Support NeoGAF

[Warnen]

What?
That is what you can’t do for tests... you need to use the same adapter.
Your AX adapter can connect in AC mode.

If you want a easy way configure on your router two SID... one AC and another AX... using the same notebook/AX adapter do the tests connecting in one SID per time.

Like I said I did a real world test, are you going to get a PS5 and swap the Wi-Fi to see if it really makes a difference? I have 3 devices that use AX Wi-Fi in my home, there AC counter parts show very little diffrence when using them in the same areas of my home. It’s only get noticeable when you get into run a wire range.

An AX wifi card is like $5 more then an AC one. You are expecting a boost you won’t see in 99% of use cases. if you are going to be that close to the router just use a wire.

 

[yurinka]

Please provide one instance where latency is lower than a wired connection. I keep asking for this, and yet no proof, examples, or even theories. I'm not sure what the link speed is for the ps5, and I don't care honestly. But even if it's 1gbps, it'll still have less latency than wifi 6. Until you finally accept the truth, you'll continue to be wrong in this instance. Where are the facts? It seems you just want to be correct in this argument, and pride isn't allowing you to admit it.

Facts! Even in my first posts I said that I don't care if it's Xbox SX, Ps5, or even PC, DON'T USE WIFI UNLESS YOU HAVE TO. The guy goes through hoops and bounds to try to make a point, without making any. I'm just asking for one thing, proof/examples. Even one of his own posts proved him wrong by admitting wired connection won't suffer as much latency as wireless.

Go an read my past posts. I sdid "about/very similar/almost the same latency" (both having around 1ms), not better latency. I posted some articles from reliable sources and even multiple times. In of of them there's a graph showing real world test results showing that gigabit ethernet has more or less ~1ns and 802.11ac ~5ns, and another source says 802.11ax reduce 802.11ac latency in a 75%, which means 80211ax latency is ~1.25ms, so basically the approx. ~1 of the ethernet cable. I also explained why a difference of less than 1ms it's basically nothing compared to all the other stuff that adds latency to an online multiplayer match.

This means that for the first time ever, there is a wifi with basically the same latency than the console's wired connection. And then there are the other different tests where they prove that wifi 6 real world results are up to 20-50% faster than the theorical maximum speed of the wired ethernet connection that consoles use.

Others also say the new wifi 6 also provides wider range of distance, improves how the data of multiple devices to the LAN is transfered and also blocks interferences from wifis from neighbors.

All the factual data we have say that and you are stubborn saying the opposite with no linked factual data from reliable sources to back your claims. You're acting as if this new wifi would be like the old ones and ignoring all the facts we're quoting from the articles that talk about this new technology wouldn't exist.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Go an read my past posts. I sdid "about/very similar/almost the same latency" (both having around 1ms), not better latency. I posted some articles as sources and even multiple times. In of of them there's a graph showing real world test results showing that gigabit ethernet has more or less ~1ns and 802.11ac ~5ns, and another source says 802.11ax reduce 802.11ac latency in a 75%, which means 80211ax latency is ~1.25ms, so basically the approx. ~1 of the ethernet cable. I also explained why a difference of less than 1ms it's basically nothing compared to all the other stuff that adds latency to an online multiplayer match.

This means that for the first time ever, there is a wifi with basically the same latency than the console's wired connection. And then there are the other different tests where they prove that wifi 6 real world results are up to 20-50% faster than the theorical maximum speed of the wired ethernet connection that consoles use.

Others also say the new wifi 6 also provides wider range of distance, improves how the data of multiple devices to the LAN is transfered and also blocks interferences from wifis from neighbors.

All the factual data we have say that and you are stubborn saying the opposite with no factual data backing your claims. You're acting as if this new wifi would be like the old ones and ignoring all the facts I'm quoting from the articles that talk about this new technology wouldn't exist.

You are assuming and interpreting from your own beliefs of 75% reduced latency as factual data, when this won't apply for every wifi 6 router, and especially not in every home. There are plenty of variables and reasons THAT will not each 75% efficiency. That is the maximum efficiency in the most ideal situation. As in no other interferences, devices connected, etc.

for the first time will be better wifi than using cable

False.


Conclusion wired is better than wireless, as you will not reach maximum theoretical 75% efficiency in latency, constantly. That will always fluctuate. And even if you could reach that efficiency at all times, guess what? It's still not as good as wired! You have been disproven over and over now. There's no need to try and convince myself, or anyone who's not drinking the kool-aid, otherwise. 1ms is less than the unlikely 1.2ms of latency. Unless physics and basic math has changed, 1ms (wired) will always be lower than 1.2ms (wireless and not exactly realistic for most), no matter how hard you try.


Look how it performance 30ft away!


But wireless is better than wired....

 

[yurinka]

You are assuming and interpreting from your own beliefs of 75% reduced latency as factual data, when this won't apply for every wifi 6 router, and especially not in every home. There are plenty of variables and reasons THAT will not each 75% efficiency. That is the maximum efficiency in the most ideal situation. As in no other interferences, devices connected, etc.




False.


