LAN vs Wifi: The Differences

[JLU51306]

Good information but I feel like I have to point out just running ping x.x.x.x (your example 8.8.8.8 being Google DNS) isn't always a clear indication of a problem on you or your ISPs end. Lots of other carriers and equipment between A and Z.

That's a very good point. I did recommend a check on personal IP's, and that would determine issues directly on your network (usually your modem/router). It would be smart to ping other external addresses to verify if the issue is on your end. Thanks for the correction.

 

[methademic]

That's a very good point. I did recommend a check on personal IP's, and that would determine issues directly on your network (usually your modem/router). It would be smart to ping other external addresses to verify if the issue is on your end. Thanks for the correction.

I work for a fiber network carrier and spend a lot of time playing monkey in the middle calling third party carriers to find the source of issues between 3 or 4 different networks

 

[dubson]

I would find it hard to believe people on a wired connection aren't wired directly from their console to their modem. If someones going to go to the trouble to mask a wireless connection via an ethernet to a laptop or something, they might as well just go for the real thing.

Pretty sure he means directly into the modem opposed to into a router if their setup uses a modem and a router. As you hopefully know, a router/modem combo is not as optimal as having a router than can do it's sole job, and a modem that can do it's sole job. Plugged in directly from the system to a pure modem is the most optimal setup. It's not a huge difference considering you're still hardwired, he's just referring to optimization.

To his point though, I understand what he is saying, but it's kind of moot. Being hardwired at all be it through a router, modem, or router/modem combo blows away being wifi and it's not even a fair point really in that context.

 

[JLU51306]

Very well. I feel this post is directed at me and I have been corrected. Will buy the damn cat6 cable so I can still play against you peeps. Lmao

This post isn't directed at any one person. About 3-4 years ago, I was super ignorant to all of this stuff until I suffered from severe packet loss and had to learn exactly what was happening, because honestly, my ISP didn't believe me because all they'd have me do was run a speedtest and power cycle my modem, two things which don't detect or resolve the issue I was having (a fraying coaxial bit on the inside of my wall). This is just here to educate people who may be having these issues or decide to run the gambit on a wireless connection without knowing exactly what that means.

 

[Tanno]

Have been doing a similar investigation around this a while ago, when I decided to build up my connection here. You get the modem, you set the settings as you wish, you test everything there and all good. The only problem is about the national connection.

If you compare all the connections of all the nations, you'll get the whole picture why most of the connections are a shit. It's not the providers fault. It's the public provider that's at fault here.

 

[Admrl Scht]

Ah, gotcha. Good correction.



I would find it hard to believe people on a wired connection aren't wired directly from their console to their modem. If someones going to go to the trouble to mask a wireless connection via an ethernet to a laptop or something, they might as well just go for the real thing.

I was talking about a direct connection into a modem / internet gateway and not an integrated modem / router. Plugging directly into a modem would ensure that no other devices on your network could be hogging bandwidth.

 

[neofightr]

Sure, you can say a poor and or fluctuating connection affects both players, so it becomes an even playing field, right? Nope. Because a wireless connection, practically by it's own definition, is a dynamic signal.
Say I just got in with a string, and I'm starting a 40% combo on my opponent, and their wifi has a ping spike, causing a greater delay than what the game can correct, and I drop the combo. Then my opponent punishes me and gets his own combo off. While a wireless connection affects both parties, it isn't a constant variable in a match.

And somehow the wireless player is timing the signal fluctuation so it's always throwing your game off and not his?? Give me a break. The netcode if done properly slows the game down for both players once their is a fluctuation in the connection. So I seriously doubt a wireless player can force an outcome to his/her liking. The only way to force a predictive outcome is to pull the jack which of course applies to wired connections to the console.

 

[Admrl Scht]

"Oh yeah, the differences between LAN and Wifi, right?

