I think that is more so due to overhead in writing files and most likely also doing some live decompression or some other stuff. After all it does not download single file like iso would be.
It actually isn't all that different. A lot of modern games are basically a smallish exe and a single giant Assets file that's many many GB, and is some sort of encrypyted (or not) filesystem image.
This is surprising to me: I've seen Steam peak around 1500 on my connection. Linux ISOs from cloud mirrors (like DO) can hit closer to 2gbps. Bittorrent downloads of Ubuntu ISOs sometimes hit 2gbps
Exactly this. ISPs are tricky players when it comes to peering. A typical symptom: servers in local region/country can easily saturate the connection, when anything external gets cropped down to 20-50% of a declared full speed.
Supply and demand, why would they bother improving the infrastructure if people can't use it? Either be an early adopter, and help progress or sit at the back and wait.
I work from home, and in video games. I download multiple 80-100GB builds every single day just to do my job. Virgin's 1.2Gbps connection is barely good enough. The moment they bring 2 or 3Gbps out on their nextfibre service I'll upgrade to it almost no matter the cost. I'm jealous of our European neighbours where you can get domestic 10Gbps connections.
But beyond work - the ability to download any game from steam within 10-15 minutes max is amazing. I play online games with friends twice a week and sometimes we decide what to play that evening spontaneously - and being able to download a 100GB game and play it the same evening is a game changer(pardon the pun).
Yes. Our build system produces complete packages of the game, and I'm a platform engineer - so within one day I'll often download a PC package, one for PS5, Xbox, Switch, Android and iOS, depending on what kind of thing I'm working on. So yes all of them are completely unique. Or I'm looking at builds made for different backends. Or I pushed a preflight for overnight cooking/building, it takes about 8 hours - so I need to download the output to see if it works across different systems.
Because I would have expected for game development that it would be rare for majority of the large assets (art, textures, 3d meshes, video, sound, music) to change multiple times per day, so - to me - sounds like would perfectly suit a differential/incremental sync protocol, rather than treating everything as a large packed blob. At least that was the case for the game development I did.
And generally - you are correct. But builds made for specific platforms have all of their assets "cooked" for that platform - so textures shipping on PS5 are not in the same format as textures shipping on the Switch, even though they were both made from the same original reference file.
You also have to factor in that your connection can drop to 10% far more often because of connection pooling. Each of your neighbors has a gigabit of bandwidth to use too.
Like in a perfect world, if everyone's cars went 10x faster, traffic would be a thing of the past. But because we can't have nice things, we would actually just be stuck in gridlock behind 10x more car crashes.
I started with gigabit Fios when they first deployed in my area then ended up dropping to 300. As a single user, even if I'm saturating the link, I think I'm too used to being patient to accept waiting an extra few minutes or queueing up an overnight download for something massive.
Every online service I've used has been flawless, from streaming media to cloud gaming, and I'm in a fully wireless house with a single Ruckus AP covering it all.
I've seen over a thousand+ devices being covered by a 2Gbps pipe on a large network and not even saturate the link even during peak - and they were throttled to 150mbps per device.
If the author ever talked to a gamer, they would have learned how ignorant they are.
edit: in case it's not clear, when every other new game from major publisher starts at 50GB or 100GB and can sometimes be 300+GB, waiting 2hrs to download it is terrible and horrible for energy use.
Edit to recognise your edit, as you’ve clarified that were talking about downloads - a once a month experience.
That sounds more like a time management problem - buy your game, go to bed, and it’ll be there when you wake at 2:30 for your next gaming session. ;)
~You appear to be confusing latency and bandwidth. While they are to an extent two dimensions of the same problem, it’s latency that affects gaming regardless of bandwidth.
More bandwidth will not reduce latency, and gaming intentionally only uses limited bandwidth (notwithstanding streamed rendering, but that’s a minuscule minority).
Console games today are routinely >50GB, and more frequently >100GB for the most popular titles. On common residential plans, it can take upwards of an hour before installation even begins.
I'm not a gamer, but I hear with how often there are required updates before playing, slower internet is pretty disruptive to quick drop-in multiplayer sessions with friends.
The time management problem is having a job, family, and other commitments. Some of us only get a couple of hours a week to play games. Your solution would mean we’d have to wait a whole week after buying a game before we can play it. And I’m sure you can appreciate that’s not a particularly constructive recommendation.
And that’s before you take into account how large some updates are. Fortnight updates, for example, are large enough to be entirely new games in their own right.
