Wii U Forum

Topic: Wii U should have an official gigabit Ethernet adapter.

Showing 41 to 55 of 55

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

41. Posted:

sugarshack wrote:

Just like the first reply, it's not even practical. tech isn't there yet for the necessity GB internet. I had a director
at a casino who wanted to put down GB cables down to run the slot machine gaming floor. and this was in 2009.
that would've been costly and unnecessary. how a fat *** moron received that position was beyond me.

Well to be fair if you are running cables anyway you better make sure it's at least Cat5e and Gigabit capable. The cost gap between Cat5 and Cat5e is trivial especially when you take into account the cost of installation which will be the bulk of the cost. When I got cables put in to various rooms I made sure it was Cat6, not because I thought I needed 10Gbps anytime soon but because it would have been maybe $115AU vs the $120AU per-run it ended up being.

As for updates along the lines of this thread in general. I unplugged my HDD from my Wii U because I had realised I wasn't anywhere near using the full 32GB yet. I'm sure I will eventually but probably by then I'll throw in a powered one. Either way I have not plugged in the Ethernet adapter and it's most definitely running better than it was when wireless. So BAM, there you go. It's definitely doing 100Mbps even when plugged into the Wii U.

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

42. Posted:

@skywake
I use the HDD instead of the system memory. The only thing that goes on the Wii U HDD is system/software updates and other apps.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TrollingThunder

43. Posted:

sugarshack wrote:

Just like the first reply, it's not even practical. tech isn't there yet for the necessity GB internet. I had a director
at a casino who wanted to put down GB cables down to run the slot machine gaming floor. and this was in 2009.
that would've been costly and unnecessary. how a fat *** moron received that position was beyond me.

Untitled

I did exactly what that casino director did way back 2002 running cat5e cables all over my house (bedrooms, kitchen, living room, basement, etc.). Back then there were no wireless routers in the market. It was not until about 2 years after that this wireless routers you can easily get today came out that I've realized I made a huge mistake.

With regards to maximizing the Wii U broadband signal, the only way to get the 480 Mbps threshold on the USB 2.0 is to use a newest AC router (like the Linksys EA6900 dual band AC router) with a wireless AC adaptor (very expensive) that can go as high as 600 Mbps on the wireless N side of its dual ban channels. Without the adaptor I have a feeling that the built-in wireless N hardware on the Wii U will be unable to match its speed cuz it's probably an older model which is limited to around 350 Mbps or even less (still very fast if you have the broadband connection for it).

Edited on by TrollingThunder

TrollingThunder

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

44. Posted:

@TrollingThunder
That's basically what I was saying. I've read that there's no way to get over 12mb/s on Nintendo's servers in terms of actual data being transferred. You can connect to Nintendo's servers at a peak internet rate(i.e. 350mb/s), but it will only ever transfer 12mb/s worth of data. It definitely has to do with their servers, but it ultimately doesn't matter for like, 90% of the gaming community. Even more so for internet users on average, outside of anything related to Nintendo.

Like that Neogaf user, there's something else going on if you can't connect at a minimum of 12mb/s on a speedy connection. I'm getting the full service that my ISP provides(9mb/s), so it makes no sense to me how someone with 35mb/s service or whatever can't get even 2mb. You can't blame Nintendo for that.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

45. Posted:

TrollingThunder wrote:

I did exactly what that casino director did way back 2002 running cat5e cables all over my house (bedrooms, kitchen, living room, basement, etc.). Back then there were no wireless routers in the market. It was not until about 2 years after that this wireless routers you can easily get today came out that I've realized I made a huge mistake.

I would hardly call it a mistake, I did the same and it's easily the best investment in tech I've done in the last decade. If I want to build a new computer and have it wireless I would have had to get a $30 adapter and then hope that the signal is strong enough for 60Mbps. If I wanted the fastest speed available I would have to spend something closer to $100 and then buy a new $300 access point and then again cross my fingers for maybe 300Mbps. If I wanted a network connection on my TV I would have had to buy one of their proprietary $70 adapters to get maybe 30Mbps. Run cables? Get a spare cable or buy one for a couple of dollars, plug it in and you're done. No dropouts, full 100Mbps or 1Gbps.

Also I used to have videos stutter over WiFi or powerline when streaming stuff that was any bigger than 720p. In some of the back rooms speeds dropped to as low as 3-5Mbps. Even at the 50-70Mbps I could get I still found it not quite fast enough to bother doing regular backups to my NAS. Now I've run cables not only is everything connected but if I go to play even a high quality 1080p video it starts immediately and doesn't stop. Also I run weekly backups to my NAS across the network and I can do that without everything grinding to a halt for hours.

So no, you didn't make a mistake. You made one of the best moves you could have made and you just need to start to use it. Every house should have network cables in the walls if people expect to do anything on their network. It'll be even more important as things like network streaming of games becomes more of a thing.

Ok, maybe the kitchen and basement were a bit unwarranted but still. Point remains.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

46. Posted:

Ya, running ethernet through your entire house isn't necessarily a mistake.