A wired connection is more stable and far less susceptible to any of the issues I've just wrote multiple paragraphs about. Wifi is very susceptible to all of these problems. Most of these problems won't even show up on a Speedtest. Not to mention, if you ran a Speedtest or Packet Loss test on wifi via a Laptop or Phone, you'll see the downgraded quality of the internet you pay good money for versus these same tests on a direct connection via a Desktop. So if you suspect you're having issues, run tests on Command Prompt and PingPlotter, on a Desktop."

Disclaimer: Yes everyone knows wired is the preferred method but a wireless connection (properly configured and placed in the home) isn't near as bad as people make it out to be.

After reading this piece again, I have to disagree a tad. Most wireless routers today can easily do 300x300 Mbps (if not more) throughput. I don't know of a cable ISP that comes close to that type of bandwidth (fiber maybe but not cable).

Most routers today can easily handle the traffic that's thrown at them. To test:

TEST 1
From a wired connection, perform the following command from a Windows machine:
ping -n 100 -w 500 <router_ip>
Note: If you don't know how to get your router IP, search for how to find your default gateway in Window and it will generally be your router IP address.

You will see the following stats when it finishes, please note them:
Ping statistics for 192.168.109.254:
Packets: Sent = 6, Received = 6, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 2ms, Average = 2ms

TEST 2
From a wireless connection, perform the following command from a Windows machine:
ping -n 100 -w 500 <router_ip>

You will see similar stats as shown above. Please compare and tell me they're not similar if not identical.
If they're wildly different, you're router is old, faulty, poorly placed, isn't robust enough to handle the number of devices on your network, etc.

I might do some more empirical testing if I have time.

TL ; DR
Don't avoid wireless players. Give them a try and if it feels bad just find another match. It SERIOUSLY isn't as bad as people say.

 

[Kotal_Wannabe]

The netcode if done properly slows the game down for both players once their is a fluctuation in the connection. So I seriously doubt a wireless player can force an outcome to his/her liking..

All the wireless player gotta do is get their mom to walk in front of the router BAM instant lag spike, bonus points if ur momma fat.

 

[Admrl Scht]

Very well. I feel this post is directed at me and I have been corrected. Will buy the damn cat6 cable so I can still play against you peeps. Lmao

Save some money and get CAT5e unless you have some serious EMF interference in your home.

 

[JLU51306]

I was talking about a direct connection into a modem / internet gateway and not an integrated modem / router. Plugging directly into a modem would ensure that no other devices on your network could be hogging bandwidth.

I got ya, my mistake.

And somehow the wireless player is timing the signal fluctuation so it's always throwing your game off and not his?? Give me a break. The netcode if done properly slows the game down for both players once their is a fluctuation in the connection. So I seriously doubt a wireless player can force an outcome to his/her liking. The only way to force a predictive outcome is to pull the jack which of course applies to wired connections to the console.

If you really think I was talking about the Wifi player having some advantage over their opponent, you didn't fully read my post. A wireless signal is in a continual flux, especially depending on just how many things are accessing your routers bandwidth. The sways in ping affect both players. My scenario could just as equally affect both players. And that's my point. An ever-changing connection quality isn't an even playing field.

 

[JLU51306]

"Oh yeah, the differences between LAN and Wifi, right?

A wired connection is more stable and far less susceptible to any of the issues I've just wrote multiple paragraphs about. Wifi is very susceptible to all of these problems. Most of these problems won't even show up on a Speedtest. Not to mention, if you ran a Speedtest or Packet Loss test on wifi via a Laptop or Phone, you'll see the downgraded quality of the internet you pay good money for versus these same tests on a direct connection via a Desktop. So if you suspect you're having issues, run tests on Command Prompt and PingPlotter, on a Desktop."

Disclaimer: Yes everyone knows wired is the preferred method but a wireless connection (properly configured and placed in the home) isn't near as bad as people make it out to be.

After reading this piece again, I have to disagree a tad. Most wireless routers today can easily do 300x300 Mbps (if not more) throughput. I don't know of a cable ISP that comes close to that type of bandwidth (fiber maybe but not cable).

