Do cables make a difference? I.E - CAT5E to CAT 7 or CAT 8


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I have a 1GB download speed (and 10mbps up) through my ISP but right now my PC's are only getting 500-600mbps down!

They also set up an "EERO" network upon installation. EERO shows that the download speed is nearly 800mbps to the first / main switch or EERO.

Our network is like this: modem --> EERO/SWITCH ---> EERO/SWITCH in BEDROOM ---> SWITCH TO PCS DIRECT.

---

How I stumbled upon the poor download speeds was through a large download that servers usually provide nearly 60mbps down, but was sitting barely 15mbps. That being said, a SpeedTest at the time (desktop app) revealed a download speed of 250mbps which makes more sense given how throttled my download was. I moved the wires from any power cords etc, and speed instantly went up to the 500mbps - 600mbps range.

Before I decide to replace cables, I thought I'd get your input here on whether it'll help.

Best wishes,
BA2017GG

 

Cat 5e is more than enough to handle gig, can even do 2.5gbs via 802.3bz

 

Here is speed test to my nas using just cat5e cable..

 

$ iperf3.exe -c 192.168.10.10
Connecting to host 192.168.10.10, port 5201
[  5] local 192.168.10.9 port 2112 connected to 192.168.10.10 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   282 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   282 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   282 MBytes  2.36 Gbits/sec
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   283 MBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec  2.76 GBytes  2.37 Gbits/sec                  sender
[  5]   0.00-10.08  sec  2.76 GBytes  2.35 Gbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

 

You really should be able to do even 5gbps over cat5e, I just have nothing to show that in real world test.. But should work..

 

Cat 7 is not even a thing to be honest (there is no standard).  And unless you plan on doing 40 gig sometime in the near future.. Over copper?  Why?  8 makes zero sense.

 

While you could look to using cat 6 or 6a.. There is no need if your going to be running a gig network. 5e is more than capable of supporting gig, for that matter even older cat 5 is plenty.  It was part of the standard that gig could be done over cat 5.

What ISP? WOW? (Wide Open West) Formerly Knology.  If so, I had the same issue.

 

I tried Cat 7, new modem based on what the tech suggested, they changed the drop coming to my house. I would never see over 600 MB down. I also tried the speeds in linux and got the same results.

 

I bumped down to the 500/30 tier and as you can see in my signature, It's fine as far as getting what I'm paying for.

 

The only reason I assume WOW is the EERO , I had that too with WOW.

1 hour ago, xrobwx71 said:

What ISP? WOW? (Wide Open West) Formerly Knology.  If so, I had the same issue.

 

I tried Cat 7, new modem based on what the tech suggested, they changed the drop coming to my house. I would never see over 600 MB down. I also tried the speeds in linux and got the same results.

 

I bumped down to the 500/30 tier and as you can see in my signature, It's fine as far as getting what I'm paying for.

 

The only reason I assume WOW is the EERO , I had that too with WOW.

WOW here, I pull down about 930 on a regular basis. Cat6, BYOD modem, UniFi network. 

2 hours ago, xrobwx71 said:

they changed the drop coming to my house. I would never see over 600 MB down.

I was having issues with upload for a bit, pay for 500/50.. And was getting that - then out of the blue dropped into the dirt like 2 or 3 tops, etc..  Download was ok.. But upload was just utter useless..

 

When they came out - they tried to blame my modem at first (byod)... So I said sure - put it one of your yours and lets see ;)  Same crappy upload.. Took them 3 days to figure it out.. But they finally got it fixed.. 2 different truck rolls..

 

I have WOW, and have been pretty happy with their service and support..  You should of pressed them for gig if that is what you wanted.  But to be honest - 500/50 is screaming fast enough.. I would love to have more up..  And would pay the extra for gig down if the up went up with it... But their current top plan is 1000/50 (at least in my area) - I don't need more down, I want more UP..  Serving up plex to friends and family need up bandwidth..  I don't see how anyone really could actually need gig down in the home to be honest.. That is a freaking lot of concurrent 4k streams ;)

20 minutes ago, BudMan said:

I was having issues with upload for a bit, pay for 500/50.. And was getting that - then out of the blue dropped into the dirt like 2 or 3 tops, etc..  Download was ok.. But upload was just utter useless..

 

When they came out - they tried to blame my modem at first (byod)... So I said sure - put it one of your yours and lets see ;)  Same crappy upload.. Took them 3 days to figure it out.. But they finally got it fixed.. 2 different truck rolls..

