erek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 10,890
Which is better for gaming performance / latency etc? The Intel 1GbE (Intel® I211-AT Gb LAN)
or Realtek 2.5 GbE?
or Realtek 2.5 GbE?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I could get the 2.5 to work I'd let you know, might be a driver issue on my side.Which is better for gaming performance / latency etc? The Intel 1GbE (Intel® I211-AT Gb LAN)
or Realtek 2.5 GbE?
I did a speed test on both of mine for fun with a 10gb file. They almost didn’t differ at all. On a gigabit wired network.
Yes, please test those. It's just as important as comparing speeds.also what about cpu usage between the two? i'm also more interested in latency than raw bandwidth
That delta wont show up on a modern system.Yes, please test those. It's just as important as comparing speeds.
CPU usage?That delta wont show up on a modern system.
The difference in cpu use between a Realtek NIC and an Intel NIC is inconsequential on a modern system.CPU usage?
The difference in cpu use between a Realtek NIC and an Intel NIC is inconsequential on a modern system.
Absolutely junk test.TheFpsReview - LAN
"The ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi integrates two adapters. The first is the standard Intel i211-AT. This is a ubiquitous adapter that can be found on a variety of motherboards. It is the option for Intel and non-Intel based motherboards alike. It is the gold standard for reliability and compatibility. The second is the Realtek RTL8125-CG 2.5G LAN adapter. This is a controller I don’t have a lot of experience with. Historically, I haven’t been a huge fan of Realtek adapters, but again, this isn’t a common controller, so I don’t have much to say about it outside of actual testing.
RTL-8125-CG @ 1Gb
In our first network controller showed an average transfer rate of 69.49MB/s in the write test and 45.46MB/s in the read test. The maximum transfer rate was 78.26MB/s in the write test and 50.90MB/s in the read test. Our minimum transfer rates were 66.40MB/s in the write test and 40.83MB/s in the read test. CPU usage was 2% in the write test and 1% in the read test.
i211-AT @ 1Gb
In the write test, our average transfer rate was 54.29MB/s. In the read test, we saw a result of 47.83MB/s. The maximum transfer rates were on the low side at 55.68MB/s for the write test and 48.56MB/s for the read test. Our minimum transfer rates were 51.96MB/s and 41.02MB/s in the write and read tests respectively. CPU usage is a modest 2% in the write test and 1% in the read test."\
From Intel site:
Product Brief
IPv4 and IPv6 checksum offload, TCP/UDP checksum offload, extended Tx descriptors for more offload capabilities, up to 256 KB TCP segmentation (TSO v2), header splitting, 40 KB packet buffer size, and 9.5 KB Jumbo Frame support.
Absolutely junk test.
throw it out.
He didn't use a 2.5gbps controller and both NICs at 1 Gigabit LAN should absolutely max out at a little over 112MB/s on a typical network both upload and download with real world scenarios if things were configured even with default settings. Who knows what was wrong in his tests, but something was desperately wrong.
That reviewer clearly knows not one thing about networking.
Absolutely junk test.
throw it out.
He didn't use a 2.5gbps controller and both NICs at 1 Gigabit LAN should absolutely max out at a little over 112MB/s on a typical network both upload and download with real world scenarios if things were configured even with default settings. Who knows what was wrong in his tests, but something was desperately wrong.
That reviewer clearly knows not one thing about networking.
I hate to break your heart but he's wrong as wrong can be on this topic.This may be a *whoosh* moment but:
I'm quite sure that guy knows a thing or two about testing and you may come across him around here one time or another.
I'm also guessing said reviewer isn't using one big 10GB file to test max throughput of 1gigabit links.
I hate to break your heart but he's wrong as wrong can be on this topic.
Here's my 1GB Intel NIC on a ~750 mb file on my 1GB LAN from a source and destination that are capable fo maxing out typical real world transfer rates.
from my PC to NAS
View attachment 215670
from NAS to my PC
View attachment 215682
NIC properties (all default Windows 10)
View attachment 215673
Simple unmanaged Trendnet 8 port switch bridges the connection between my X99 based motherboard's Intel NIC to my cheap $150 QNAP 231P NAS.
He shows/says he uses a 800MB zip file. So very similar test.
Again, he doesn't know how setup or test network equipment.
Switching NICs - going to do it again with my Killer NIC for comparison.
This is the problem: His 1Gb LAN test are showing WAY short of max real world practical results, and he's trying to compare two NICs with benchmarks using invalid results.112MB/s == 896Mb/s
Pretty close, what's the problem exactly?
This is the problem: His 1Gb LAN test are showing WAY short of max real world practical results, and he's trying to compare two NICs with benchmarks using invalid results.
RTL-8125-CG @ 1Gb
In our first network controller showed an average transfer rate of 69.49MB/s in the write test and 45.46MB/s in the read test. The maximum transfer rate was 78.26MB/s in the write test and 50.90MB/s in the read test. Our minimum transfer rates were 66.40MB/s in the write test and 40.83MB/s in the read test. CPU usage was 2% in the write test and 1% in the read test.
i211-AT @ 1Gb
In the write test, our average transfer rate was 54.29MB/s. In the read test, we saw a result of 47.83MB/s. The maximum transfer rates were on the low side at 55.68MB/s for the write test and 48.56MB/s for the read test. Our minimum transfer rates were 51.96MB/s and 41.02MB/s in the write and read tests respectively. CPU usage is a modest 2% in the write test and 1% in the read test."
No, you too don't understand networking.Listen, I know what I posted. It's a MOTHERBOARD review and not intended as a FULL NIC REVIEW. If you actually read the review..
"this controller is capable of performing much faster than our tests here would indicate. This is due to a lack of 2.5GbE capable controllers in our test environment."