The author (me) does play games. I'm on PC, Oculus, and console. The console downloads are limited by the upstream. The VR games are limited by WiFi. I've never noticed the PC games getting close to the max download speed I have.
But, to go to your edit. Is there a significant difference between waiting 90 minutes and 45 minutes? Either way, you set the download going, grab some food, have a bath, whatever, right?
Not everyone plays the same games, play games in the same way, or has the same lifestyle as yous.
Just one example: If I find two hours on a weekday evening to play games (when I am often occupied by other things on other days) and I want to play the latest games, I don't want to spend 90 minutes waiting. If that window is gone, I need to move on.
(You could argue I could plan ahead, look up how large the game is, download it a day before blahblah. You'll be absolutely correct, but I can also assure you almost nobody does that. Network speed can be also very unstable/unpredictable.)
And I'm sure people who are on Game Pass would like a word with you.
Don't let your average usage fool you. You do notice the snappiness of downloading a large file and having it take a third to a tenth the time. You rarely manage to fully saturate a gigabit connection, but while downloading isos and software updates in seconds rather than minutes, your Internet stays snappy the whole time.
Yes, your overall usage of gigabit is only a few percent. It's way oversold anyway, so you could never use all of that. It's still way worth it for those short bursts of speed.
When a game I play drops its monthly 30 gigabyte patch, and it downloads in 5 minutes rather than 50 minutes or more, I find it to have plenty enough of a point.
You could argue that waiting an hour once a month is not that much of a hurdle, sure, but in my judgement it is. I like this. I wish it could go even faster. I'm so happy that the era of waiting a substantial amount of time for data transfer is just ~not a thing anymore.
Though a gigabit subscription here is dirt cheap and always has been, so that helps too.
I'd take guaranteed 100Mbps without outages over best effort 1Gpbs any time. Unfortunately, it's hard to get this service at reasonable consumer prices, at least in Germany
The reason why hard minimum speeds are so expensive is that the ISP can't oversubscribe at any point. You are reserving that 100Mbps at every upstream ISP. Even during peak times all ISPs can't touch your reserved bandwidth.
To improve reliability, you can use multiple services from different vendors and implement automatic roll-over with Mikrotik and the likes. This is something I have been doing back in the day for the enterprise I am still working at.
I did it at home as well. At least 2x more money to pay, but it was worth it because my bread and butter depended on having stable internet connectivity.
It's an option for those in their own houses, but would hardly help city dwellers. What we need good fiber optic coverage - there is some progress there, but at an inadequate pace.
https://www.wilhelm-tel.de/privatkundinnen had always excellent latency and peering for me. No problems with stability either, which comes in handy when you're mostly living on another continent :-)
I think here in Czechia they must guarantee 60% of paid speed, so with 1Gb internet the worst you must get is 500-600 Mb
I saw yesterday some German ads while watching F1 and the prices were insane like 8-30x higher than in Czechia and they were not ashamed to advertise it, here I pay 12€ in Prague for fiber 1Gb and it's so expensive because I'm not using directly my ISP infrastructure bit be rents it from power supplier, otherwise it could be 10€, it's odd since mobile data prices are much more expensive here than in neighboring countries
I have a 2.5Gbps connection, costs me something around $75/month. I would never consider going less. It is about peak not sustained use for me. If I am downloading something I don't want to sit around and wait for it.
Think this underestimates quality of life benefits.
Recently went from a 500mbps line + wifi bridge (~ +2ms, 1.5gbps throughput on wifi) to a 1.6gig line with wired 2.5gig and was surprised that it made a noticeable difference in casual browsing. The numbers say it shouldn't but it did
If 30 bucks more saves me time on downloads AND every single click on browsing a bit snappier...that makes sense to me even if I don't care how many concurrent 4K streams the pipe could carry
A really good CDN like Steam can absolutely saturate a link like that. I'm on a gigabit line (which actually performs at more like 1.1), and I've seen 120MB/sec download speeds on Steam. With today's games often weighting in at 50GB+ that's not nothing, either.
Steam won't ever saturate my 2400Mbps line but it will absolutely exceed 1000 for sustained periods. Microsoft is slower but updates and Xbox games also hit 1000 sometimes
For a proper distributed internet it seemed like a good idea, but silicon valley has rather scorched the earth, and so it’s not that useful for passively consuming slop and adverts.
Since getting a unifi network for home here is the breakdown so far:
Peak utilization (from what I know this is total bandwidth used throughout the timeline) in a fairly active household when it comes to internet is under 20% on a 200/200 connection.
