• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Comcast just upgraded my speed from 1gbps to 1.2gbps, what is the max speed I can get through a 1GB ethernet?

Hans Gruber

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,196
346
136
I realize my ethernet ports are all gigabit. Comcast just upgraded my connection to 1.2gbps. Will I see an increase in speed? My download speed is 945-950mbps on the comcast speedtest. I am assuming my ethernet port is maxed out at that speed. I was thinking my gigabit ports may get a slight boost in speed with the upgraded speed.

I got my new Motorola Docsis 3.1 modem in December. It has the gigabit port but they have a 2.5gbps port of the same model out now as well.

I guess from now on when building new PC's. The motherboards all need a 2.5gbps ethernet port moving forward.

It's nice to see the speed increase. Once you have gigabit you really do not need more speed. I have found there are few sites or servers that allow me to take full advantage of my gigabit connection.
 

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,699
821
136
You should be able to use link aggregation if you have a modem that has dual ethernet ports and a router that support it, so your total aggregate throughput on multiple devices can be 1.2 gb/s despite each individual device being limited to 940 on ethernet or whatever wireless speeds you get.

I was going to give it a shot as I have a link aggregation modem, but I discovered my router does not support it (despite believing it did).

I think realistically though we've been looking at new modems coming with 2.5 gb ports and new high end routers coming with a 2.5 gb WAN port to enable the same thing.

I think we're a ways away from real multigig support for home networks, this is going to be a stepping stone really in allowing one device like a wired desktop to max out a gigabit ethernet line while still leaving bandwidth for other devices.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,660
248
106
The latest rounds of modems are finally starting to support faster connections and interfaces. Still wish they would just stick a SFP+ port on them and be done with it, letting us connect via DAC or appropriate SFP+ transceiver to get the most of our network gear.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
6,611
4,876
136
940-950 is probably it. The actual protocol overhead in packet headers, plus the IRG between packets mean you will never reach 1Gb of data on 1Gb Ethernet.
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,031
303
126
I wish they would pick a new standard and then flood the market like they normally do....I'm in favor of 10Gb!!!
 

Hans Gruber

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,196
346
136
Supposedly someone has a patent on the 10gbps format. I guess they have been charging a hefty royalty for 10gigabit ethernet for years. When the patent runs out the prices will come down. I did a little research and the year seems to be 2023 when everything for 10 gigabit is free and clear. Remember how Rambus ruined the memory market with their royalty structure on an idea that became obsolete?

Comcast Gen 3 xfi gateway's (gray box) have the 2.5gbps ports. They just released them and I think that is why they offered a free gigabit boost to 1.2gbps to customers. $14 a month for a comcast modem is just absurd. I have a lifetime network security software license on my mesh network. A few more months and I will break even with my Motorola modem. After that everything is gravy.

I think the reason why we are seeing 2.5gbps ethernet has more to do with the lack of patents on the technology.
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,031
303
126
I think the reason why we are seeing 2.5gbps ethernet has more to do with the lack of patents on the technology.
NBASE-T supports 2.5 or 5.0 or 10.0....the 10.0 is suppose generate some heat though so it's bit more expensive to implement.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,660
248
106
The heat from 10 GBase-t is from transceivers in SFP+ ports, not the RJ45 connection. A switch that simply has NBase-t ports with support of 10Gb does not suffer the heat issues unless it is simply using built in tranceivers for converting to a SFP+ backend.

The other reason for 2.5 Gb is that is the max a CAT5e cable can handle. CAT6 and CAT6a have no problem supporting 10Gb (especially in the same room).
 

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,031
303
126
The heat from 10 GBase-t is from transceivers in SFP+ ports, not the RJ45 connection. A switch that simply has NBase-t ports with support of 10Gb does not suffer the heat issues unless it is simply using built in tranceivers for converting to a SFP+ backend.

The other reason for 2.5 Gb is that is the max a CAT5e cable can handle. CAT6 and CAT6a have no problem supporting 10Gb (especially in the same room).
I meant the heat from the adapter card not the switch. Also CAT5e cable will do 10gbps up to 140 feet.
 