Most routers today can easily handle the traffic that's thrown at them. To test:

TEST 1
From a wired connection, perform the following command from a Windows machine:
ping -n 100 -w 500 <router_ip>
Note: If you don't know how to get your router IP, search for how to find your default gateway in Window and it will generally be your router IP address.

You will see the following stats when it finishes, please note them:
Ping statistics for 192.168.109.254:
Packets: Sent = 6, Received = 6, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 2ms, Average = 2ms

TEST 2
From a wireless connection, perform the following command from a Windows machine:
ping -n 100 -w 500 <router_ip>

You will see similar stats as shown above. Please compare and tell me they're not similar if not identical.
If they're wildly different, you're router is old, faulty, poorly placed, isn't robust enough to handle the number of devices on your network, etc.

I might do some more empirical testing if I have time.

TL ; DR
Don't avoid wireless players. Give them a try and if it feels bad just find another match. It SERIOUSLY isn't as bad as people say.

I whole-heartedly agree that Wifi is not terrible if it's the only convenient option, but most of my points kind of revolve around the idea that Wifi is just as good as Wired, which some seem to think. Again, the issue with the relevance of these tests is they aren't testing with a constant output a direct connection provides. Testing a wireless signal's quality is entirely dependent on the environment they're in, and can change according to quite a few variables. Yes, while some higher-end Routers offer QoS and other features to cut down on interference and susceptibility to bandwidth usage, just as many don't, or are not up to the task to be comparable to LAN. I could be wrong, but running tests on a dynamic signal tends to give good results, but rarely catch the brief moments the connection dips, ping spikes, etc. Sure, your ping might be good the moment you run the test, but under any sort of workload or traffic, the result could just as easily change.
Perhaps I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something, though. I could be wrong. Let me know.

 

[Eddy Wang]

This thread is fucking awesome, i'm starting to feel nerd again, the good ol TYM days.

 

[Wavy]

Id like to add that OPs post is in regard to fighting games. A slower wired is better than a faster wireless for fighting games alone. For fighting games consistency in connection trumps speed. A steady 60 ping is better than one that starts at 34ping and hits 120 in match then a huge spike to 400 for a second back down to 34. Since most fighting games are 1v1 the effect is noticeable and damaging when the connection does drop.

Sometimes it goes unnoticed in a single match. However, it will eventually spike in a set. May not happen in one match but in a set it can and it will. People would rather not deal with that chance.

In server based games(mmos/Player killing) and group based games(fps/MOBAs) speed is better. But faster information sending/receiving is better because it essentially puts you ahead. Host is advantageous. Host is collected by fastest not most steady. For example a private lobby would count your connection in relationship to the host. If you were to lag it would be on your end if its just you or their end having a shitty quality net if everyone else lags. In non fighting games a 100mbps faster wireless > slower 20 wired.

This is why wireless is so prevalent in gaming. Most online players, even those that follow the FGC generally play other games and not on a monitor strictly. Usually outside of the room where a router is located. Consistent ping isn't on their mind when playing other games.

As stated by a user earlier a power adapter may not work for the home you live in some cases. But they're pretty cheap anyways.

Tl;dr. A slower wired is better in fighting games than faster wireless. Otherwise it's not and will never be for other games.
Get wired if you care about participating in online/offline tournament where money is involved. Otherwise stay wireless if you simply dont give a fuck and play other games.

 

[Hell's Mascot]

That's a very good point. I did recommend a check on personal IP's, and that would determine issues directly on your network (usually your modem/router). It would be smart to ping other external addresses to verify if the issue is on your end. Thanks for the correction.

Your write-up, while mostly correct, misses the point completely. The majority of what determines the stability and speed of a connection between two clients is the route packets take, especially the number of hops and the amount of time each hop takes. (There are many other important components, such as packet loss, jitter, MTU size, etc. but you're mentioning those terms to make it sound like you know what you're talking about when it just confounds the argument.)