Majority of the data usage goes to streaming services. With software updates/downloads being second. These two account for like 80% of the traffic or even more. Browsing is next usually.
Only a handful of times in a week will some device hit 100% (200mbps) for a brief period. This is mostly not noticeable for other devices and probably why the high bandwidth is recommended. It allows for better experience overall, not necessarily something that helps you do something faster.
The author is talking about using one device at a time. And if you’re living along then gigabit might be surplus to your needs. However many of us have families.
I work from home and since getting gigabit, my video conferences have stopped degrading in quality right around the time the kids get home from school.
QoS is designed to minimise these issues by prioritising real time protocols and other latency-sensitive traffic over other traffic. But that doesn’t mean that slowdown isn’t happening.
With 500Mb you’ll be fine 99% of the time. But you don’t have a whole lot of spare head room. And I’ve found that I have dipped into that headroom a surprising amount (eg when I’d need to pull large docker images as part of a new build process I’m testing locally)
The point of Gigabit isn’t that IPTV is better quality, because it isn’t going to be. It’s so that you can get more done concurrently without depending on QoS to save your arse.
Also you made a comment elsewhere that WiFi speed would be less than gigabit but that’s not true. WiFi 6 (which was released 5 years ago) supports up to 10Gb/s. And WiFi 5 (802.11ac) can do up to 1300Mb/s and was released in 2013 (more than a decade ago!).
The Oculus Quest (original) supports 5GHz 802.11ac and in fact requires it for wireless streaming. I have noticed that games will download very fast on my Quest 2 over Gigabit internet too.
This is like Bill Gates' 640 kB of memory quote. Lack of fiber and Gbps+ adoption is the reason why video meetings still suck and streaming has visible compression artifacts.
Virgin (cable) gigabit is definitely pointless due to the latency. Not to mention the congestion and outages
A good Openreach ISP (FTTP) however, fairly worth it on a good deal. You get more upload with more download bandwidth, so if you do lots of off-site backing up it can be very useful
For a developer, there is a lot of benefits in having at least 1 Gb/s internet connection. Obviously, downloads of software, docker images take significantly less time than 100 Mb/s connection could ever provide. But the benefits do not end there. Publishing of build artifacts, websites etc. are significantly sped up as well.
And the most important perk: you can self-host certain parts of your infrastructure by keeping VPS or cloud-based facade for SSL termination, while back-channeling all the traffic to the actual worker machine that sits in your basement behind the NAT. By doing so, you can immensely economize on your monthly spend by reducing it N times, where N is typically ranging from 2 to 10.
P.S. Some context: I am a long time internet user who first connected in 1996 and went through every wave of infrastructural changes, starting with dial-up 33 Kb/s, then 56 Kb/s, then dorm ethernet 10 Mb/s, followed by DSL 20 Mb/s, fiber 100 Mb/s, fiber 1 Gb/s.
I've been doing that for years: free tier Oracle VPS purely as an SSL termination+WireGuard endpoint, and all traffic is routed to the server in my home office.
It's really great to have 2.5G all the way through from the VPS to my router to the server.
Video production. Gigabit is 125MB/s. If you’re shooting a day in 10bit 4k (pretty standard today) you have like ~1TB of data. If you need to get that footage to an editor or a post house it would take over 2h at max speed. That’s why many still ship hard drives with courier.
I’ve spent way too much time trying to solve the large file transfer problem using hybrid p2p. Check out https://payload.app/. It’s tested in controlled env for 10Gbps+ but have not been able to test that over WAN just yet. I have 10Gbit residential if someone wants to help benchmark.
If there's any noticeable difference, it'd be due to lower latency and not increased bandwidth. I'd be cool with 5MB/s and extremely low latency if that was an option.
Recently upgraded my WAN to 10/10 Gbit/s P2P Fiber. The router is a UCG-Fiber, connected via a DAC/SFP+ cable to a USW-Flex-2.5G-8-PoE switch. My APs were already Wi-Fi 7 with 2.5GbE PoE, so no change there.
Total cost was around USD 400. The result: effectively unlimited bandwidth, and, best of all, an average latency of 1ms to the internet. Do I need it? No. Do I love it? Absolutely.
I pay about $80 for a 1Gbps symmetrical connection in Brazil.
I work in photography in my spare time, and a single photoshoot can easily pass 2k raw photos, which I backup to three remote locations. Plus, I download every movie and TV show we consume at home, have games to play, and work as a programmer.
