Topic: Wired internet speed LESS than wifi (help?)

@skywake
That was my entire point of saying those figures don't matter.
I looked up your values of 32/4mbps vs. 93/21mbps. The difference is around 40kbps. That's less than a connection difference than what dial-up usually has.
93/23mbps is less than 2kbps difference than 32/8.
They're still basically equal, and the wireless transmitter could possibly still have a faster connection to the CPU than an ethernet port.

That's why I'm saying the values are probably being measured differently.
It's speed vs. latency, which is why I was trying to point out that a faster speed can possibly make up for the lack of 40kb/s worth of latency that the ethernet excels at.

umm, what are you doing? If you want to debate this at least understand the nomenclature. I was running a bi-directional test, 93/21Mbps is a good three times faster than 32/4Mbps. It means I was pushing data both up and down at the same time and with the LAN adapter I was getting 93Mbps one way while also doing 21Mbps at the same time in the other. Which I thought was an important test given that USB pre USB3 is not bi-directional.

Latency? I also measured latency. WiFi of both forms I tested had latency that varied between 2-8ms, wired was consistently <1ms. Any other nonsense I need to clear up?

I think you forgot that 32 is about a 1/3 of 93, but 4 is about 5 times less than 21.
Also, hypothetically, a wireless connection can meet ethernet's latency if the wireless signal can find a stable path.
Wi-fi is like radar. It searches for feedback, but never connects in a more practical fashion than that.
Just think of Watch_Dogs. When the character uses his phone to see what types of connections he can make, the connections are described visually as lines. That'a not how wireless signals ever work, especially at a consumer level.
It's possible that a wireless router would be able to form a connection wirelessly as stable as a wired one, as long as there is no interference within the straight line of signal.

EDIT: I understand the benefits each one has, but the only one that can match the other is wireless, especially in distance. Just think if you tried to connect to a network on a different planet. Ethernet cords would not be practical to use across outer space. Satelites which are wireless internet, would be practical.

NASA connects wirelessly to satellites all the time. You can't send a satellite into space tethered by ethernet. You could, but why?

So you're saying this wireless was even worse than I claimed?

......................

@skywake
No, I am not saying wireless is worse than you say. I'm saying that those numbers can be narrowed down further in relation to each other, and that is most likely the speed difference. I didn't do the math on that one, because I don't really want to discuss this anymore.
EDIT: Never mind, Aristocats.

Oh I forgot, we're living in the theoretical bizarro land. Obviously. A place where 1/5th of something is bigger than 1/3rd. A place where when you are proven wrong and backed into a corner you just throw random words at the problem hoping to stun and confuse.

Let me make those numbers on the other page easier for you.
Wii LAN adapter: 93Mbps, 21Mbps, <1ms
basically as good as
Native 100Mbps LAN: 93Mbps, 23Mbps, <1ms

Wireless g:
32Mbps... lower than 93Mbps, not as good because this is speed
8Mbps... lower than 23Mbps, not as good because this is speed
3ms... higher than <1ms, not as good because this is latency

N600:
87Mbps... higher than 32Mbps, lower than 93Mbps but not by a lot
5Mbps... lower than both 5Mbps and 23Mbps... not very good
4ms... higher than both <1ms and 3ms, not very good...
Between 100Mbps LAN and 802.11g

All of this? not a huge impact on the Wii U itself. The infrastructure the Wii U relies on is much slower than the wireless built into it. Slower than most people's wireless LAN. Conclusion? Something wierd is going on with the OP but you were wrong saying wireless was better. It isn't, it's either worse or equal because of other limitations.

Watch Dogs and space cables? WTF? Theoretically rather than IRL? Who cares! This isn't a theoretical thread.

@skywake
Your reply is exactly why I didn't want to discuss this topic anymore, and that doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

How do you expect me to react?

