Best 56k modem?

MidiGuy

Senior member
Jan 14, 2001
416
0
0
What is the best 56k modem? Are there any current reviews/comparisons of V.92 internal modems? Also, does anyone know of any really good prices on a good modem?
 

Derango

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2002
3,113
1
0
Anything that costs more than $25. Anything less is a winmodem/software modem.
 

sean2002

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,538
0
0
I've had good luck with USR hardware PCI modems, they are more expensive but I think they are worth the price. Shop around on-line for USR OEM model 2976 or 2977, they can be foung for under $50 and is a true hardware PCI modem. Or just look for a modem that works in Linux as most software modems will not work without a Windows based OS
 

thorin

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
7,573
0
0
"Shop around on-line for USR OEM model 2976 or 2977, they can be foung for under $50 and is a true hardware PCI modem."

I'll second that vote.

Thorin
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
About a year ago I tested 14 modems software and hardware, it was really a test to see if the processor made any difference, I found that once the speed of the processor got to 400 there was no difference in modems, hardware or software. some of the $9.00 modems (winmodems) actually performed better that some of the hardware modems. You pay your bucks and take your chance.
Bleep
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
Bleep is right. And for old times' sake. . .

There are a number of reasons to avoid higher priced "hard modems," especially those made by 3Com/USR, in favor of a common PCI winmodem.

1) Winmodems are dirt cheap.

While a good Lucent LT or Rockwell/Conexant HCF winmodem can easily be found for less than $10 US (see PriceWatch) the cheapest hardware modem costs nearly four times as much: $36 plus shipping and handling. And for a 3Com part, you'll pay even more. By contrast, you can sometimes find winmodems for $5 or even for free with special promotions.

Everything else we put in our computers is subject to a price/performance ratio. In other words, if the performance of a more expensive part does not scale linearly with its price, we don't buy it. (RDRAM, anyone?) The same reasoning must be applied to hardware modems. They certainly don't perform four times as well as winmodems of a quarter the price, and as we'll see, they often don't perform any better at all.

2) Ping times and throughput are not an issue.

Modern Winmodems such as those based on the Lucent LT chipset will display ping times below 100ms and connect speeds around 48000, which is more than adequate for any Internet activity, including online gaming. Any recent softmodem -- especially the HCF variety, where the hardware handles a bit more of the duty -- should exhibit similar performance. Below, a cut and paste job from a generic Lucent LT v.90 PCI, which sells for as low as $9 on PriceWatch:

C:\WINDOWS>ping -n 10 router.infoserve.net

Pinging router.infoserve.net [199.175.157.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253

Ping statistics for 199.175.157.4:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 105ms, Average = 98ms

You may object that pinging an ISP would always yield good results. Actually, it's the only fair way to compare latency between modems. Pinging your ISP reduces the number of variables down to three: your modem's performance, the quality of your phone lines, and the nature of your ISP's modem pool. If we were to compare modems by pinging a fixed point on the Internet, we would quickly introduce several more uncontrolled variables: Internet traffic, server load, number of hops, etc.

Even if you ping your own ISP with an expensive hardware modem, I think you'll find it extremely difficult to match these numbers.

Not bad for $9, eh? ;)

3) CPU utilization is minimal.

One of the main arguments against winmodems has been that they consume CPU cycles. Fortunately, manufacturers have always made sure to set minimum CPU guidelines so that the effect is not noticeable. If CPU usage was ever a problem, it certainly isn't today.

CPU power has increased many, many times faster than the technology behind softmodems. For instance, the CPU usage of a typical winmodem hovers below 5% on a Celeron 333. This is in the range of the power required by Windows to spin an hourglass cursor; it's certainly not something that will eat into your game play significantly. Once again, we see the benifit of an HCF winmodem solution, where the onboard DSP relieves much of the stress on the CPU. And now we have people running around with 1 GHz processors. Any drop in frame rate will barely be measurable, let alone visible.

4) They are reliable.

In my consulting business, I've sold dozens of PC's equipped with the cheapest Winmodems I could find. Only one has ever come back with a genuine hardware defect.

Many ISP support techs have a grudge against winmodems because they feel these types of modems are responsible for an innordinate number of support calls. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, almost all new computers sold today use winmodems; a person with a new computer and a modem problem will likely be using a winmodem, simply because they are more prevalent. Second, winmodems actually require the drivers they ship with. A new PC user who can't tell the difference between his RAM and his hard drive space will feel his eyes glaze over when confronted with a manual telling him how to install softmodem drivers. Instinct tells him to phone his "Internet guys" and get them to help.