I would never do that, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. I'll stick with wireless. If I were to run into a problem with that, I would obviously start using ethernet, but that's not the case. My router only goes up to 40mb/s(8022.1 N capable), because that's all my ISP is willing to provide, so they give a router that meets their service requirements.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

TrollingThunder

47. Posted:

Wireless networking has come a long way since 2002. We've now past the Gigabit range with wireless AC networking. Connecting those cables via ethernet switch would probably required me at least (2) Gigabit ethernet switches to cover everything. Those cat5e cables are not cheap. Added to the expense are the ethernet hubs that require power 24/7 & it costs me a lot of money too back then. I never saw real benefit of it. I got my son a wireless N adaptor for his computer & it's very stable - always giving him the max bandwidth speed on speed test (50 Mbps download/5 Mbps upload). I got my other devices including my 2nd Wii U connected (wired) to the back of my router & it's more than enough.

Edited on by TrollingThunder

TrollingThunder

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

48. Posted:

@TrollingThunder
Did you do that, or did you pay someone to do that?

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

49. Posted:

Well if you don't need the speed and you're going with n speeds (40-80Mbps) then it doesn't make that much sense. Especially if you're just using your network as a way to share an internet connection and you don't have range/signal issues. However if you want to do anything more or if you want more speed run cables.

It's all good and well to say that ac is "like Gigabit" (it's actually not, benchmarks have it at 250/160Mbps at close range dropping to n speeds quickly) but when ac adapters cost $100-120AU each plus the $300AU for the access point it starts to not make much sense. If I added up the cost of what it would have been to do something like what I ended up doing with cables using powerline and wireless it would have ended up costing around $160-180AU/room. Then next year they'd release new wireless gear.

As it was I paid, including the switch and extra cables and the sparky's hourly rate, about $130AU per room for Cat6. Full Gigabit if I want it and absolutely no issues as I did have with wireless.Then with Cat6 (not so much with Cat5e) I have the ability to upgrade to 10Gbps when that inevitably comes. No idea what I'd need that sort of speed for but it's an option for a small cost down the road. Plus these walls are made of brick so coverage was always an issue with wireless but wired always runs at full speed.

As for power consumption, wireless is by far the least power efficient method of communications. It scatters. Wired runs down a wire directly with no need to push out more of a signal than absolutely necessary. The vast majority of switches have power saving features that drop power consumption down to the amount it needs to hit the required speed and turns off the port entirely when it's not being used. Wireless blasts out its signal as loud as it can so you get as much range and speed as possible. If you turn off your devices it'll still run at full power on the router end.

Edited on by skywake

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

MyFriendOfMisery

50. Posted:

sugarshack wrote:

Just like the first reply, it's not even practical. tech isn't there yet for the necessity GB internet. I had a director
at a casino who wanted to put down GB cables down to run the slot machine gaming floor. and this was in 2009.
that would've been costly and unnecessary. how a fat *** moron received that position was beyond me.

Gigabit cables and ports cost almost the same....there's a reason the PS3's port (and early PS3's actually came with the cable which was Gigabit-capable too) was Gigabit. It costs almost nothing extra to future proof. It also is practical right now for certain people and buildings in certain countries.

While what he was talking about was unnecessary and likely could be for decades, he's not a fat moron for future proofing and you don't know what you're talking about.

MyFriendOfMisery

AuthorMessage
Avatar

brewsky

51. Posted:

I'm not sure if this has already been said, but a gigabit adapter is not only useless, but impossible. USB 2.0 can only get 480 Mbps, optimally. Wii U has 802.11n, right? That should be enough. Even 802.11g is enough. Although, it would be nice to have a 100 Mbps adapter. But I'll still be sticking to wireless.

Now playing:
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U (Wii U) | Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS (3DS) | Fantasy Life (3DS)
AC:NL Dream Address: 4100-3259-5964
I would come up with a clever name for my backloggery, but my name prevents it.

Nintendo Network ID: brewsky93

AuthorMessage
Avatar

kyuubikid213

52. Posted:

Ddi this thread really need to be revived?

Wii Owner, 3DS Owner, Wii U Owner

I promise to not derail threads. Request from theblackdragon

I promise to be a mature individual. Request from theblackdragon

3DS Friend Code: 4639-9073-1731 | Nintendo Network ID: kyuubikid213

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SCAR392

53. Posted:

kyuubikid213 wrote:

Ddi this thread really need to be revived?

This thread shouldn't have even existed in the first place.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Avatar

skywake

54. Posted:

brewsky wrote:

I'm not sure if this has already been said, but a gigabit adapter is not only useless, but impossible. USB 2.0 can only get 480 Mbps, optimally.

It would still be classed as a "Gigabit adapter" and 4-5x 100Mbps isn't a trivial improvement. Infact quite a lot of transfers that you will do on Gigabit will hover at speeds around 500Mbps anyways. Especially if you're using consumer grade network storage, even moreso if you're writing data. On the Wii U though even that is a waste of effort because the most intensive thing you could ever do won't even reach 100Mbps.

brewsky wrote:

Wii U has 802.11n, right? That should be enough. Even 802.11g is enough. Although, it would be nice to have a 100 Mbps adapter. But I'll still be sticking to wireless.

The 100Mbps adapter does exist and is nice. The wireless n it's using isn't the best, it's a single band 2.4Ghz wireless and while it does have a 5Ghz chip that one is used for the GamePad. So it's probably doing something around ~30Mbps for most people. Even that's probably enough. The thing about 802.11n was that it's only really better when it used larger bands. In other words N150 isn't that much better than G. But still, it's nice to have more N gear even if just for keeping the overall performance up.

kyuubikid213 wrote:

Ddi this thread really need to be revived?

not really

NNID: skywake

AuthorMessage
Avatar

outve1

55. Posted:

I came accross a very interesting website with more info on this product: http://www.directindustry.com/industrial-manufacturer/etherne...

outve1