TheFpsReview - LAN
"The ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi integrates two adapters. The first is the standard Intel i211-AT. This is a ubiquitous adapter that can be found on a variety of motherboards. It is the option for Intel and non-Intel based motherboards alike. It is the gold standard for reliability and compatibility. The second is the Realtek RTL8125-CG 2.5G LAN adapter. This is a controller I don’t have a lot of experience with. Historically, I haven’t been a huge fan of Realtek adapters, but again, this isn’t a common controller, so I don’t have much to say about it outside of actual testing.
RTL-8125-CG @ 1Gb
In our first network controller showed an average transfer rate of 69.49MB/s in the write test and 45.46MB/s in the read test. The maximum transfer rate was 78.26MB/s in the write test and 50.90MB/s in the read test. Our minimum transfer rates were 66.40MB/s in the write test and 40.83MB/s in the read test. CPU usage was 2% in the write test and 1% in the read test.
i211-AT @ 1Gb
In the write test, our average transfer rate was 54.29MB/s. In the read test, we saw a result of 47.83MB/s. The maximum transfer rates were on the low side at 55.68MB/s for the write test and 48.56MB/s for the read test. Our minimum transfer rates were 51.96MB/s and 41.02MB/s in the write and read tests respectively. CPU usage is a modest 2% in the write test and 1% in the read test."\
From Intel site:
Product Brief
IPv4 and IPv6 checksum offload, TCP/UDP checksum offload, extended Tx descriptors for more offload capabilities, up to 256 KB TCP segmentation (TSO v2), header splitting, 40 KB packet buffer size, and 9.5 KB Jumbo Frame support.
No, you too don't understand networking.
1Gb LAN network is capable of 112MB per second real world transfer speeds or a little better. UN-optimized. He didn't get that. Something's wrong with that test result if it's ANYTHING but right around that transfer speed on a single large file.
It's NOT because he doesn't have a 2.5Gb LAN network. If he had 2.5Gb LAN network then he should see the 1Gb Intel card run at about this standard 112MB/s and the 2.5Gb Realtek card run significantly faster. The 2.5Gb card was negotiated down to a 1Gb speed, but should still get a full 1Gb NIC speed on a 1Gb LAN. It didn't. Neither Intel or Realtek card ran at rated speed, and if the author knew anything about networking throughput he would know - without question that something was wrong with his testing - and he would never have published those numbers. They were both running about half speed.. Something was wrong, clearly. His test on that particular matter is clearly bunk - thus those results should be tossed. I didn't say his whole review was bunk - I said those test results are bunk. I don't know who that author is. It doesn't matter. On that test he is wrong.
Both those NICs should have gotten 112MB/s on a 800MB zip file with similar CPU usage. Period. End of story.
I didn't know that! Pretty cool!It's also worth noting that SMB 3.0 automatically combines separate network connections when doing file transfers without having to do NIC teaming or anything like that. I run 3 Intel Gigabit adapters in my file-server (Windows Server 2019) and 3 Gigabit adapters in my main PC (Windows 10) and I can see file transfer rates nearing 3Gbps, with speeds almost always limited by the drive and not the network at that point. So there could be benefit to simply using both network connections in the OP's case.
You could ask Dan_D for a comment on the specifics.Absolutely junk test.
throw it out.
He didn't use a 2.5gbps controller and both NICs at 1 Gigabit LAN should absolutely max out at a little over 112MB/s on a typical network both upload and download with real world scenarios if things were configured even with default settings. Who knows what was wrong in his tests, but something was desperately wrong.
That reviewer clearly knows not one thing about networking.
does Intel vs Realtek matter for the average home user who only uses the port for internet usage?...Intel seems to be the better LAN but I'm guessing it only matters if you're transferring a lot of files or running some sort of server or home network?
I don't run any servers or home network and I've narrowed my motherboard choices for my new build down to 2- one uses the Intel GbE LAN chip and the other Realtek 8125B...should the LAN port play a factor in my decision?
does Intel vs Realtek matter for the average home user who only uses the port for internet usage?...Intel seems to be the better LAN but I'm guessing it only matters if you're transferring a lot of files or running some sort of server or home network?
I don't run any servers or home network and I've narrowed my motherboard choices for my new build down to 2- one uses the Intel GbE LAN chip and the other Realtek 8125B...should the LAN port play a factor in my decision?
Nope. Realtek is good enough; at the same speed Intel is probably better, but it's going to be hard to measure it. It would be different if you were running a server trying to push 40Gbps+, but otherwise not very significant. If you had a 2.5Gbps network (or were planning on it), might as well get a Realtek 2.5g card over a Intel 1G, otherwise, pick boards based on something else.
This is my issue, I can sustain about 950MB/s with my RAID 1+0... but I only get ~120MB/s transfers . It's such a hassle to upgrade everything though (and I don't do to large of files that often) that I just live with it. I probably won't be buying anything new with less than 2.5G (preferably 10G if it's not to costly) for this reason though. I would prefer not to have to have an add on card for networking (especially in my 2 ITX desktops, but even my mATX desktops don't really have the space!)Right, this is a pointless discussion; processors are so powerful now that you won't notice any performance difference on what is now such a small system load.
The only real reason he might get the 2.5gbs Realtek is if he's planning on upgrading his network switch in the near future (it will work on old Cat5e).
2.5gbps is a lot faster than 1Gbps (if you have a local NAS that's pushing 120MB/s or more).
For your use case? Only if you get the board with the Realtek NIC and you run into some issue. (but if you ran into an issue with onboard intel, I'd tell you to get a Realtek add-in card).is it worth it to get a separate Intel networking card?