Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Speedtest: Ethernet vs Wireless AC
- Thread starter realeric
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can somewhat understand the argument when you are just streaming a 1080p movie or even a 4k movie except that the movie will actually download in the background until it is fully loaded on the ATV. Why not download it much faster if you have the bandwidth. But what about Games? For those with say a 300Mbps download speed you are saying that you see no advantage in downloading Games (and the continual download of updates/levels). That is a factor of 3x speed difference. One person that I read about said it took about 5 seconds to download each game level at his Internet Speed and was complaining about it. You would say to that person, get over it, it is only 5 seconds. You may not know that the initial download of a game/app has a max of 200mb. You are saying that you don't see any advantage in loading that App 3x faster? And the game/app can then load up to 2gb more and you see NO advantage in loading that 3x faster. Lastly for all updates after that it will swap out a part of the game for more content as you are playing the game and you see NO advantage in loading those new updates 3x faster. Some will argue that something that loads in 3 seconds vs. 1 second is not a big deal. What's the big deal in waiting 2 seconds? I come from a different point of view. I am paying for 300Mbps speed and Apple is saying I should only pay for 100Mbps because that is really all you need. Simply wait a little longer.
That is where the real benefit comes into play...downloading content. However, aren't games limited to 200mb? If that is the case it takes a whole 2 seconds.
The OP got 1ms ping with ethernet, and 4ms ping with AC wifi. There is no doubt that 100Mbps is plenty of speed to stream anything available today, especially in 1080p. Heck, it's even enough to stream 4k were that an option.
However, having a low latency is also very important. I don't want my video stream to come to me as fast as possible, I want it to come to be as steadily and consistently as possible. For that, ethernet is far better.
That said, 4ms ping is still dam good (but not as good as 1ms ping
). However, wireless has a lot of other external factors that might affect the steadiness and consistency of a stream, or might cause it to drop and reconnect. Thus, ethernet will be better.
However, having a low latency is also very important. I don't want my video stream to come to me as fast as possible, I want it to come to be as steadily and consistently as possible. For that, ethernet is far better.
That said, 4ms ping is still dam good (but not as good as 1ms ping
). However, wireless has a lot of other external factors that might affect the steadiness and consistency of a stream, or might cause it to drop and reconnect. Thus, ethernet will be better.
No. The first download is 200mb. Then you can download 2gb more and then if you need more then that it will download as you play. Someone else said the limit for that is 20gb.
No.
Even if the ethernet connection allowed for a full 100 Mbps throughput(which it doesn't in the real world), it would take a minimum of 16 seconds to download a 200 MB App. A 500 MB screensaver would take a minimum of 40 seconds to download(in a perfect theoretical world). 2GB of add-on supplemental material for apps would take at minimum two minutes and forty seconds.
For most people, it really isn't a big deal.
But try telling the people over in the ios 9 forum that seconds don't matter. They spend their days worrying about extra milliseconds.
The Apple apologists are out in full force today.
I'm not an apologist! It's just that this is a non issue and it appears that Amazon and Roku also follow the same 10/100 port strategy. Let's not throw insults for the sake of it, especially when nobody here has presented a real use case around needing anything faster. In the 4K world there are bigger issues to worry about rather than the speed of an Ethernet port.
The poster was referring to game size limits not video limits.
If you assume that any streaming app has a multi-GB buffer like that, you are mistaken.
Actually, the Apple TV's do.
At least my ATV2, and ATV3 do. I'm assuming my ATV4 does as well, I just haven't checked.
The streaming movie buffer in the ATV3 is at least 2 GB.
You are mistaken. 100Mbps Ethernet is actually more popular then ever. Many dedicated devices use it (like e.g. smart TVs, Blu-ray players, IP cameras, and many other "Internet of things"-type connected devices). The chips are significantly less expensive than GigE. As discussed at length in another thread, they also use much less power and don't require a high-speed bus toward the CPU.
I'm kinda confused. But then I do feel like a right Luddite whenever I come on this forum...
I just bought a netgear 500 mbps powerline adaptor so that I could connect my ATV2 via ethernet (I am about to buy an ATV4) but, in fact, it runs loads slower through that connect then over wireless. As it's the same internet router / speed either way (I'm on Virgin in the UK with up to 50mb) I don't understand why this would be. Presumably something to do with the performance of the powerline adaptor (which is indicating that it is working a top performance)?
I just bought a netgear 500 mbps powerline adaptor so that I could connect my ATV2 via ethernet (I am about to buy an ATV4) but, in fact, it runs loads slower through that connect then over wireless. As it's the same internet router / speed either way (I'm on Virgin in the UK with up to 50mb) I don't understand why this would be. Presumably something to do with the performance of the powerline adaptor (which is indicating that it is working a top performance)?
Powerline adapters are VERY hit and miss. It all comes down to the wiring in your home. Some people get excellent speeds. Most don't.
Cheers. My house was built in 1907. Whilst the wiring isn't quite that old, it's perhaps not surprising that it's not performing brilliantly either...
Wifi is perfectly fine though to be fair.
If you stream a movie from iTunes you can see the progress bar as you watch the movie. The progress bar will continue until the movie is fully loaded. You can even pause the movie and the progress bar will continue. You can then exit the movie and the come back in and the progress bar is still fully loaded. If you then watch a another movie the progress bar will start over. If you then go back to the first movie the progress bar starts over. So for my testing it appears that the movie is fully load and will stay there for watching over and over until you decide to watch another movie. This works that same for ATV 3 and ATV 4 (have not tested ATV 2 but assume the same). I was hoping the ATV 4 would CACHE Multiple Movies but it does not. Now, why do you feel I am wrong? Have you done any testing like I have done?
So was I. I said that the ATV 4 will download an initial "game / app" size of 200mb then up to 2gb more if needed before it starts to swap out portions of the game. Not sure where the confusion is.
To add a little bit to your testing, I was watching a movie on HomeSharing just as you described, except the progress bar did not full up all the way - it stopped at around ~80%. At about the half-way point in the movie, I hit the "Home" button to bring to the main menu to stop watching it, and went to bed. The next morning, when I resumed it played fine except I noticed it did not continue caching, and the movie stopped at that 80% mark. I exited the video by hitting "menu" (not "home" this time) and reentered the movie starting it from where it left of and this time i loaded to the end.
I'll check the filesize of the movie later when I get home, but I thing it's over 2GB. I think it's something like 2.5GB if I remember correctly. This supports your theory that it caches about 2GB worth of movie, which is why it stopped at 80%. I think the reason it didn't keep going the next morning is a bug
I have to admit this forum is funny. Don't worry sometimes money is spent on technology that isn't needed a few years later. Honestly I have wifi speeds of 650 Mbps coming to my Apple TV and that is more than adaqate for what this thing does.
Picture this 650 cars coming in at once to a restaurant with a 100 car parking lot and 15 seats.
Amazon 4K downloads at 15 Mbps same with Netflix. See this article I assume the CEO of Netflix knows what he is talking about.
http://bgr.com/2013/09/26/netflix-4k-streaming/
Picture this 650 cars coming in at once to a restaurant with a 100 car parking lot and 15 seats.
Amazon 4K downloads at 15 Mbps same with Netflix. See this article I assume the CEO of Netflix knows what he is talking about.
http://bgr.com/2013/09/26/netflix-4k-streaming/