Ping Time vs Bandwidth?

[Pudgie]

Hi All,

Asking the community here................

When it comes to the better indicator of a fast and stable connection w\ emphasis on stable...., which is the better one to use to measure this by?

Lower Ping Time or Higher Bandwidth.

Appreciate any info given...........

 

[The Fugitive]

I would say neither. Bandwidth doesn't matter, you can play with dial up still. And pings, a steady 100 is better than a ping that jumps from 25-150 and back a bunch a times a minute.

In a nut shell, a steady ping on any connection is what your looking for.

[BoilerDown]

Zero packet loss is most important.  Second would be lowest ping, but higher bandwidth connections usually have lower pings anyways.

[Skuzzy]

Zero packet loss is most important.  Second would be lowest ping, but higher bandwidth connections usually have lower pings anyways.

For Aces High, by priority.

1) Consistency in latency.
2) Zero Packet Loss.
3) Ping rate.

The game can handle a little packet loss.  It is not ideal and will show up in high speed maneuvers, but there is smoothing code to handle the occasional dropped or untimely packet.

[Pudgie]

Thanks all for the replies...................

Much appreciated.

Just so all know, this Gigabyte GA-AX370 Gaming K5 mobo is equipped w\ an Intel LAN in which Gigabyte also supplied cFoss Internet Traffic Shaping software to use w\ it (yes I know the pros & cons of using such software but from past experience cFoss works very well w\ Intel LAN chips so I am using it to run this specific test as I couldn't identify any settings in my Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router to test this out in hardware. One day I'll grow up & get a GOOD ADSL modem\router where all this can be setup in hardware.............). Besides, Intel LAN DSP's are known for their operational stability (which is 1 of the main reasons why I went \w this K5 mobo.....choosing between BF Killer or Intel where LAN's are concerned, I'll take Intel every time). Also of all the "internet enhancing software" out there, cFoss is the best at delivering tangible, reliable results from a software perspective IMHO.

 

I ran this test w\ cFoss set to favor ping time (optimize ping time at expense of bandwidth) and set to favor bandwidth (optimize bandwidth at expense of ping time). Then ran AHIII to test this out then after each run pull up the cFoss traffic recorder to see the results..........

The results showed that the setting favoring bandwidth on my system configuration (computer\router\modem\ADSL service) gave me the most consistent, smooth & stable connection thruout vs setting favoring ping time. As had also been suggested, when using the setting favoring bandwidth the recorded ping times were consistently averaging lower overall vs favoring ping time.

In short my results showed to follow what Skuzzy posted as preferred order of importance: 1. consistency in latency, 2. 0 packet loss, 3. ping time.

The only time I saw any signs of packet loss was when I was running favoring ping time......never saw 1 instance of packet loss while running favoring bandwidth. Could this be a coincidence? Maybe, but I think I ran enough consecutive gaming sessions using each setting to effectively rule this out for my particular setup, operating parameters\conditions and ADSL service\Internet routing to\from AHIII servers.

This may also be a result of CenturyLink upgrading their local DSLAM equipment here where I live (had a CenturyLink line tech tell me that they were in process of doing this on a service call when Mrs Pudgie called them out due to their system dropping us out messing w\ her Facebook usage. When he saw my setup he also let me know that he was a gamer as well and he would do some tweaking on my behalf to help my connection out at the DSLAM that services my line.....). I do know that our connection from the house to the DSLAM got a lot better after talking w\ this tech..........

Wanted to get some consensus on the best methodology to apply as I know there are others that frequent this BBS that are more knowledgeable than I.

Thanks again!

 

[Vulcan]

Thanks all for the replies...................

Much appreciated.