Specifically, where you miss the point is overlooking the fact that the local access network connection to one's modem is rarely the limiting factor in the speed and stability of a remote connection between two clients (in this case players). In most cases, the 'Wired vs. Wireless' BS determines (at best) 5% of the connection between two players.

Pinging Google's Public DNS as you suggest (a better option would be a traceroute) doesn't indicate much at all about your connection to other players, and certainly doesn't elucidate anything on the argument of WiFi vs. wired.

If you want to see how fast and stable your wireless connection is in comparison to plugging directly in to your modem, ping your gateway from both connections. You'll find that the difference is typically on the order of less than 10 ms.

It's not just the means by which the user connects to their gateway (typically a modem) that determines overall speed - in fact, that's one very small part of the equation - it's everything else that you don't mention.

 

[JLU51306]

Your write-up, while mostly correct, misses the point completely. The majority of what determines the stability and speed of a connection between two clients is the route packets take, especially the number of hops and the amount of time each hop takes. (There are many other important components, such as packet loss, jitter, MTU size, etc. but you're mentioning those terms to make it sound like you know what you're talking about when it just confounds the argument.)

Specifically, where you miss the point is overlooking the fact that the local access network connection to one's modem is rarely the limiting factor in the speed and stability of a remote connection between two clients (in this case players). In most cases, the 'Wired vs. Wireless' BS determines (at best) 5% of the connection between two players.

Pinging Google's Public DNS as you suggest (a better option would be a traceroute) doesn't indicate much at all about your connection to other players, and certainly doesn't elucidate anything on the argument of WiFi vs. wired.

If you want to see how fast and stable your wireless connection is in comparison to plugging directly in to your modem, ping your gateway from both connections. You'll find that the difference is typically on the order of less than 10 ms.

It's not just the means by which the user connects to their gateway (typically a modem) that determines overall speed - in fact, that's one very small part of the equation - it's everything else that you don't mention.

I welcome the correction. I admitted up front I'm no expert, and everything I described was just experience from my own issues in the past. A lot of my post is just troubleshooting issues as to why someone on a wired connection may have issues with their connection, not an argument directly on why Wifi is bad. Just how a wireless signal is more susceptible to fluctuations in ping, on top of any issue you could already have being compounded over a wireless signal and commonly worse over one.

 

[Admrl Scht]

Regardless, Injustice 2 is still the shit and I'll be playing against both wired and wireless players without discrimination (unless I lose against a wireless player...only a wireless player). hehe.

 

[dubson]

Your write-up, while mostly correct, misses the point completely. The majority of what determines the stability and speed of a connection between two clients is the route packets take, especially the number of hops and the amount of time each hop takes. (There are many other important components, such as packet loss, jitter, MTU size, etc. but you're mentioning those terms to make it sound like you know what you're talking about when it just confounds the argument.)

Specifically, where you miss the point is overlooking the fact that the local access network connection to one's modem is rarely the limiting factor in the speed and stability of a remote connection between two clients (in this case players). In most cases, the 'Wired vs. Wireless' BS determines (at best) 5% of the connection between two players.

Pinging Google's Public DNS as you suggest (a better option would be a traceroute) doesn't indicate much at all about your connection to other players, and certainly doesn't elucidate anything on the argument of WiFi vs. wired.

If you want to see how fast and stable your wireless connection is in comparison to plugging directly in to your modem, ping your gateway from both connections. You'll find that the difference is typically on the order of less than 10 ms.

It's not just the means by which the user connects to their gateway (typically a modem) that determines overall speed - in fact, that's one very small part of the equation - it's everything else that you don't mention.

Agreed on everything except the overall point of Wired vs. Wireless is just the point that wireless is extremely susceptible to fluctuations in connection quality, and potentially overall match quality for both players. That's not to say one cannot have a solid connection on wifi, it's just not optimal nor desired for playing fighting games online. At a high level of competition, you just desire optimization that's all.


