Cat5 vs Cat5e

[Muse]

I have a homemade cat5e ~8 foot cable connecting my Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 wireless router to my server machine (a laptop running XP Pro). I found a cat5 7 foot cable. Will it work as well? The reason I ask is that I have on occasion lost the connection between that cat5e cable and the laptop. I had to jiggle the connection. I figure using the cat5 cable may stop that from happening again.

 

[Fardringle]

Is it a commercial (machine made) cable? If so, then yes, it will probably work better. If not, then buy one from monoprice for a dollar or two and save yourself a lot of headache.

 

[Muse]

Is it a commercial (machine made) cable? If so, then yes, it will probably work better. If not, then buy one from monoprice for a dollar or two and save yourself a lot of headache.

The cat5 is machine made, the cat5e was cable I bought at Radio Shack and attached the connectors myself, hence maybe the connectors aren't reliable. So, you're saying the machine made cat5 would work OK, I'd get adequate throughput compared to the cat5e homemade?

 

[Fardringle]

Your Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 has 10/100 LAN ports (not gigabit), so yes, a regular CAT 5 cable would be fine. It might even work at gigabit speed for your short connection length if it's a good cable, but I would personally get a new CAT5e or CAT6 cable if you ever upgrade your router and network adapters to gigabit.

 

[Muse]

Your Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 has 10/100 LAN ports (not gigabit), so yes, a regular CAT 5 cable would be fine. It might even work at gigabit speed for your short connection length if it's a good cable, but I would personally get a new CAT5e or CAT6 cable if you ever upgrade your router and network adapters to gigabit.

Thanks. I'll tack that onto my next Monoprice order...

 

[hooflung]

Cat5e is 350mhz. So it will work normally just fine at Gigabit Ethernet unless it is really old (because it might be closer to Cat5 than true Cat5e as it differed from manufacturer in support). Cat5 only runs at 100mhz. Cat6 runs at 500mhz.

There are some parts of the standard that make more of a difference than the others but rule of thumb is cat5e is ok to use on any device in any home network while cat5 should only be used to connect 10/100 devices to the network.

 

[imagoon]

Cat5e is 350mhz. So it will work normally just fine at Gigabit Ethernet unless it is really old (because it might be closer to Cat5 than true Cat5e as it differed from manufacturer in support). Cat5 only runs at 100mhz. Cat6 runs at 500mhz.

There are some parts of the standard that make more of a difference than the others but rule of thumb is cat5e is ok to use on any device in any home network while cat5 should only be used to connect 10/100 devices to the network.

The biggest difference between cat5 / 5e is the twist per inch (more so on green / brown pairs). 100Mbps / 1000mbps is identical in "megahertz" the 350mhz thing is just a marketing gimic. So over short distances Cat5 would likely handle gig fine. 7feet should be no issue. Of course if you want to be 'in spec' go get a cable. Biggest issue I see above is "I made the cable myself" which as muse mentioned is loosing connect randomly. Machine made cat3 (assuming it is a 4 pair and not 2 pair) would likely test better than a home made cable. For what ever reason everyone seems to use the wrong mod ends also. IE a mod end for cat5 on a cat5e etc.

 

[wirednuts]

1gb ethernet connections run at 90mhz irrc, and cat5 is supposed to be specd out to 290ft @ 100mhz. of course with that little headroom, youll almost never see gb connections at that length on normal cat5. (it doesnt go to 1/2 GB or anything either. if it cant connect at GB speed, it just drops all the way down to 100mhz speeds).


i dont think 350mhz is anywhere close to real world performance for cat5e either... at normal usable lengths (100ft+). thats why for GB connections its best to go to cat6 or even cat6a.

 

[wirednuts]

The cat5 is machine made, the cat5e was cable I bought at Radio Shack and attached the connectors myself, hence maybe the connectors aren't reliable. So, you're saying the machine made cat5 would work OK, I'd get adequate throughput compared to the cat5e homemade?

i agree with others, at less then 10ft you should get GB on either cable. if its sketchy (wiggle it and it works better) then i would cut and re-crimp your ends.

and make sure there arent any kinks or hard bends in the cable. it does matter especially when youre saturating the cable as it is.

 

[imagoon]

1gb ethernet connections run at 90mhz irrc, and cat5 is supposed to be specd out to 290ft @ 100mhz. of course with that little headroom, youll almost never see gb connections at that length on normal cat5. (it doesnt go to 1/2 GB or anything either. if it cant connect at GB speed, it just drops all the way down to 100mhz speeds).


i dont think 350mhz is anywhere close to real world performance for cat5e either... at normal usable lengths (100ft+). thats why for GB connections its best to go to cat6 or even cat6a.

Gig is 100mhz. Serious. 100mbps and 1000mbps use the same clock rates. Just the encoding is different.

