LAN port speed on Expensive vs Cheap router
LAN port speed on Expensive vs Cheap router
I’m preparing to upgrade my router to ensure my wired devices can take full advantage of the 1000Mbps connection. I’m focusing on models with 10/100/1000M LAN ports, but I’m curious if some perform better than others or if a higher price only boosts wireless speeds. My main aim is a strong wireless setup for my small apartment until I move into a new home where I’ll set up a wired Wi-Fi mesh network. This isn’t just about general functionality—it’s about meeting the needs of my current NAS and multiple devices.
LAN should function properly, though gigabit WAN might not actually deliver gigabytes. I used to have a router with gigabit WAN/LAN, but the highest speed I achieved was below 200 Mbits. Now it’s much better; even budget models support speeds up to 700 Mbits. However... For a truly strong internet connection, invest in a quality router with a fast processor and the ability to manage many simultaneous connections. If you need a swift LAN, choose a switch capable of handling several gigabytes using just one gigabit port.
The router with gigabit ports should easily support at least 1Gbps. Most of the cost you see is for wireless features, but the Wi-Fi market is often full of misleading claims and branding to give you an impression of quality. I don’t believe there’s a significant performance gap between a $80 Linksys router and a $300 NETGEAR gaming high-performance model with advanced features. Probably just a lot of marketing hype. If you need coverage everywhere, consider separate access points or a mesh network.
There are noticeable performance variations. Affordable routers may freeze under heavy connections or slow down when multiple devices share the LAN port. This explains why more expensive models cost more—not just for WiFi, but for reliability and stability. @shoutingsteve: pick a router that matches your needs, just like you would choose a computer. Consider what you plan to use it for. For instance, Linksys and many budget Cisco models prevent external Wake on LAN, yet they perform well in regular tasks. You might overlook that these options still exist. Other brands require telnet for ARP binding, which can reset settings after a restart or power outage (like Netgear). Some are overrated with many features that often malfunction or accumulate unresolved bugs, even with frequent firmware updates (Asus is an example). TP-Links offers strong built-in ARP binding, but cheaper versions have limited port-forwarding entries and weaker Wi-Fi coverage compared to Asus or Netgear at similar prices.
typically the side that switches power remains consistent, making it simple for the switch engine. the key factor lies in the routing. connecting PC1 through a cable to PC2 should deliver maximum performance throughout the day on any budget equipment. for wifi, handling multiple users, strong features, and fast wan connections is where real distinctions appear.
It's inaccurate to say most consumer routers support 1Gbps speeds.
Review the router test chart here: https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/old-tool...wan-to-lan
Most home routers struggle with high speeds, usually limiting themselves to around 400-500mbps. This happens because of built-in firewalls and overworked CPUs. Turning off the firewall often unlocks faster performance. Poor CPUs in consumer gadgets can't manage the basic rules needed for a gig.