@Pig Of The Hut

Here's some info on peering for you, although he didn't mention ISP tower quality. There's many pieces to the pie.

EDIT: https://testyourmight.com/threads/unofficial-umk3-internet-performance-thread.56892/#post-1939067

 

[dubson]

"The speed you are sold by Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, ect is "Circuit Speed" this is only what your circuit is provisioned at.
This type of internet is what is known as "Best Effort" intenet. There is 0 gaurentee that you will have this bandwidth available.
Fios, Comcast 2Gig, ect is included in this "Best Effort" class.

Fios for example is 1 Fiber from the Central Office to the nehiborhood that can be split off into 32 individual fibers for the homes.
The main fiber has a capicity of 2gbs download and 1 gbps upload. So if all the people are using thier service at the same time,
and 32 people are attached to that fiber you will not get your paid for speed hence the name "Best Effot"

Comcast is HFC Hybrid Fiber Coax, in which a fiber is run to the node on the telephone pole in which it is converted to Coax and delivered to
X amount of homes. The same can happen in this scenerio, the node only has so much bandwidth over the fiber and typically is oversold
banking on the fact everyone wont use thier service at the same time.

Speedtest results are irrelevent for the following reasons.

Each ISP is thier own network, they connect to other ISP's at large centers called internet exchanges, or peering points.

For example, if Joe Schmoe is on Comcast in Detroit, and his buddy is on ATT in detroit, theoretically he should have an amazing connection right ? Wrong.

Comcast peers with the rest of the world for detroit in Chicago, so best case scenerio is that ATT also peers in Chicago as well. So to play that person, the route
has to go from Detroit to Chicago back to Detroit. If ATT doesnt peer in Chicago the route may take many many bounces and a player in the same city as you may have 5-60ms ping because of poor peering.

A lot of ISPS have terrible peering and just because you are geographically located near somone doesnt mean that the connection peers in a reasonable mannor, You may be sent across the country before you get to the other person. All depends on routing and peering.

Also a lot of ISPs, and this is in the news constantly have terrible peering arraingements with other providers, just because you have a 500mb connection from your house to the central office, doesnt mean if you are trying to download content from a certain network, Google, Amazon AWS, Youtube ect that you also will have 500mbps because the "Peering" between Verizon and Youtube may be either saturated or purposefully throttled.

I have a 500mbps connection and Netflix still buffers sometimes ect.

Also many people experience a 1 sided delay with UMK3, a major source of that is as follows.

Lets take 2 players 1 in NYC 1 in Chicago, The route the person in NYC may be very direct, minimal amt of hops, like NYC to Chicago direct, however
the person in chicago's route to NYC may take crazy bounces Chicago, Texas, Nashville VA then to NYC.

Naturally the player in Chicago will see the moves of the player in NYC faster than the player in NYC seing the Chicago players moves, You have a 50ms ping however
you may have 20ms of that from you to the other person and because of bad routing they may have a 30ms return path.

Unless you are playing on the SAME ISP as the other player the connection has a EXTREMELY small chance of having the same inbound and outbound routing.

A speed test is only a gauge of your Circuit speed and has 0 to do with how you will peer with another player.
There is NO universal "Speed Test" ect to determine how you will connect with another player believe me.

Add in DSL, People with Docsis Cable living in APT buildings with terrible uncontrolably inside wiring, WIFI, oversaturated nodes, oversold fiber ect and you can see how internet gaming will NEVER and i repeat NEVER work"



I have two brothers, one with 100mbps DSL internet through Century Link, the other with 100mbps Cable internet through Cox Communications. The brother with Century Link, while DSL, 9 times out of 10 has a better/more stable connection to my opponent (I've tested on both ISP's). This is mostly because Century Link is a tier 1 ISP, and it's tower quantity and quality is amongst the highest in the nation.