It is worth spending the buck and buying the cable instead of crimping it yourself.

 

[SonicIce]

never found evidence that cat5 and cat5e actually had any physical differences seems like a gimmick

 

[wirednuts]

Gig is 100mhz. Serious. 100mbps and 1000mbps use the same clock rates. Just the encoding is different.

It is worth spending the buck and buying the cable instead of crimping it yourself.

90mhz according to my teachings, but yeah. i know 10GB uses much higher frequencies, correct?

 

[wirednuts]

never found evidence that cat5 and cat5e actually had any physical differences seems like a gimmick

i dont know if you can even buy plain cat5 anymore, its all 5e. i think the turns are slightly tighter, and the bundle is packed better but thats about it. cat6 is wound very tight on all colors, and 6a has that spacer that keeps the colors separated usually. and to keep bend radius's big. its surprising how effected a 1gb+ connection can be if you tangle up the cords.

 

[imagoon]

90mhz according to my teachings, but yeah. i know 10GB uses much higher frequencies, correct?

I am not sure where the 90mhz comes from but as I also maybe wrong on the 100mhz thing. Looking at the spec paper work... you have a 25mhz (raw) feed 4 bits / symbol (effective 100mhz like quad pumping from the netburst Pentium era.) with a resulting 125Mbaud symbole rate on 100BASE-TX. You use 1 pair for xmit and 1 for receive.

In gig you use a 5 level signaling at 125Mbaud rate. The 5 vs 3 level rate in 100BASE-T results in 2.5x the data represented by each symbol. You then have 4 pairs that are utilized in both directions using echo canceling.

So the math is basically this 100mbps [base] x 2.5 [better encoding] x 4 channels/pairs = 1000mbps.

FYI at this point I am starting to get over my head @ the electrical engineer level. I think 10gig has yet a different encoding scheme for something like 833mbaud symbol rate...

 

[spidey07]

Gig is 100mhz. Serious. 100mbps and 1000mbps use the same clock rates. Just the encoding is different.

It is worth spending the buck and buying the cable instead of crimping it yourself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure...

100 Base-T is 125 Mhz baud due to 8/10 encoding, nothing really changed from 10 to 1000 other than baud/clock.
1000 Base-T is 250 Mhz baud and I can't remember the encoding.

But yeah, hand crimping cables is bad, bad, bad and #1 cause of problems. Don't fuck with the physical layer.

 

[spidey07]

never found evidence that cat5 and cat5e actually had any physical differences seems like a gimmick

A cable scan will easily show the differences. That doesn't mean cat5 won't pass cat5e, just that there is a difference in the spec. One is guaranteed to meet cat5e, the other "may" but isn't guaranteed nor tested. For example Belden datatwist 350 cat5 was what you used back in late 90s/early 2000s. That stuff would EASILY pass cat5e before there was such a thing and was prepped/designed/manufactured specifically for gig ethernet on copper before the standard was out.

 

[Kenmitch]

I have a homemade cat5e ~8 foot cable connecting my Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 wireless router to my server machine (a laptop running XP Pro). I found a cat5 7 foot cable. Will it work as well? The reason I ask is that I have on occasion lost the connection between that cat5e cable and the laptop. I had to jiggle the connection. I figure using the cat5 cable may stop that from happening again.

If you already have the cable try it and see if it works better or not. No reason to order another cable yet...Had a Dell laptop for about 5 years and had a similar problem which turned out to be the socket on the MB anyways. Symptoms sound similar as I had a connection then I didn't a little wiggle then I did. Tried multiple cables with the same outcome every time.

 

[ScottMac]

never found evidence that cat5 and cat5e actually had any physical differences seems like a gimmick

Cat5e qualifies all four pair for high-speed data, not just the usual two primary pairs.

 

[imagoon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure...

100 Base-T is 125 Mhz baud due to 8/10 encoding, nothing really changed from 10 to 1000 other than baud/clock.
1000 Base-T is 250 Mhz baud and I can't remember the encoding.

But yeah, hand crimping cables is bad, bad, bad and #1 cause of problems. Don't fuck with the physical layer.

See above. The clocks are the same but the encoding is 'better.' There is a table on wiki but they simply encode more bits per clock using more voltage levels (3 in 100meg 5 in 1000gig) which improves the data rate but the actual clocks (and symbol rates) are the same. It also depends on where you take clock... IE a lot of electrical engineering stuff that is getting above my knowledge level. Technically cat5 is fine for 1000gig. Issue is the 'real life' it has issues vs lab which is why cat5e is available. The 350mhz part is still a gimic though.

--additional--

They used a lot of the same ideas that were used with modems. Over the years the phone line never changed when it came to 'total bandwidth.' 300 baud ->56k were all changes to encoding and timing techniques. The '4khz wide band' still exists today.