Zxian Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I've been doing some reading on the draft 802.11n routers (I'm not quite planning on buying one until the standard goes final), but there's something I don't quite get...Why don't any of these routers have gigabit ethernet? Sure... you've just increased your total network through put to 100mbps now (limited by cat5e ethernet), but wouldn't it make sense to use the full potential of the wireless network and have gigabit for your wired connections?Also, from what I understand, it won't be possible to upgrade existing built in wireless cards in laptops to 802.11n, right? The new standard requires multiple antennae, which most current laptops don't have. Can someone let me know if I'm right on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I think it is mainly because GigE just hasn't trickled down to the home yet. Supply and demand. 802.3ab was finalized in 1999 and has seen lots of corporate usage so it isn't necessarily a technical limitation.Apple has been putting out GigE-enabled products for a while but they are lonely in that regard. In order to take advantage of it you really need at least Cat5E cabling (most installed cable is Cat5), a GigE hub/switch/router and of course adapters.That is a lot for home users to swallow.802.11n is beyond a software/firmware upgrade. The main feature of .11n is MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) which, as you stated, requires multiple antennas in order for the device to do some really fancy multiplexing.And I saw some news recently about how some (most?) pre-n devices would *not* be upgradeable (compatible with the final spec) despite manufacturer claims. You are wise in your decision to wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendrag Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I don't think consumers have hit a bottleneck w/ a 100MB network that they would request a gigabit wired connection. Even gaming over a home network w/ 16 people would be fine w/ 100MB, so 1GB is really only used for large file transfers. I think as we start to stream more media in our homes, then we might hit a bottleneck.Besides, for a home user to make the jump, they need a GB switch/router, and, if they don't have it, a GB NIC. Most onboard NICs up until about a year ago mainly only came in 10/100 flavors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 Apple has been putting out GigE-enabled products for a while but they are lonely in that regard. In order to take advantage of it you really need at least Cat5E cabling (most installed cable is Cat5), a GigE hub/switch/router and of course adapters.Doesn't GigE require Cat6 cabling, while Cat5e is for 100mbps transmission?Quite a few laptop manufacturers are now supplying GigE ports on their models as well (Dell, Lenovo, and some others). It's becoming more common, since the controllers aren't too much more expensive compared to standard ethernet.I don't think consumers have hit a bottleneck w/ a 100MB network that they would request a gigabit wired connection. Even gaming over a home network w/ 16 people would be fine w/ 100MB, so 1GB is really only used for large file transfers. I think as we start to stream more media in our homes, then we might hit a bottleneck.Besides, for a home user to make the jump, they need a GB switch/router, and, if they don't have it, a GB NIC. Most onboard NICs up until about a year ago mainly only came in 10/100 flavors.Well, the need for more speed is one of the main reasons for 802.11n in the first place. Like you said, gaming with 16 people would be fine even over a standard 802.11g router (I've done 8 people - all wireless - with sub 10ms pings all around). My main point was not so much for common internet use - which doesn't tap the resources of any home network that you'd set up today anyways. I'm just wondering what's the point in improving a component that isn't necessarily a bottleneck in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 GigE was actually designed with Cat5 in mind, but everybody I know says the results are sub-par and that 5e works much better at a reasonable cost difference. Cat5 just doesn't scale well enough with GigE.You might be thinking of frequencies instead of speed...both are designed for 100mhz frequencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Ah... yes. I knew that Cat5e is designed to handle 100MHz, while Cat6 is designed for higher (500Mhz ?). Bulk Cat5e cable is dirt cheap anyways... 1000ft for $70 CAD? Connectors for $0.25 each? Can't really go wrong there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 No, Cat6 is 250mhz though I heard that there is also a Cat6-A. Never seen the stuff, but I would venture to guess that it is probably 250mhz as well with tighter quality standards (more twists, less crosstalk, etc) although Cat7 is 600mhz so there may be something else in-between that large spectrum gap.After reviewing this thread I think it is important to note that Cat6 is backwards-compatible with Cat5/5e despite the frequency difference. When we talk about the different frequencies we are really saying that Cat6 is designed for frequencies "up to" 250mhz. This is quite different from wireless where the difference in frequencies (2.4ghz for 802.11b/g vs 5ghz 802.11a) makes them incompatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 Right - radio transmissions frequencies are different than hardware support frequencies. It's the same analogy to being able to underclock your CPU while it still runs. You can buy a Pentium4 3GHz and run it at 2GHz... not that I know why you'd want to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Cool, we are on the same page...just wanted to clarify that point for "Joe Reader" And my use of the word "spectrum" probably didn't help matters...Thanks for starting this thread. This is the kind of stuff I love discussing!And I *can* think of a reason to run a chip slower than its indicated speed: heat!I have seen rigs in the past that had various hard-to-diagnose issues that seemed to be heat related. Underclocking the chip a bit, not a lot, cured the ailment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 True... With most desktop setups I just have the "bigger heatsink" mentality... for my laptop on the other hand, all I can say is I love Centrino. Power, mobility, ease of mind - what more could you ask for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Aha! You were on the right track with 500mhz...that is Cat6a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now