200Mb/s vs 85Mb/s Powerline adapters

Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2007
Posts
8,944
Location
Manchester
Hi all,

I’m thinking of going down the Windows Home Server route in a few months time. I want to back up to it, use it as a media server and a general repository for all our stuff.

Anyway, currently the whole house connects with a wireless g router. This is fine for the moment, but when I install the server wireless g is neither going to be fast nor reliable enough for what I want to use it for. I’ve already tested streaming a video file from the PC to the PS3 and to be honest it works alright, but it does have the occasional stutter every 10 minutes or so which makes it unacceptable.

So, seeing as I don’t want a wireless n router nor lay Ethernet cable all over the house, the solution I’m looking into is Ethernet over powerline. The question is – which adapters do I go for?

Ocuk sell 200Mb/s Netgear adapters but I’m limited to a 10/100 router. Plus, isn’t the “200Mb/s” just a swizz referring to full duplex and that you will only ever get a maximum of 100Mb/s in one direction (they only have a 10/100 interface)? Netgear also sell 85Mb/s adapters – would I be better off buying these for almost half the price?

I suppose the question boils down to am I going to see a significant real world difference between the two?

Cheers guys, and please correct me if I'm wrong or have overlooked anything.
 
The short answer is yes there is an appreciable difference.

Like wireless technology, the actual throughput seen is always much less then the stated 'theoretical'.. And crucially they don't connect at the maximum speed in most circumstances.

I have both type of powerline adapters, and my results seem inline with other people I know who have them

I'd get anywhere from 2 - 5MBytes/sec transfer rate over a network (SMB/FTP) with the 85Mbps plugs.
And 6 - 12MBytes/sec with the 200Mbps powerline adapters.

In contrast 54G wireless, I've never seen over 3.5MBytes/sec, and using 'N' I've never seen more then 6MBytes/sec in my house.

It's all largely dependant on your installation, but the powerline adapters do seem to be supremely reliable...
 
I've got 5 of the 200mb Netgears (HDX101) and mine vary from 28bmps to 62mbps across two rings. Had them for 3 years running 24/7 and they are excellent - I'll never go back to wireless.
 
I use the 200Mb for streaming to my PS3 and it can happily steam 1080p with no stuttering whatsoever. I tried wireless before and had the same experience as you so I'd never go back now.

I use the Solwise plugs, only complaint I have is that they are very expensive but luckilly I only need to network a small flat so it's Ok!
 
I'd get anywhere from 2 - 5MBytes/sec transfer rate over a network (SMB/FTP) with the 85Mbps plugs.
And 6 - 12MBytes/sec with the 200Mbps powerline adapters.


I know most of the "200mbps" are quote the full duplex speed so 12MB/s is pretty much full speed. Is this the same with the 85Mb in that it's actually 42.5mbs full duplex? If so, 5MB/s is still pretty good going.
 
I've got 5 of the 200mb Netgears (HDX101) and mine vary from 28bmps to 62mbps across two rings. Had them for 3 years running 24/7 and they are excellent - I'll never go back to wireless.

Do you mean 2 independent ring circuits connected only at the consumer unit?
 
I have just recently got a 200Mbps zyxel kit. Streams blu-ray content over powerline with no stuttering at all. was getting about 6 megabytes per second when transferring files - this was over two separate rings. great stuff, will probably get more if i decide to use the loft too :)
 
I know most of the "200mbps" are quote the full duplex speed so 12MB/s is pretty much full speed. Is this the same with the 85Mb in that it's actually 42.5mbs full duplex? If so, 5MB/s is still pretty good going.

Not sure anyone can get 12MB on the 200mbps. Or the full 85mbps.

Both the 85mbps and 200mbps are half-duplex AND thats the RAW rate with signalling. The application data rate on the 200's is more like 75mbps useable while the 85 mbps is around 45 mbps not sure on them as I only have the 200s.

Dont believe the specs.
 