 

I have WOW, and have been pretty happy with their service and support..  You should of pressed them for gig if that is what you wanted.  But to be honest - 500/50 is screaming fast enough.. I would love to have more up..  And would pay the extra for gig down if the up went up with it... But their current top plan is 1000/50 (at least in my area) - I don't need more down, I want more UP..  Serving up plex to friends and family need up bandwidth..  I don't see how anyone really could actually need gig down in the home to be honest.. That is a freaking lot of concurrent 4k streams ;)

Bragging rights. And for 65 a month for 1000/1000, why not? 😉

22 minutes ago, BudMan said:

I was having issues with upload for a bit, pay for 500/50.. And was getting that - then out of the blue dropped into the dirt like 2 or 3 tops, etc..  Download was ok.. But upload was just utter useless..

 

When they came out - they tried to blame my modem at first (byod)... So I said sure - put it one of your yours and lets see ;)  Same crappy upload.. Took them 3 days to figure it out.. But they finally got it fixed.. 2 different truck rolls..

 

I have WOW, and have been pretty happy with their service and support..  You should of pressed them for gig if that is what you wanted.  But to be honest - 500/50 is screaming fast enough.. I would love to have more up..  And would pay the extra for gig down if the up went up with it... But their current top plan is 1000/50 (at least in my area) - I don't need more down, I want more UP..  Serving up plex to friends and family need up bandwidth..  I don't see how anyone really could actually need gig down in the home to be honest.. That is a freaking lot of concurrent 4k streams ;)

Yeah, their upload is a joke, not sure if it's a network limitation, I'm pretty sure they're DOCSIS 3.1, so there shouldn't be an issue there. With security cameras, zoom meetings, work file uploads, that 50mbit gets bogged down pretty quick. 

3 minutes ago, shockz said:

Yeah, their upload is a joke, not sure if it's a network limitation, I'm pretty sure they're DOCSIS 3.1, so there shouldn't be an issue there. With security cameras, zoom meetings, work file uploads, that 50mbit gets bogged down pretty quick. 

It’s a limitation of their network. I don’t know any cable provider who can currently provide decent upload speeds with gigabit. 

18 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

And for 65 a month for 1000/1000, why not?

Yeah I would be all over that myself ;) 

 

But for like $80 for 1000/50 here - no thanks I will save the money, since 500 down is plenty... But yeah for gig/gig I would jump on that for sure!  Even at higher price..  But I don't have any options in the area for anything more up.. forget the down.. And they are way cheaper than comcast.. So just hoping for some sort of fiber option, etc.  The other good thing about wow is no data caps.. So yeah FU comcast ;)

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
    • Cjam 2.5.0.0 by Razvan Serea Cjam is a lightweight and fast MP3 editor for Windows that lets you cut, join, and edit MP3 files without re-encoding. This means your audio quality remains untouched, and edits happen instantly. Cjam is ideal for quick, lossless edits—whether you're trimming music, combining tracks, or preparing audio for learning tools or podcasts. It features batch processing, scripting support, cue and playlist file handling, and a simple interface. Cjam is perfect for anyone who needs efficient MP3 editing without the complexity of full audio suites. Cjam requires a PC running Windows 10 or later and Microsoft .NET 6.0 or later. Key features for Cjam: No Re-encoding: Edit MP3 files without losing quality. Cut and Join MP3: Easily cut, trim, and combine MP3 tracks. Batch Processing: Edit multiple files at once for faster workflows. Scriptable Interface: Automate tasks with a custom command language. Cue and Playlist Support: Handle CUE and playlist files for seamless audio management. Fast and Lightweight: Quick processing with minimal system resources. Lossless Audio Editing: Ensure your edits don't affect audio quality. Simple User Interface: Clean, intuitive design for easy navigation. File Format Support: Works with MP3, Cjam-specific file formats (CJAMC, CJAMJ, CJAM). Cjam 2.5.0.0 changelog: Added clipboard-based import/export support for mp3DirectCut Added clipboard-based export support for REAPER Added support for naming IMP3 elements Changed the Reset behavior to preserve Undo/Redo history; use Shift key + Reset button to clear it Added a new command parameter (qcp) Added 8 new entries to lang.txt (main_c124-126, main_d150-151, main_m082, vme_c014, vme_d005) Fixed a bug where the il parameter was incorrectly applied when pasting VMP3s into the main list Fixed several other minor bugs Download: Cjam 2.5.0.0 | 1.4 MB (Freeware) Links: Cjam Home Page | Cjam Manual | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      91
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!