Conclusion wired is better than wireless, as you will not reach maximum theoretical 75% efficiency in latency, constantly. That will always fluctuate. And even if you could reach that efficiency at all times, guess what? It's still not as good as wired! You have been disproven over and over now. There's no need to try and convince myself, or anyone who's not drinking the kool-aid, otherwise. 1ms is less than the unlikely 1.2ms of latency. Unless physics and basic math has changed, 1ms (wired) will always be lower than 1.2ms (wireless and not exactly realistic for most), no matter how hard you try.


Look how it performance 30ft away!


But wireless is better than wired....

Well done, finally you added some data with that graph. What is the source of this image and where are the wired results to compare?

(regarding the 1 and 1.2ms number, they are approximated just looking at the graph I mentioned while ago and considering the 75%, which we don't know how accurate it is for all cases and in may be theorical or can vary per device. Both can be higher or lower)

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Well done, finally you added some data. What is the source of this image and where are the wired results to compare?

Pictures were from "How Fast Is Wi-Fi 6? | PCMag" https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-fast-is-wi-fi-6

"In raw speed, wired connection wins if there is no bottleneck. Always. WiFi 6 has max speed of 1.2 Gbps per stream whereas Ethernet has max speed of 100 Gbps."

"Wi-Fi 6 vs Ethernet: who is taking the connectivity crown? | TechRadar" https://www.techradar.com/amp/news/wi-fi-6-vs-ethernet-who-is-taking-the-connectivity-crown

 

[yurinka]

Pictures were from "How Fast Is Wi-Fi 6? | PCMag" https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-fast-is-wi-fi-6



"Wi-Fi 6 vs Ethernet: who is taking the connectivity crown? | TechRadar" https://www.techradar.com/amp/news/wi-fi-6-vs-ethernet-who-is-taking-the-connectivity-crown

Thanks, I'll read them

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Thanks, I'll read them

There weren't comparisons between the two on either of those sources. Lemme find some comparisons real quick. Not just speed but latency as well.

 

[yurinka]

There weren't comparisons between the two on either of those sources. Lemme find some comparisons real quick. Not just speed but latency as well.

Well, the second one compares wifi 6 vs ethernet even if doesn't provide benchmark data to compare exact results. It says:

"The latest iteration of Wi-Fi connectivity has the ability to deliver faster speeds than Gigabit data transfer over wireless - presenting a huge advantage in the era of the smart home. When compared to WiFi 6, the standard Ethernet cables have - until now - provided the fastest form of Internet connectivity. For example, when you look at the theoretical top speed, Wi-Fi 6 reaches 9.6 Gbps (compared to Wi-Fi 5 which clocks in at 6.9 Gbps). In real world testing, Wi-Fi 6’s single stream speed has been raised to 1.2 Gbps - 20% faster than connecting via Gigabit Ethernet."

... then adds:

"To unleash its full potential, next generation devices boast dedicated co-processors embedded into routers. Unlike the Ethernet cable, this form of innovation is designed to solely target the performance of wireless connection, in order to deliver the speed and capacity now expected as standard among users. "

Technically, Ethernet and Wi-Fi 6 are still generally neck and neck on performance. However, we no longer have to future-gaze to predict whether Wi-Fi prevails over Ethernet as the desired universal standard. We simply have to take a look at the world around us right now.

And ends saying:

"When teamed with other technologies such as Airtime fairness, 160MHz Channel Width, Beamforming, OFDMA, and BSS colour, Wi-Fi 6 becomes even stronger. Doing so, it can deliver the level of reliable and high-performing wireless now needed to meet the demand from end users and a growing number of connected devices. With that said, the advanced capabilities of Wi-Fi 6 and compatible technologies have not miraculously appeared overnight.

To unleash its full potential, next generation devices boast dedicated co-processors embedded into routers. Unlike the Ethernet cable, this form of innovation is designed to solely target the performance of wireless connection, in order to deliver the speed and capacity now expected as standard among users.

Whether at home or in any other business environment, the provision of convenient, secure and reliable connectivity is the heart of modern IT decision making. Technically, Ethernet and Wi-Fi 6 are still generally neck and neck on performance. However, we no longer have to future-gaze to predict whether Wi-Fi prevails over Ethernet as the desired universal standard. We simply have to take a look at the world around us right now.

During a time where flexibility is essential to almost every aspect of modern life, Wi-Fi 6 can unlock the level of accessibility needed to maximize performance for all device types and scenarios that our world has to offer."

 

[MasterCornholio]

You did not add nothing instead the same mimimi console war lol

Dedicated to MrFunSocks

 

[ethomaz]

Like I said I did a real world test, are you going to get a PS5 and swap the Wi-Fi to see if it really makes a difference? I have 3 devices that use AX Wi-Fi in my home, there AC counter parts show very little diffrence when using them in the same areas of my home. It’s only get noticeable when you get into run a wire range.

An AX wifi card is like $5 more then an AC one. You are expecting a boost you won’t see in 99% of use cases. if you are going to be that close to the router just use a wire.

Your test didn’t show anything because you used two different wireless adapters.

I told you how to make a proper test before claim false info.

 

[CamHostage]

WIFI 6 CONFIRMED, MUTHAFUCKAS!!!!!!!!

....Oh, sorry, are we not doing this anymore? Good, let's not, we got a little silly there a few times. Move along.