, 150mbps, 300mbps for wireless-N, everything is just theoretical. There are tons of intangible overheads that advertisementing don't tell you about. All those will play into the actual speed you get. This goes for both wireless and wired.

 

[Cozarkian]

If you have a desktop, you really should stick to the bulletproof solidity of ether. How far is it from the modem?

About 25 feet across a large room, a hallway, and through one wall. The only realistic way for me to use ethernet is to run a line through a difficult to access portion of the attic, and I don't think I own a cable long enough.

Unless you really have a need for wireless AC (large file transfers across a wireless network), you'd be better off with a good n300, n450, n600 or n900 router. At least until AC matures a little further. It has worked well for me, but after I had it for awhile, the novelty wore off and now I'm like.... "I shoulda just gotten a cheaper N router".

Check out the router charts on www.smallnetbuilder.com. They are usually a pretty good indicator of overall quality.

Asus makes some really good ones.
NetGear, LinkSys, D-Link, TrendNet, TP-Link, Buffalo are all good names

Actually, there is a chance I'll be getting a Nvidia shield for my birthday in a few weeks, in which case I may want to stream games. Would that justify ac wireless from the desktop to router (I believe the shield only has wireless n capabilities)? Other than that possibility, I don't do large file transfers over wireless often at all.

Thanks for the link, I don't think I've seen that website.

 

[VirtualLarry]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833122275

Get one of these for $20, and set it up as a wireless AP, chained to your existing router.

 

[Phynaz]

I disagree. Don't go anywhere near Netgear. Just look at their forums. Heck, look at any forum.

 

[serpretetsky]

Because is a shielded pristine environment with only an AP and a wireless card at 3 meters, it would.

I wonder if this is actually true. I know 802.11 is half duplex, first of all, but more importantly, has a lot of error correcting code in the protocol.

I have never seen an 802.11g connection provide much more than 22mbps, I'm wondering if it's even possible. I have a suspicion that at 22mbps, you are actually pumping roughly 54mbps of actual physical data (including the error correcting code).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I disagree. Don't go anywhere near Netgear. Just look at their forums. Heck, look at any forum.

Bad personal experience? I seemed to elicit positive testimonials whenever I posted about the WNR2000 refurb routers in the Hot Deals forum.

I have a friend using a v1 refurb with Comcast just fine, and I own 8 v2 units (four flashed with DD-WRT, which I recommend, and four unflashed).

I switched to Cisco E2500 routers, because they have twice the flash memory, and dual-band, for $10 more (as a refurb). If it weren't for 2.4Ghz overcrowding at my apt complex, I'd still be using them.

They work fantastic with DD-WRT.

 

[JackMDS]

Expecting that a Wireless chipset that is rated 54Mb/sec. (and I repeat it is just the inner chipset rating) would overall perfomr the same as the other.

It is like thinking that every car that has an engin rated at 200 HP can perform the same as the other regardless of Weight, structure's profile, tires, and many other components.

 

[imagoon]

I wonder if this is actually true. I know 802.11 is half duplex, first of all, but more importantly, has a lot of error correcting code in the protocol.

I have never seen an 802.11g connection provide much more than 22mbps, I'm wondering if it's even possible. I have a suspicion that at 22mbps, you are actually pumping roughly 54mbps of actual physical data (including the error correcting code).

You aren't far off. 802.11g radio symbol rate is 54mbps. Taking the symbol rate and dividing by 2 then taking 20% of that. 22Mbps is pretty close to actual on 802.11g.

--edit--

to clarify, this is specifically 802.11g symbol rate to data rate. Every tech varies IE Ethernet data rate that is higher than the symbol rate because each "bit" of the symbol represents more than 1 data bit.

It is also atypical to refer to symbol rate in bits anyway so the 54mbit rating of wireless G does not mean there is a 54msymbol rate etc.

 

[azazel1024]

You aren't far off. 802.11g radio symbol rate is 54mbps. Taking the symbol rate and dividing by 2 then taking 20% of that. 22Mbps is pretty close to actual on 802.11g.

--edit--

to clarify, this is specifically 802.11g symbol rate to data rate. Every tech varies IE Ethernet data rate that is higher than the symbol rate because each "bit" of the symbol represents more than 1 data bit.

It is also atypical to refer to symbol rate in bits anyway so the 54mbit rating of wireless G does not mean there is a 54msymbol rate etc.

The other thing to keep in mind is, this is NOT the ideal use case max data rate when convereted from symbol rate.

You have overhead on the connection. A lot more overhead than there is on a wired connection.

On a wired connection you have all of the L2/L3 stuff that takes up usable data (this is the TCP and IP header information and you might have L7 application headers and stuff taking up data package space too, depending on what you are doing).

On a wireless connection, you have THAT, plus you also have stuff specifically for 802.11.

For example, you have the router/base station sending out a beacon signal occasionally. There are RTS/CTS signaling, etc.

