X570 Realtek vs Intel LAN

Realtek vs Intel LAN

  • Total voters


Supreme [H]ardness
Dec 16, 2006
FWIW, I've exclusively been using the Realtek 2.5GbE LAN for the past 4 months and have had ZERO issues. Can't tell any difference in performance or reliability compared to the Intel Gigabit LAN I had used on my X99 board for the previous 3 years. Haven't tried to push past 1Gbps as my home network is limited to it.


[H]F Junkie
Mar 31, 2001
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).
This is the winning answer right here.


Oct 11, 2001
No, I understand networking. Don't be condescending. We don't now the details of the test(s) and exactly how they were performed. I know the intel nic matches your test @ 1G. Looks like the 2.5G was running full speed as well. So what. It was just a full speed throughput test.
Which shows numbers that should be wrpmg. If both cards are not getting 112MB/s, something is wrong with your destination or source or network - and it's not the network card. Both are showing that his environment is FUBAR in some creative way. Which means the rest of the results can't be trusted either.

Any network card should hit 112MB/s right now on 1G networking (assuming standard MTU). Any. The question is cpu latency/packet latency/processing overhead/etc, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty. But we can't trust those numbers because clearly something is wrong.

This is like testing cars - if suddenly gravity is not 9.8 m/s^2, the whole test is invalid, regardless of the results. Or lasers and suddenly C isn't C anymore - when the laws of physics go poof, you chuck your data.

It may be his destination media; that's often where a bottleneck is - especially if it's a NAS with shared filesystems, or the destination port, or any number of things. But a file copy should always show 112MB/s unless limited elsewhere.

Anyway, Dan is good - I don't think he fudged the numbers intentionally, but the test certainly smacks of file-ops over the network or something that is not just raw throughput - not that throughput matters anymore either, since we should all be limited by the interconnect now.