Honestly, if I could afford a 10 gig switch and routers (we have three at home, in mesh), I’d go higher.
Quality of life matters. If I can make a website or a download just a little bit faster, I’ll.
I don't mind downloads that much but keeping uploads to 1/10 (sometimes even worse) is terrible. If I had the option for 1000/100 or 500/500 I would always go for the second option.
My ISP has a 1TB bandwidth cap per month. You have to pay $30 extra to unlock unlimited bandwidth but I assume even unlimited bandwidth has some limit after which they throttle. They already charge $105/mo for 600Mbps down and 25Mbps up with just the 1 TB limit.
I’d happily take symmetrical 300 Mbps with a 5 TB cap instead of asymmetrical Gigabit speeds and 1 TB cap.
Cost? It's not much - Swisscom charges only 10 CHF/month more for it, but I stuck with 1GBit because basically nothing I do is bottlenecked by the ISP at this point. It's all latency or upstream/peering bottlenecks. There's no point in spending more money to open a huge pipe even wider if you just hit a smaller one further upstream.
I love that i can download from Steam and/or bittorrent at a ~1gbps each, and still have 1gbps upload for Plex (and bittorrent) and in theory some LAN bandwidth left for the NAS and such
(I have 2.5gbps LAN for my workstation, server, and Wi-Fi APs; with a 2400mbps symmetric AT&T fiber uplink)
Yeah, it's overkill, but it's great to have the headroom when i really want to push things. Uplink bandwidth is basically guaranteed never to be an issue. Yeah i could save some money and go to 1500mbps i guess but something about having ~2.5G the whole way through provides some peace of mind somehow
I have 1Gb for 12€/300CZK per month in Prague (it could be 10€ but fiber infrastructure is not directly from my carrier, so they gave to pay fee to other company, but I know in other places they can go down to 10€/250CZK), why would I go for the lower speed it it cost the same or even more?
I was watching yesterday F1 practice and qualification in some German channel worth German ads and couldn't believe the advertised prices, they were advertising 100Mb for 36€, only 30 times more expensive, the other ad was like 250Mb for like 24€, 8 times more expensive, what are these people smoking?
I've had before upgrade 250Mb, but without fiber installed in different room, so the speed where I needed it was max 120Mb, now this was quality of life improvement, while movie download within minute instead of waiting 10-20 minutes, work attachments almost instantaneous and my kids are not using the internet yet.
Funnily in speed test I'm able to reach slightly higher top speed on my Pixel 6a with wifi 6e than on laptop directly connected with gigabit cable to router, but it's almost same like 960 vs 950 Mb.
_fw | a day ago
Justified.
edent | a day ago
znpy | a day ago
BoredPositron | a day ago
doubled112 | a day ago
I have downloaded quite a few Linux ISOs from mirrors at 90MB/s.
Ekaros | a day ago
TylerE | a day ago
queenkjuul | 18 hours ago
sandworm101 | a day ago
TylerE | a day ago
abujazar | a day ago
garganzol | a day ago
edent | a day ago
Daviey | a day ago
gambiting | a day ago
But beyond work - the ability to download any game from steam within 10-15 minutes max is amazing. I play online games with friends twice a week and sometimes we decide what to play that evening spontaneously - and being able to download a 100GB game and play it the same evening is a game changer(pardon the pun).
matja | a day ago
gambiting | a day ago
aeonik | a day ago
matja | a day ago
aeonik | a day ago
matja | 23 hours ago
gambiting | 22 hours ago
functionmouse | a day ago
elif | a day ago
Like in a perfect world, if everyone's cars went 10x faster, traffic would be a thing of the past. But because we can't have nice things, we would actually just be stuck in gridlock behind 10x more car crashes.
CarVac | a day ago
kotaKat | a day ago
Every online service I've used has been flawless, from streaming media to cloud gaming, and I'm in a fully wireless house with a single Ruckus AP covering it all.
I've seen over a thousand+ devices being covered by a 2Gbps pipe on a large network and not even saturate the link even during peak - and they were throttled to 150mbps per device.
fg137 | a day ago
edit: in case it's not clear, when every other new game from major publisher starts at 50GB or 100GB and can sometimes be 300+GB, waiting 2hrs to download it is terrible and horrible for energy use.
matja | a day ago
bwat49 | a day ago
matja | a day ago
scoot | a day ago
That sounds more like a time management problem - buy your game, go to bed, and it’ll be there when you wake at 2:30 for your next gaming session. ;)
~You appear to be confusing latency and bandwidth. While they are to an extent two dimensions of the same problem, it’s latency that affects gaming regardless of bandwidth.