In truth, winmodems are no more apt to fail than hardware modems, and probably less so, because they have fewer electronic components.

5) Driver/OS support is excellent.

The Lucent LT, for example, supports Windows 2000, Windows 9x, Linux (see www.linmodems.org under the Vendor section), and even the obscure BeOS. Lucent also seems comitted to releasing a new driver every few months, which means your modem's performance will always be as high as possible.

6) Affordable broadband Internet technology puts any analogue modem to shame.

Anyone using the Internet for more than email and chat sees the need for widely available broadband Internet access to replace our antiquated 56k connections. Trying to enjoy streaming audio or video over a modem connection is like trying to sip a thick milkshake through a thin straw. With the availability and affordability of high speed Internet access growing at a steady rate, it would be foolish to invest more than the minimum amount in modem technology that is already obsolete.

So when you consider the facts, there are very few valid reasons to avoid winmodems.

Modus
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
I have been using Lucent Winmodems for three years with great results (not a gammer). They can be upgraded with software and cost less than $15.00. You can spend more but the pings aren't any better. Windows XP even comes with Lucent drivers.
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
That cut and paste is so old, the Pricewatch query no longer works ;). Try this link to Lucent modems on Pricewatch, the cheapest going for $8.

Not much has changed in the dial-up modem market. V.92 is basically a dud: the improvements are slim and manufacturers will only implement it if there is a market demand, which will only arise if consumers can find V.92 service providers, which will only happen if the ISP sees enough consumer adoption. . . et cetera. Chicken and egg syndrome. There are some V.92 modems available but all you really get is slightly better upload speed, which helps Kazaa users leech your connection faster, and the supposed ability to put the data call on hold while answering a voice call, which I have never seen work in the real world.

Your best bet is a dirt cheap winmodem with a Lucent LT or certain Conexant HSF chipsets. At those prices, you can buy 2 or 3, keep the best one, and still spend less than a comparable hardware modem :)

Modus

P.S. Did they disable the ability to edit your own posts?
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
I`ve heard and read good things about the USR 2977 PCI hardware modem,however I actually use two internal PCI modems at the moment one hardware(Diamond SupraExpress 56i V PRO) and one Winmodem (Elsa Microlink HCF which has a DSP),to be honest both perform the same in gaming and connection speed & I can`t tell the difference ,so don`t overlook a good Winmodem.

BTW Modus where you been hiding ;).
 

Rebel7254

Senior member
May 23, 2002
375
0
76
Well, I don't know what kind of gaming you're using 56k for, but in FPS games it's useless. I would LOVE to be able to play Unreal Tournament online with my 56k connection, but I just get my ass royally kicked by broadband players. Maybe 56k is okay for like RPG and strategy games, but for FPS games it's a lost cause. I cannot wait until broadband is available where I live in a couple months.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Well, I don't know what kind of gaming you're using 56k for, but in FPS games it's useless.

I play CS,UT,DoD,TFC,Q3 ,infact some of the old AT members here & I use to play on AT CS server together :), use a good optical mouse and mouse pad like Ratpad or Everglide Giganta ,it does help,when your still on 56k you need all the help you can get ;).

:)
 

toadstool

Senior member
Jun 6, 2000
252
0
0
I disagree about buying "cheap" modems. The USR models I've tried have been better than the cheaper modems I've used. The connect a bit higher, but more importantly, the KEEP a connection. When you're surfing or downloading, there's nothing more annoying than losing your connection. USR modems are very reliable when it comes to that.

If you're not sure, buy from a place like "Best Buy" , "Wal-Mart" etc, where you can return a modem easily if you're not happy with it.

I just returned a Zoom model that kept disconnecting, or "locking up" ( all of a sudden, it would stop loading web pages.......I had to disconnect and then reconnect again).

Since i don't plan on getting DSL , because I'm not much of a "web gamer", I try to get the best modem I can buy. For me, it's worth it to spend the extra money and get a USR modem ( have the external V92). It's more than smooth and fast enough to browse web pages. Plus, I have not lost ONE connection since I've been using it ( whereas , with the Zoom, I must have had to reconnect a LEAST 8-10 times when I had it). I definately recommend it.

Now, if you plan on getting DSL down the road, then it probably wouldn't make sense for you to spend 80-90 bucks for a modem. Just get something that's halfway decent until you get a DSL or cable connection.
 