Just so all know, this Gigabyte GA-AX370 Gaming K5 mobo is equipped w\ an Intel LAN in which Gigabyte also supplied cFoss Internet Traffic Shaping software to use w\ it (yes I know the pros & cons of using such software but from past experience cFoss works very well w\ Intel LAN chips so I am using it to run this specific test as I couldn't identify any settings in my Netgear Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router to test this out in hardware. One day I'll grow up & get a GOOD ADSL modem\router where all this can be setup in hardware.............). Besides, Intel LAN DSP's are known for their operational stability (which is 1 of the main reasons why I went \w this K5 mobo.....choosing between BF Killer or Intel where LAN's are concerned, I'll take Intel every time). Also of all the "internet enhancing software" out there, cFoss is the best at delivering tangible, reliable results from a software perspective IMHO.

Any game enhancing network drivers for a PC is horse do dah. The best it can do is mark the traffic with QoS flags - and then you are at the mercy of everything upstream.Yes intel NICs are good, Killer NICS are snake oil - and the 'enhancement' software for both is snakeoil.

[Rodent57]

I would say neither. Bandwidth doesn't matter, you can play with dial up still. And pings, a steady 100 is better than a ping that jumps from 25-150 and back a bunch a times a minute.

In a nut shell, a steady ping on any connection is what your looking for.

So, are you saying I could use a combo of dial-up and satellite and NOT have detrimental affects on game play?  (Serious question since we are also house hunting and to date, I've steadfastly vetoed any house that does not have high end cable.  Have seen too many folks through the years who have the mystical warping as a norm...and they've all said they are playing on 'Satellite')>

thx,

-Rodent57

[Pudgie]

Any game enhancing network drivers for a PC is horse do dah. The best it can do is mark the traffic with QoS flags - and then you are at the mercy of everything upstream.Yes intel NICs are good, Killer NICS are snake oil - and the 'enhancement' software for both is snakeoil.

Hi Vulcan,

So.......what you're saying here is that these softwares are no better\different than using QoS settings in a router, yes?

In the meantime I've removed cFoss to check this out. I do not have QoS enabled in my Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router.

 

[The Fugitive]

So, are you saying I could use a combo of dial-up and satellite and NOT have detrimental affects on game play?  (Serious question since we are also house hunting and to date, I've steadfastly vetoed any house that does not have high end cable.  Have seen too many folks through the years who have the mystical warping as a norm...and they've all said they are playing on 'Satellite')>

thx,

-Rodent57

Dial up yes, satellite no. As long as the dial up was stable. Satellite is NOT wired and so is more prone to dropping packets. Picture satellite TV when there is a storm, satellite internet is the same thing. 

[Skuzzy]

Any game enhancing network drivers for a PC is horse do dah. The best it can do is mark the traffic with QoS flags - and then you are at the mercy of everything upstream.Yes intel NICs are good, Killer NICS are snake oil - and the 'enhancement' software for both is snakeoil.

Quoted for truth.

So, are you saying I could use a combo of dial-up and satellite and NOT have detrimental affects on game play?  (Serious question since we are also house hunting and to date, I've steadfastly vetoed any house that does not have high end cable.  Have seen too many folks through the years who have the mystical warping as a norm...and they've all said they are playing on 'Satellite')>

Dial-up is much better than satellite.  Aside from the packet loss a satellite connection will suffer from, there is horrific latencies.  I have seen latencies up to 3 seconds using satellite connections.  It is no different from sending a packet around the world, twice, before it can get next door, only with the potential of higher packet loss rates.

[Eagler]

what should I point ping plotter to these days for the main arena?

thanks

[Skuzzy]

The IP addresses for the arenas are always listed here.

[Eagler]

thank you Skuzzy

[Vulcan]

Hi Vulcan,

So.......what you're saying here is that these softwares are no better\different than using QoS settings in a router, yes?

In the meantime I've removed cFoss to check this out. I do not have QoS enabled in my Nighthawk AC1900 ADSL modem\router.

 

Correct, such software does not take into account any other network activity let alone many other external influences on traffic. They are a waste of CPU cycles . And home routers do not have the horse power to proper QoS either. If the router is under such light load QoS is possible then QoS is not needed, if QoS is really needed then the router is likely under heavy load and unable to do QoS properly.

[Skuzzy]

That is one of the first things I do when I setup a computer.  Completely disable Windows QoS.  It just adds overhead.