This all takes up transmit/receive time and/or bandwidth.

I don't know what 11g ideal use case actual bandwidth is, but it seems to be slightly less than half of the stated rate. Roughly 22Mbps is the ideal, clean EMI environment usage.

11n is a bit better than this. I've seen around 60% realizable speeds. For example, my 300Mbps 802.11n connection I see up to about 170Mbps regularly, or almost 57%, and I have seen some spikes a little higher pushing 180Mbps.

My environment is pretty darned good with no competing networks and this is close to the router. Get further away or have a noisy environment and your speeds can drop drastically between packet losses and noise.

If there is no way to get a replacement router and you MUST use the ISP's router along with needing to connect to it wirelessly, you can always get an access point or a router and set it up as an access point and a new Wifi card for your desktop. Just get almost any 802.11n router/AP and wifi card and you should be able to get at least 30Mbps.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I disagree. Don't go anywhere near Netgear. Just look at their forums. Heck, look at any forum.

I totally agree with you. I used to be a huge supporter of Netgear pre 2002. I bought a wireless B router from them and noticed that their small formfactor caused problems with heat and the heat caused the WAP to be very flakey. I called their support that had just been shipped offshore and got nowhere with them after 2 hours and having the access point simply disappear off the radar of my devices. I basically swore them off at that point and have been running my WRT54G up until a few weeks ago.

I'm on a D-Link now because it was a gift from Michael Dell (promo GC). I'll probably replace it sooner rather than later if it doesn't give me enough coverage for the new square footage in my house(just added on 1900sq feet and most is on 1 story). I may end up doing a 2-3 zone blanketed WiFi setup to provide maximum N coverage using POE. I'm losing a lot of bars when going through walls.

 

[s44]

Cheap option: buy two of these, flash them both to this Tomato build, do full NVRAM resets on both, set one up as your router (or AP if you can't swap out the ISP device or put it into bridge mode) and the other as a wireless bridge for your desktop. This will give you dual-band wireless N.

More expensive options: there are tons of 'em.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wireless speed ratings are weird. I think they actually add download and upload together or something.

Unifi APs are rated at 300mbps yet have a 100mbps uplink. I get around 40-50mbps at home.

 

[imagoon]

Wireless speed ratings are weird. I think they actually add download and upload together or something.

Unifi APs are rated at 300mbps yet have a 100mbps uplink. I get around 40-50mbps at home.

Again, as mentioned in this thread a couple of times, the 300mbps is the symbol rate sometimes referred to as the gross bitrate. Wireless N has even more going on with additional sub carriers and MIMO (if equipped.) N it self has the same raw subcarrier rate of 250kbps that B and G did, there is just more of them. Add in OFDM and wider bands and you get your result.

50mbps is pretty typically of 300mbps N which is why they likely used a 100mbps port. IE they knew that gigabit would be wasted so they made the unit cheaper.

 

[PliotronX]

This has been going on since 802.11 was ratified. The general rule of thumb is to take the advertised bandwidth and divide by three. 54 / 3 = 18Mbps which is just about right in good conditions IME with 11g. 11ac is GINO (Gigabit In Name Only). As soon as there's another AP, a microwave oven, cordless 2.4GHz phone, fluorescent lights, heavy AC motors, reflective surfaces, concrete, etc. bandwidth takes a nosedive. We're lucky Wi-Fi works at all. 11n is a good medium, I can max out my 30Mbps connection with it.

 

[Cozarkian]

Okay, my ISP is currently offering a Netgear N600 dual band wireless-n router to new customers, so I'm going to talk to them and see if they will let me upgrade my current equipment, which they should, since it is 2 years old.

Then I guess I'll pick up another router to act as a wireless bridge, since that seems to be faster than getting a PCI adapter.

 

[code65536]

All those will play into the actual speed you get. This goes for both wireless and wired.

But mostly wireless. Wired overheads are tiny by comparison--I easily get over 100MByte/s sustained rates copying files over GbE (theoretical maximum of 125MByte/s), and this is without jumbo packets. But WiFi? Getting just half its theoretical maximum would be considered an achievement.

 

[azazel1024]

Again, as mentioned in this thread a couple of times, the 300mbps is the symbol rate sometimes referred to as the gross bitrate. Wireless N has even more going on with additional sub carriers and MIMO (if equipped.) N it self has the same raw subcarrier rate of 250kbps that B and G did, there is just more of them. Add in OFDM and wider bands and you get your result.

50mbps is pretty typically of 300mbps N which is why they likely used a 100mbps port. IE they knew that gigabit would be wasted so they made the unit cheaper.

50Mbps is not pretty typical of 300Mbps N unless you have a crappy client, a crappy base station or a high congestion area.

My 300Mbps N 2.4GHz setup is easily capable of pushing 170Mbps. Typically 10/100 ports are going to limit you if you are doing more than 1 spatial stream and 40MHz for 11n, or more than 2 spatial streams and 20MHz. Heck, my tablet which is connected as 1:1 and 40MHz can push 80Mbps (granted, which is not above 10/100 port speeds).