Point being, again, there are many pieces to the pie. It isn't ever just "black and white" with this.

 

[JLU51306]

"The speed you are sold by Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, ect is "Circuit Speed" this is only what your circuit is provisioned at.
This type of internet is what is known as "Best Effort" intenet. There is 0 gaurentee that you will have this bandwidth available.
Fios, Comcast 2Gig, ect is included in this "Best Effort" class.

Fios for example is 1 Fiber from the Central Office to the nehiborhood that can be split off into 32 individual fibers for the homes.
The main fiber has a capicity of 2gbs download and 1 gbps upload. So if all the people are using thier service at the same time,
and 32 people are attached to that fiber you will not get your paid for speed hence the name "Best Effot"

Comcast is HFC Hybrid Fiber Coax, in which a fiber is run to the node on the telephone pole in which it is converted to Coax and delivered to
X amount of homes. The same can happen in this scenerio, the node only has so much bandwidth over the fiber and typically is oversold
banking on the fact everyone wont use thier service at the same time.

Speedtest results are irrelevent for the following reasons.

Each ISP is thier own network, they connect to other ISP's at large centers called internet exchanges, or peering points.

For example, if Joe Schmoe is on Comcast in Detroit, and his buddy is on ATT in detroit, theoretically he should have an amazing connection right ? Wrong.

Comcast peers with the rest of the world for detroit in Chicago, so best case scenerio is that ATT also peers in Chicago as well. So to play that person, the route
has to go from Detroit to Chicago back to Detroit. If ATT doesnt peer in Chicago the route may take many many bounces and a player in the same city as you may have 5-60ms ping because of poor peering.

A lot of ISPS have terrible peering and just because you are geographically located near somone doesnt mean that the connection peers in a reasonable mannor, You may be sent across the country before you get to the other person. All depends on routing and peering.

Also a lot of ISPs, and this is in the news constantly have terrible peering arraingements with other providers, just because you have a 500mb connection from your house to the central office, doesnt mean if you are trying to download content from a certain network, Google, Amazon AWS, Youtube ect that you also will have 500mbps because the "Peering" between Verizon and Youtube may be either saturated or purposefully throttled.

I have a 500mbps connection and Netflix still buffers sometimes ect.

Also many people experience a 1 sided delay with UMK3, a major source of that is as follows.

Lets take 2 players 1 in NYC 1 in Chicago, The route the person in NYC may be very direct, minimal amt of hops, like NYC to Chicago direct, however
the person in chicago's route to NYC may take crazy bounces Chicago, Texas, Nashville VA then to NYC.

Naturally the player in Chicago will see the moves of the player in NYC faster than the player in NYC seing the Chicago players moves, You have a 50ms ping however
you may have 20ms of that from you to the other person and because of bad routing they may have a 30ms return path.

Unless you are playing on the SAME ISP as the other player the connection has a EXTREMELY small chance of having the same inbound and outbound routing.

A speed test is only a gauge of your Circuit speed and has 0 to do with how you will peer with another player.
There is NO universal "Speed Test" ect to determine how you will connect with another player believe me.

Add in DSL, People with Docsis Cable living in APT buildings with terrible uncontrolably inside wiring, WIFI, oversaturated nodes, oversold fiber ect and you can see how internet gaming will NEVER and i repeat NEVER work"



I have two brothers, one with 100mbps DSL internet through Century Link, the other with 100mbps Cable internet through Cox Communications. The brother with Century Link, while DSL, 9 times out of 10 has a better/more stable connection to my opponent (I've tested on both ISP's). This is mostly because Century Link is a tier 1 ISP, and it's tower quantity and quality is amongst the highest in the nation.

Point being, again, there are many pieces to the pie. It isn't ever just "black and white".

This is a fantastic breakdown. I personally had no idea about this aspect of online connections.

 

[Swindle]

This whole TYM - Wired v Wireless debate only proves one thing:
Y'all prejudiced as a Baptist minister on Black Friday.