• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Winmodem to full modem

olds

Elite Member
I effing give up. DSL is not coming, cable is not coming. I need a new modem for GAMING and surfing. But, what do I get? I want a fast 56K modem. ISA, PCI, external, internal? Right now, I can connect at 45,333 all day long. To me, that seems fast but my pings are terrible. I have all the patches, I shut off everything in the background, still, no joy. Can you recommend a new modem?

SPECS: PII 400, 192 RAM @ 100 FSB, Viper 770 Ultra, one very disgruntled gamer.
 
Diamond Supra Express, internal or external. Internal if you have an ISA slot to spare, external if you don't.

BTW - be prepared for Modus to hop in :Q
 
Another vote for SupraExpress ISA.Best Q3A ingame ping is 120 with good ISP.
The only better (but expensive) choice is external HW modem.
Best ping is 110 with external.

Some ppl will tell you about awesome pings winmodems provide.
Ignore them if you're into FPS online games. Winmodem pings
go up during heavy fight. Just when you need it.
HW modem ping remains stable while playing. 😎
 
I like my actiontek 56k PCI hardware modem 🙂 Staples carries it. Even works with call waiting... No problems for the past few months. Much needed upgrade from a POS winmodem.
 
Actiontec CallWaiting PCI best ping is about 130.
(Again its Q3A best ingame ping I am talking about.)
Its a very good one if you dont have ISA slot.
 
<<Some ppl will tell you about awesome pings winmodems provide. Ignore them if you're into FPS online games. Winmodem pings go up during heavy fight. Just when you need it.>>

Absolutely untrue and worthy of a US Presidential advertisement. CPU usage has been demonstrated to be negligible even with the worst of winmodems. Ping time does not increase linearly with CPU load. You can test it yourself -- buy a $10 Lucent LT and compare it to a $40 Diamond SupraWhatever. On second thought, just buy the Lucent and you'll quickly conclude the test without overpaying for a useless hardware trophy.

In general. . .

There are a number of reasons to avoid higher priced &quot;hard modems,&quot; 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 &quot;Internet guys&quot; 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 [L]http://www.linmodems.org[/L] 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
 
Everything that Modus says maybe true, he seems to know what he's talking about. If you ever want to switch to a different os, say Linux, you won't have any drivers for a winmodem. Just a thought.
 
Lord
I see you are new guy here.
FYI Modus cuts and pastes this winmodem post
on every modem thread.For about a year or so I think.

EDIT: Look , he even edited it.
Not perfected yet. :Q
 


<< HW modem ping remains stable while playing. >>



heh, maybe you should have a talk with my supraexpress. It doesn't seem to agree with that.
 
One of our brothers here at AnandTech has several new SupraExpress modems for sale...
Snapper's modems
I just contacted him, and he still has some left.

I don't get any cut from the sale of these modems. They ARE great ISA modems. Hey if you're going to buy one anyway, why not buy from &quot;family&quot;?
Snapper's HeatWare
 
Wow, thanks for all the great info. The reason I am looking at a new modem is because of my performance in gaming, (Kingpin, Q 3) I can connect at 45,333, my ping initally is around 300 (sometimes way higher) but during battles I lock up. It's frustrating battling someone and then freeze and watch them kill you. I think I will try a hardware modem, I will be building a new compiter in the next couple of months and it won't hurt to have an extra modem around. Thanks again.
 
OuterSquare
Flash latest firmware. You will have flex or V90 option.
Try both. ISP equipment sometimes works better with one or the other.
And of course all ISPs are not equal. I used to get great pings with att.net
(got cable now).
 
Actually Modus, it's not the cpu's workload that adds latency. It is the time of the data that the cpu has to send/receive to and from the modem that adds the extra latency found in Winmodems.
 
Remember what Granddad said, &quot;Son you'll never regret buying the very best&quot; While he wasn't talking about my USR Faxmodem, it still applies 🙂
 
Comp625,

<<Actually Modus, it's not the cpu's workload that adds latency. It is the time of the data that the cpu has to send/receive to and from the modem that adds the extra latency found in Winmodems.>>

No.

You DON'T find extra latency in modern winmodems. See the results posted above and ask anyone with a Lucent LT or Conexant HCF to confirm them. So the whole discussion is moot.

Even so, the CPU does not send any more data to and from a winmodem than it does to and from a hardware modem. In fact, the bus utilization of a winmodem is actually less, because the signal processing is already done and compressed before the CPU sends it over to the card.

Lvis,

<<Remember what Granddad said, &quot;Son you'll never regret buying the very best&quot; While he wasn't talking about my USR Faxmodem, it still applies>>

Actually, the moto &quot;you get what you pay for&quot; is one of the most despicable fallacies around. Time and again, we have seen products that cost many times more than there competition while delivering no added benefit (RDRAM, Intel CPU's, 3Com modems) and, at the same time, products that cost far less but deliver equal performance (PC133, AMD CPU's, HCF winmodems).

&quot;You get what you pay for&quot; is the crowning achievement of a commerical society that stresses material status based on money spent, resulting in trophy items like useless diamond jewelry, designer clothing and USR hardware modems.

/end rant

Modus
 
Back
Top