50Mbps to me says either far from the base station, lots of interference or a crappy client/base station.

In general the HARD limits for 11b and 11g are around 40-45%. 11n is around 55-60%. I don't have a lot of experience with 11ac, but it looks to be around the same 55-60% that 11n is. This is with an ideal setup (not necessarily a laboratory in a faraday cage, just a low noise setup, with a good client and base station near each other. A good host OS is also important).

So...in general, you are staring down the barrel of a 10/100 connection being a limit for anything over N150. If you have lots of congestion, typically operate far from your router/access point, have a crappy router/access point or crappy clients...sure, a 10/100 port isn't a limitation.

My cheap as dirt TP-Link 843nd router I have for an outdoor router (router in garage, antennas outside) I run in 20MHz 2:2 mode and it has 10/100 ports. On my laptop I can transfer at around 85Mbps, which is darned closed to as fast as port speed, which is 92Mbps as measured through a wired test on the router. If I switch to 40MHz mode, I hit the 92Mbps of the port speed. Switch over to my Netgear 3500lv1 inside that has gigabit ports and is also a N300 router, which I do run in 2:2 40MHz mode all the time...I hit 170-180Mbps on my laptop.

My limited 11ac experience, 11ac is still pretty decent. It is very heavily dependent on a good client and a good base station and also drops with range pretty significantly, but same room, I've seen TP-Link Archer C7 and Intel 7260AC cards push in to the 400+Mbps range, which is the better part of half of the 867Mbps singaling rate of 2:2 11ac 80MHz. Move a couple of rooms over and it does drop fast, but its still over 200Mbps.

So for good clients and good base stations, half or a little more is easily possible. Get interference or crappy products and yeah, 1/3rd is lucky on a good day. Under identical operating conditions, I've seen a crappy Realtek 300Mbps 11n Wifi NIC get 90Mbps where my 7260AC and 2230 were getting over 160Mbps to the same router.

 

[imagoon]

50Mbps is not pretty typical of 300Mbps N unless you have a crappy client, a crappy base station or a high congestion area.

My 300Mbps N 2.4GHz setup is easily capable of pushing 170Mbps. Typically 10/100 ports are going to limit you if you are doing more than 1 spatial stream and 40MHz for 11n, or more than 2 spatial streams and 20MHz. Heck, my tablet which is connected as 1:1 and 40MHz can push 80Mbps (granted, which is not above 10/100 port speeds).

50Mbps to me says either far from the base station, lots of interference or a crappy client/base station.

In general the HARD limits for 11b and 11g are around 40-45%. 11n is around 55-60%. I don't have a lot of experience with 11ac, but it looks to be around the same 55-60% that 11n is. This is with an ideal setup (not necessarily a laboratory in a faraday cage, just a low noise setup, with a good client and base station near each other. A good host OS is also important).

So...in general, you are staring down the barrel of a 10/100 connection being a limit for anything over N150. If you have lots of congestion, typically operate far from your router/access point, have a crappy router/access point or crappy clients...sure, a 10/100 port isn't a limitation.

My cheap as dirt TP-Link 843nd router I have for an outdoor router (router in garage, antennas outside) I run in 20MHz 2:2 mode and it has 10/100 ports. On my laptop I can transfer at around 85Mbps, which is darned closed to as fast as port speed, which is 92Mbps as measured through a wired test on the router. If I switch to 40MHz mode, I hit the 92Mbps of the port speed. Switch over to my Netgear 3500lv1 inside that has gigabit ports and is also a N300 router, which I do run in 2:2 40MHz mode all the time...I hit 170-180Mbps on my laptop.

My limited 11ac experience, 11ac is still pretty decent. It is very heavily dependent on a good client and a good base station and also drops with range pretty significantly, but same room, I've seen TP-Link Archer C7 and Intel 7260AC cards push in to the 400+Mbps range, which is the better part of half of the 867Mbps singaling rate of 2:2 11ac 80MHz. Move a couple of rooms over and it does drop fast, but its still over 200Mbps.

So for good clients and good base stations, half or a little more is easily possible. Get interference or crappy products and yeah, 1/3rd is lucky on a good day. Under identical operating conditions, I've seen a crappy Realtek 300Mbps 11n Wifi NIC get 90Mbps where my 7260AC and 2230 were getting over 160Mbps to the same router.

Depending on the AP it can be realistic. He didn't mention 40mhz channels, MIMO etc. All that is "optional" in the N standard.

40mhz channels will nearly always beat the 20 mhz band because you no longer need the buffer zones between the bands for example. MIMO adds yet more to it with channel bonding.

N actually is rather annoying in that it isn't straight forward as the others. 300mhz on 1 radio using 20mhz bands is vastly different than an 8x8 using 40mhz bands.