Hans Gruber

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,196
346
136
Moving forward, Cat6 for everything. Anything above that is unnecessary and Cat5e is really not suitable for a gigabit connection unless the length of the run is very short. That is just an opinion on my part.
 

mxnerd

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2007
6,141
884
126
cat5e can run gigabit up to 100 meters and it's a global standard, saying that it can only run gigabit at short distance is really you own opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fkoehler

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,480
398
136
Anything above that is unnecessary and Cat5e is really not suitable for a gigabit connection unless the length of the run is very short. That is just an opinion on my part
a wrong opinion.


The specification allows for 1gbps at 100 meters. That is not a "very short run".

Hell, even 2.5GBASE-T claims to support up to 100 meter lengths with CAT5e.

Saying it's not even good enough for 1gbps is frankly absurd.

Obviously if building out a new network, the cost for CAT6a is negligible compared to CAT5e at this point, so go with CAT6a in those cases, but there is zero reason to be concerned about already installed CAT5e being insufficient for 1gbps.
 

fkoehler

Member
Feb 29, 2008
136
79
101
Assuming he meant 10Gb.
If not, he is living somewhere outside of our reality.

We were recabling our enterprise with 5e & Krone certification for Gb in 2002-03 IIRC.
Never had any cabling problems across 20-30K drops after that.


cat5e can run gigabit up to 100 meters and it's a global standard, saying that it can only run gigabit at short distance is really you own opinion.
 

Hans Gruber

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,196
346
136
I have original Cat5 (not Cat5e) wiring in my house. In the walls from when built. It can run up to a gigabit but usually drops down to closer to 500mbps. We can argue over stranded vs. solid as well. If it's never going to move use solid cable. Stranded for everything else. I was basing my opinion on cost and speeds going 2.5gbps and beyond. Cat 6 can do 10gbps. The cost of Cat6 is barely more than Cat5e. Cat6a is a waste of money unless the cost is close to Cat6.

The 10gbps patents run out within a couple of years. Royalties paid go away. The price of 10GB gear drops like a rock. Do you want to use Cat5e for connections up to 10GB?
 

fkoehler

Member
Feb 29, 2008
136
79
101
Make up your mind.

You made a definitive statement, "Cat5e is really not suitable for a gigabit connection"

Cat5e was made specifically for 1Gb, at 100 meters. No one is arguing, we're just telling you you're wrong.


On top of that, 6a has 500mhz bandwidth vs 6 @250.
You're going to get maybe half the distance run with Cat6. Since you were the one complaining about distance limitations, is it really smart to save 10-20% on a 1000' roll of Cat6 instead of 6a which will actually give you 10Gb to 100m?

If you knew all of this, especially seeing bandwidth drops to 500Mb, then why did you start the thread asking if going from 1G to 1.2G is going to increase your LAN speed?
And then you proclaim 6a is 'a waste of money', even though 6 will probably only give you 1/2 the disance, and is only 20% less than a solid 10Gb to 100M. Like $20-40 a spool.....

I'm replying primarily in the event anyone else comes along and reads this thread and decides to run new Cat6 cable without knowing how penny-wise/pound-foolish that would be.



I have original Cat5 (not Cat5e) wiring in my house. In the walls from when built. It can run up to a gigabit but usually drops down to closer to 500mbps. We can argue over stranded vs. solid as well. If it's never going to move use solid cable. Stranded for everything else. I was basing my opinion on cost and speeds going 2.5gbps and beyond. Cat 6 can do 10gbps. The cost of Cat6 is barely more than Cat5e. Cat6a is a waste of money unless the cost is close to Cat6.

The 10gbps patents run out within a couple of years. Royalties paid go away. The price of 10GB gear drops like a rock. Do you want to use Cat5e for connections up to 10GB?
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,660
248
106
The 10gbps patents run out within a couple of years. Royalties paid go away. The price of 10GB gear drops like a rock. Do you want to use Cat5e for connections up to 10GB?
I really don't know. I do know it is cheaper to get 40 GbE cards than it is to get 10 GbE ones in the used/refurbished market. Given how long 10 GbE has existed (20 years as at standard in a few more months) and it has still yet to make it into the home/consumer market is amazing.

I get it, internet to the home is still nowhere near that speed and most people don't have servers at home that need the faster speeds to perform actions in support of other gear on the home network. But come on... It has been out for almost 20 YEARS now and we still don't see it in consumer devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli

ASK THE COMMUNITY