More bandwidth will not reduce latency, and gaming intentionally only uses limited bandwidth (notwithstanding streamed rendering, but that’s a minuscule minority).
You cannot defy the laws of physics.~
washadjeffmad | a day ago
I'm not a gamer, but I hear with how often there are required updates before playing, slower internet is pretty disruptive to quick drop-in multiplayer sessions with friends.
hnlmorg | a day ago
And that’s before you take into account how large some updates are. Fortnight updates, for example, are large enough to be entirely new games in their own right.
fg137 | a day ago
Lots of people here doesn't understand other people's life constraints and refuse to acknowledge that different lifestyle exist.
fg137 | a day ago
Incorrect assumption. Not every buys/downloads/plays games the same way you do.
Even more incorrect considering how often games are updated and how large those updates can be, especially for a new game.
edent | a day ago
But, to go to your edit. Is there a significant difference between waiting 90 minutes and 45 minutes? Either way, you set the download going, grab some food, have a bath, whatever, right?
fg137 | a day ago
Just one example: If I find two hours on a weekday evening to play games (when I am often occupied by other things on other days) and I want to play the latest games, I don't want to spend 90 minutes waiting. If that window is gone, I need to move on.
(You could argue I could plan ahead, look up how large the game is, download it a day before blahblah. You'll be absolutely correct, but I can also assure you almost nobody does that. Network speed can be also very unstable/unpredictable.)
And I'm sure people who are on Game Pass would like a word with you.
Never generalize your own experience.
GauntletWizard | a day ago
Yes, your overall usage of gigabit is only a few percent. It's way oversold anyway, so you could never use all of that. It's still way worth it for those short bursts of speed.
perching_aix | a day ago
You could argue that waiting an hour once a month is not that much of a hurdle, sure, but in my judgement it is. I like this. I wish it could go even faster. I'm so happy that the era of waiting a substantial amount of time for data transfer is just ~not a thing anymore.
Though a gigabit subscription here is dirt cheap and always has been, so that helps too.
oytis | a day ago
UltraSane | a day ago
garganzol | a day ago
I did it at home as well. At least 2x more money to pay, but it was worth it because my bread and butter depended on having stable internet connectivity.
TMWNN | a day ago
oytis | a day ago
LargoLasskhyfv | a day ago
https://www.wilhelm-tel.de/privatkundinnen had always excellent latency and peering for me. No problems with stability either, which comes in handy when you're mostly living on another continent :-)
Markoff | 16 hours ago
I saw yesterday some German ads while watching F1 and the prices were insane like 8-30x higher than in Czechia and they were not ashamed to advertise it, here I pay 12€ in Prague for fiber 1Gb and it's so expensive because I'm not using directly my ISP infrastructure bit be rents it from power supplier, otherwise it could be 10€, it's odd since mobile data prices are much more expensive here than in neighboring countries
infecto | a day ago
Havoc | a day ago
Recently went from a 500mbps line + wifi bridge (~ +2ms, 1.5gbps throughput on wifi) to a 1.6gig line with wired 2.5gig and was surprised that it made a noticeable difference in casual browsing. The numbers say it shouldn't but it did
If 30 bucks more saves me time on downloads AND every single click on browsing a bit snappier...that makes sense to me even if I don't care how many concurrent 4K streams the pipe could carry
TylerE | a day ago
queenkjuul | 19 hours ago
ballooney | a day ago
compounding_it | a day ago
Peak utilization (from what I know this is total bandwidth used throughout the timeline) in a fairly active household when it comes to internet is under 20% on a 200/200 connection.
Majority of the data usage goes to streaming services. With software updates/downloads being second. These two account for like 80% of the traffic or even more. Browsing is next usually.
Only a handful of times in a week will some device hit 100% (200mbps) for a brief period. This is mostly not noticeable for other devices and probably why the high bandwidth is recommended. It allows for better experience overall, not necessarily something that helps you do something faster.
hnlmorg | a day ago
I work from home and since getting gigabit, my video conferences have stopped degrading in quality right around the time the kids get home from school.
edent | a day ago
Even when I was on 500Mbps, I never noticed a slowdown while things were accessing the net simultaneously.
hnlmorg | a day ago
With 500Mb you’ll be fine 99% of the time. But you don’t have a whole lot of spare head room. And I’ve found that I have dipped into that headroom a surprising amount (eg when I’d need to pull large docker images as part of a new build process I’m testing locally)
The point of Gigabit isn’t that IPTV is better quality, because it isn’t going to be. It’s so that you can get more done concurrently without depending on QoS to save your arse.