Texun

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2001
2,058
1
81
I've personally used the USR hardware modems because I knew they would always work.

Have a friend of mine who bought an Actiontek (I don't remember the model) and it worked as good if not better than my USR so I decided to try one when building a low cost PC for a friend. It was a Celeron 533 with a $30 Actiontek modem from Circuit City. I consistantly connected to her ISP at 46k... so I bought one as a backup. Works great. USR's are still king IMO but I can't argue with anyone wanting to save a buck and get a PnP Actiontek.
 

human2k

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
3,563
0
0
encore $10 56k pci modem @ newegg......if you really need more bandwidth try this:

get a job!;)
 

RanDum72

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2001
4,330
0
76
Hardware vs software modems is a non-issue now that almost everybody is running 1ghz+ CPU's. I think the more important issue is how a modem copes with 'dirty' phone lines. This can mean the difference between a continuous connection and one that drops all the time. USR modems are good with coping with less than ideal lines. Personally, the best modem I had was a Diamond Supramax 56i (internal Winmodem) based on the Connexant chipset. It consistently stayed connected at a higher rate than all modems I've tested.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
Diamond Supramax 56i
This was one of the modems that I tested, It has been a while but does not that modem have that little black box on the board that is said to be a "Data Pump?"
Bleep
 

thorin

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
7,573
0
0
OMG Win-Modus is back ...................... :p Geez dude I thought you fell off the face of the earth.........

Thorin
 

ScrapSilicon

Lifer
Apr 14, 2001
13,625
0
0
Originally posted by: woodie1
I have been using Lucent Winmodems for three years with great results (not a gammer). They can be upgraded with software and cost less than $15.00. You can spend more but the pings aren't any better. Windows XP even comes with Lucent drivers.
True that(ESS is in WinXP as well..:Q ) and I've used Conexant(Lucent), Intel and Motorola chipped 56k modems in builds. If they fail it's usually a DOA or a voltage surge but ( have ADSL ) still have my Zoom just incase ;).
 

Jace

Senior member
Nov 23, 1999
254
0
0
This is the best modem I have found to date:

Ambient/Intel v.90 56k PCI

They now stock the latest version of this modem/chipset from Intel and it rocks!

If you're using Windows 2000 or Windows XP I don't think there's a single Internal PCI modem better than this. Intel just updated their drivers a couple of days ago as well and they work like a charm.

I've used all the USR ISA and PCI hardware modems, the USR winmodems, the Lucent softmodems and the Diamond SupraExpress (ISA) and SupraMax both ISA and PCI lines.

The Diamond SupraMAX PCI 2750 is a close second to this Intel modem.
 

Fulcrum

Senior member
May 9, 2002
709
0
71
V.92 will probably never be offered by more than a handful of isps. It's not worth the upgrade costs for them. If you need a new modem, go ahead and get one. Just don't expect to able to use all the new features with most isps. I've heard of more than a few people that didn't know any better say how they replaced their perfectly good v.90 modem with a v.92 and then found out there was no difference with their isp. Poor bastards.
 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
Everything else we put in our computers is subject to a price/performance ratio. In other words, if the performance of a more expensive part does not scale linearly with its price, we don't buy it. (RDRAM, anyone?)

I have RDram, whats wrong with RDram. At the time I bought RDram, it was either 2 sticks of 256MB samsung pc800 (now at 1066) at 77 each or 1 stick of 512MB Corsair XMS pc2700 at $180. The motherboard (p4t-E flashed to p4t533-C vs p4b-266C) was about $40 mroe expensive though. I think RDram scales very linearly to its price.
 

MidiGuy

Senior member
Jan 14, 2001
416
0
0
Thanks for all of the input everyone! I think the descision will be much easier now. I do still have one question though - Will the "quick connect" feature of V.92 work without ISP support? I'm not sure from what I read at www.v92.com if it can learn the best connection settings after one connection without ISP support or not.

Thanks!

-Midi
 

DeschutesCore

Senior member
Jul 20, 2002
360
0
0
We sell the Intel Ambient WinModems for $19, and we've had one bad out of the box in 300+ builds. These modems are so cheap it's no big deal to replace them in the event of a storm / surge.

I don't know about the rest of the builders here, but I make a ton of money replacing modems after a good storm passes through, and most of the time people end up going to WinModems after the second or third surge.

DC