Cheers for the replies guys, particularly the ones who have/have used both - that's exactly what I needed to know. Looks like I'll be going for the 200mbps adapters. They're a bit pricey but its false economy going for the 85s.

Thanks. :)
 
If Demon is getting up to 12MB/s then isn't that close to 100Mb/s?
Another thing that people forget..... if the disk throughput is not up to scratch then it's going to appear that the network it running slower. I've got a pair of Linksys 200Mb/s unit coming (should be here tomorrow). I'll try pulling from my RAID5 to my RAID0 machine and see how high I can get the data moving to prove if single disks are a bottle neck or not.
 
I believe 12.5MB/s is there or thereabout the top speed you can get on a 100mbps connection including overheads so yeah, it sound like it's running as fast as possible.

In regards to disk performance it shouldn't be a factor on a Fast Ethernet network, but you can experiment and post the numbers nontheless out of interest.
 
I've just done a quick check, and the issue I have is my FTP client must be showing me File Throughput speeds (inc compression) as I get differing results for 1Gb of mixed files then I do for a 5Gb ISO...

Here's the results
1Gb Mixed files (FTP, 5 connections)
Min 1.5 MBytes/sec
Av: 6.1 MBytes/sec
Max: 11.4MBytes/sec

5Gb ISO
Min: 5.4Mbytes/sec
Avg: 6.8MBytes/sec
Max: 7.2MBytes/sec

My other powerline adapter is further away, and averages 4.8 MBytes per sec for the ISO..

I can't test the 85Mbps at the moment, they are in a cupboard, as I didn't want to 'mix' them on the mains..
 
I've just done a quick check, and the issue I have is my FTP client must be showing me File Throughput speeds (inc compression) as I get differing results for 1Gb of mixed files then I do for a 5Gb ISO...

Here's the results
1Gb Mixed files (FTP, 5 connections)
Min 1.5 MBytes/sec
Av: 6.1 MBytes/sec
Max: 11.4MBytes/sec

5Gb ISO
Min: 5.4Mbytes/sec
Avg: 6.8MBytes/sec
Max: 7.2MBytes/sec

My other powerline adapter is further away, and averages 4.8 MBytes per sec for the ISO..

I can't test the 85Mbps at the moment, they are in a cupboard, as I didn't want to 'mix' them on the mains..

What FTP client are you using ?
 
Well I said I'd report back and initally I'm ****** off.
The 200mb unit is connecting at 24mb and giving a throughput of around 3mb or 300KB/s. I've just done the latest firmware update as that it supposed to increase throughput. Either I've got a duff set, or the wiring in this house is THAT bad.

Looks like the old faithful CAT6 and drill is coming out.
 
I find the homeplug software is very unreliable when reporting connection speeds, different versions give very different throughput, monitoring is much more reliable even task manager > network tab.

Household wiring can be very variable, my worst connection reports as 20% of 100 mbps, roughly 2.5-3 MBps.

using 200 AV units rather than 85 units increased that locations speeds from the low teens

I would deffiantely use 200 AV units if you want streaming (they have robust quality of service) and the costs are getting very similar if you look hard for twin packs

Internet and gaming are fine over 85 mbpsby the way and the designs are 'mature'
 
Well £10 for 12m of CAT6 and 2 plugs sorted me out. Pulling from the RAID5 to the HTPC shows up to 500mbs so I'm happy.

The powerlines will be going on the members market in the next day or 2 to get back some of the money I paid. They are bound to work better for someone else whose wiring doesn't pre-date WWII!!
 
I am thinking of investing in powerline and after reading this thread, I have decided to go for the 200mbps ones.

BUT, what make shall I go for?

Same question here please.

Also with regards to transfer rates etc, how do these affect high speed broadband like 20meg and 50meg. Do they throttle downloads?
 
well oc only sell a limited range so nobodies going to be able to say much, just be clear which powerline technology you are buying ans stick with it, the generic units are cheap but tend to be less reliable
 
Back
Top Bottom