Also you made a comment elsewhere that WiFi speed would be less than gigabit but that’s not true. WiFi 6 (which was released 5 years ago) supports up to 10Gb/s. And WiFi 5 (802.11ac) can do up to 1300Mb/s and was released in 2013 (more than a decade ago!).
The Oculus Quest (original) supports 5GHz 802.11ac and in fact requires it for wireless streaming. I have noticed that games will download very fast on my Quest 2 over Gigabit internet too.
kator | a day ago
timbit42 | a day ago
dzonga | a day ago
if u have lower latency <25ms & a 25Mbps .. your connection feels faster than having 100ms latency + whatever speed.
ubercow13 | a day ago
tosh | a day ago
abujazar | a day ago
timbit42 | a day ago
gib444 | a day ago
A good Openreach ISP (FTTP) however, fairly worth it on a good deal. You get more upload with more download bandwidth, so if you do lots of off-site backing up it can be very useful
I get 8ms on OpenReach vs 15ms plus on Virgin
garganzol | a day ago
And the most important perk: you can self-host certain parts of your infrastructure by keeping VPS or cloud-based facade for SSL termination, while back-channeling all the traffic to the actual worker machine that sits in your basement behind the NAT. By doing so, you can immensely economize on your monthly spend by reducing it N times, where N is typically ranging from 2 to 10.
P.S. Some context: I am a long time internet user who first connected in 1996 and went through every wave of infrastructural changes, starting with dial-up 33 Kb/s, then 56 Kb/s, then dorm ethernet 10 Mb/s, followed by DSL 20 Mb/s, fiber 100 Mb/s, fiber 1 Gb/s.
queenkjuul | 19 hours ago
It's really great to have 2.5G all the way through from the VPS to my router to the server.
klabb3 | a day ago
I’ve spent way too much time trying to solve the large file transfer problem using hybrid p2p. Check out https://payload.app/. It’s tested in controlled env for 10Gbps+ but have not been able to test that over WAN just yet. I have 10Gbit residential if someone wants to help benchmark.
glimshe | a day ago
mrsaint | a day ago
Total cost was around USD 400. The result: effectively unlimited bandwidth, and, best of all, an average latency of 1ms to the internet. Do I need it? No. Do I love it? Absolutely.
grgr8 | a day ago
mrsaint | a day ago
jamesponddotco | a day ago
I work in photography in my spare time, and a single photoshoot can easily pass 2k raw photos, which I backup to three remote locations. Plus, I download every movie and TV show we consume at home, have games to play, and work as a programmer.
Honestly, if I could afford a 10 gig switch and routers (we have three at home, in mesh), I’d go higher.
Quality of life matters. If I can make a website or a download just a little bit faster, I’ll.
lousken | a day ago
onesociety2022 | a day ago
I’d happily take symmetrical 300 Mbps with a 5 TB cap instead of asymmetrical Gigabit speeds and 1 TB cap.
spwa4 | a day ago
Gud | a day ago
What's the point in having less?
mike_hearn | a day ago
cadamsdotcom | a day ago
queenkjuul | 19 hours ago
(I have 2.5gbps LAN for my workstation, server, and Wi-Fi APs; with a 2400mbps symmetric AT&T fiber uplink)
Yeah, it's overkill, but it's great to have the headroom when i really want to push things. Uplink bandwidth is basically guaranteed never to be an issue. Yeah i could save some money and go to 1500mbps i guess but something about having ~2.5G the whole way through provides some peace of mind somehow
Markoff | 16 hours ago
I was watching yesterday F1 practice and qualification in some German channel worth German ads and couldn't believe the advertised prices, they were advertising 100Mb for 36€, only 30 times more expensive, the other ad was like 250Mb for like 24€, 8 times more expensive, what are these people smoking?
I've had before upgrade 250Mb, but without fiber installed in different room, so the speed where I needed it was max 120Mb, now this was quality of life improvement, while movie download within minute instead of waiting 10-20 minutes, work attachments almost instantaneous and my kids are not using the internet yet.
Funnily in speed test I'm able to reach slightly higher top speed on my Pixel 6a with wifi 6e than on laptop directly connected with gigabit cable to router, but it's almost same like 960 vs 950 Mb.