802.11g for gaming?

[Wag]

Curious about this. I'm about to move my PC setup and since I'd like to eliminate the wiring, I'm wondering if 802.11g will be adequate for stuff like BF 1942?

I'm using Comcast 3gbps.

 

[Zelmo3]

I'm sorry, did you say 3 GIGAbits per second? Wow, I should've passed on the DSL and bought cable.
I was using 802.11b to play Battlefield online, and just today decided to plug directly into the router from my ethernet (had problems with WinXP and wireless). The ping has been exactly the same with wired ethernet as it was with 802.11b, so I would imagine that you'll get similar performance from 11g as you do from hard-wire.
Downloads may be slower due to the high overhead with wireless. Of the 11Mbps bandwidth I had with 11b, only about 1Mbps was actual data. You'll get more than that from 11g, but a lot of that 54Mbps will still be network overhead.

 

[Nothinman]

802.11b is fine so I would think 'g' would be fine too. Games need low latency not high throughput, and wireless can handle that latency just fine as long as your signal is good.

 

[Pudgygiant]

Yeh, I've played BF, XMP, CS, and whatnot, same servers and settings, both wired and 11b, and I get pretty much the same ping. The difference is easily concievable as traffic on the DSL network too. 54mbs will most definitely not push your cable.

 

[InlineFive]

As said above more important is latency. A 40-Player BF1942 server uses up about 4.3Mbps so you are fine either way.

 

[Pudgygiant]

Hah, probably the reason most internet BF servers are around 20 players. Didn't know the bandwidth was so extreme.

Why is it so high? I thought you don't get updated triangulation from players outside a certain sphere and LOS. So assuming you have the same number of players inside the sphere and LOS, I can't see why 40 would use that much more.

BTW, I've played lag-free on a 16-player server with a 128kbps ISDN.