• I first post that I know it can do more than 50Mbps and that there's probably some other bottleneck
• You ignore this post and claim that it's limited by USB1 and only does 10Mbps without any evidence, claim that wireless is better. No problem with that other than the fact that I knew it was wrong.
• I test it and it's performing equal to native 100Mbps LAN, post the results. Also test various wireless equipment
• You claim that measuring performance isn't how you measure performance, say that 93Mbps and 32Mbps are the same speed. Wha?
• I say bull, they're not, look at the numbers.
• You start talking about theoretical scenarios and how wired isn't practical when connecting different planets.....
• I say that's irrelevant, look at the numbers and if you disagree do your own tests and post the results proving otherwise

............. and then you wonder why I'm getting very, very annoyed by your posts? Give me a break.

[edit]
also BAM! Third party view:

[edit2]
also if you want to talk interplanetary comms then the best solution within reason is probably optical. On the ground you need to run a fibre cable for that, in space you just fire the lazors! Line of sight so it's tricky in that way but you get a whole lot of bandwidth. Not used yet because of cost and not practical when going through an atmosphere (it bends it like a glass of water, also clouds aren't transparent)... but for satellite to satellite in space? Easily the best option if you can get it working.

That guy in the video didn't optimize any specific routing settings. Obviously, that's more complicated, but you could still get better performance than what was demonstrated if you know what you're doing.

He also did a test in an unpractical situation for wireless, and powerline worked basically as fast as wireless despite still having a cord. Why powerline at all with wireless if you're going to get similar speed results?

Also, my A/V reciever was slower over LAN, and it couldn't connect wirelessly to a DNL server while wired to the network. That's one of the instances where wireless was the only option to get multiple features to work. This was a situation I experienced first hand.

In conclusion, I don't think wireless syncing or multitasking is impossible. Wired and wireless are equally relevant, but the point is that people should be trying to get optimal results from wireless connections that can rival wired connections.

oh man this is gonna get good...

@SCAR
Would it be that hard for you to simply admit that you don't know what you're talking about from time to time? If you can't understand why Powerline runs nearly as slow as wireless does and are blaming "specific routing settings" for why wireless performed so poorly in that example then why are you arguing? Also, anecdotally as much as yours is I admit, I had the reverse experience when I moved from wired to wireless with my AV gear. It went from buffering and generally taking a while to load media to being near instantaneous.

As for why powerline I am happy to explain it even though it's well off topic and is likely to get a snarky response from you. Powerline is not as good as Ethernet but in some scenarios it can be better than wireless. Sometimes. If there's a lot of brick walls or similar obstacles, a lot of distance or a lot of wireless interference it can make a lot of sense if you don't want to run an Ethernet cable. For example out the back I can only get <5Mbps with wireless but over powerline I get 30Mbps. If I ran Ethernet I could get the full Gigabit but that would involve running Ethernet which isn't always practical.... especially for out-buildings...

So that's why. Also explained in the video if you bothered to pay attention rather than scanning it for your paper thin rebuttal.

LORD NINTENDO is very impressed!

Rawr... Rawr! /Rawr

I'm really struggling to work out whether SCAR is a genius troll or an idiot. I really, really hope it's the first.

oh yeah its time for popcorn definitely now
this thread is absolutley fantastic

Oh man this thread was great
I don't know if anyone answered the OP's question though

2. Any solution?

Throw it out the window and use wireless if your wireless happens to be faster.

Well if we're going to go back to the OP then using that site on my Wii U with its wireless I got 3.4/0.3Mbps... compared with 5.4/0.4Mbps on my laptop with Gigabit LAN. I usually get ~9/1Mbps in everyday use and in most other speedtesters. Still, despite only getting 3.4Mbps down it can still easily stream the 1080p trailer of Startrek Into Darkness, which averages 12Mbps and peaks at 30Mbps, with no problems.

Haven't tested it with the LAN adapter but I think it's fair to say the speedtest in the OP isn't overly reliable. So there you go, addressing the OP with the response I had originally but this time with an actual test.

Thanks again guys for all the information... and entertainment.