There are routers designed to achieve speeds near 1Gbps per LAN Ethernet port.
There are routers designed to achieve speeds near 1Gbps per LAN Ethernet port.
My old router isn’t working well anymore. It struggles to handle traffic even at 200Mbps, despite having a 1Gbps connection. When I connect the fiber cable to the router’s Ethernet port and link directly to the ISP, I see speeds around 920Mbps download and 410Mbps upload. I need a setup that lets another computer (like an HTPC) stay online even when my main PC is off. That means a router capable of delivering close to 1Gbps on its Ethernet ports. I’m not planning any advanced features—no Wi-Fi, no NAS, just a simple switch. I want it to handle multiple connections without overloading the CPU. I’m looking for recommendations of routers that fit these needs and cost around $50–60. I’ve seen some models like the Ubiquiti EdgeRouter ER-X, MikroTik RB760iGS, and others, but I’d like to know if they can support real 1Gbps per port. Would any of these be suitable? I’m also checking local stores for more options, though it might take longer since they’re not in stock.
Greetings, I'm using the ER-12, an Edgerouter with 12 ports and passive PoE support. Until now, I've only faced minor limitations due to my 1GB ports. The site claims it supports up to 8Gbps switching capacity, but I think that's about the switching power. Ports 8 through 12 are dedicated interfaces and should each manage 1GB. Plus, I've set port 11 with an SFP to connect directly to my ISP fiber without using their equipment—though it did cause some problems with my routed TV, but overall it's worked fine.
A router capable of gigabit speeds should suffice… though it probably won’t handle gigabit on every connection simultaneously. What matters is the capacity to draw gigabit from the internet and distribute it across all connected devices. When only one device is downloading, it receives full speed. With two devices, each would get around 500mbps, assuming both sources are equally fast and your connection is saturated. You don’t require a premium router for this setup. Regarding Wi-Fi, it makes sense to let mobile devices enjoy fast LAN speeds. I’d definitely connect your gadgets via Wi-Fi. Avoid plugging directly into the modem; that opens you up to security risks since it lacks protection and port restrictions. Essentially, you risk exposing your system to vulnerabilities because Windows isn’t designed for unsecured networks. Moving on, I’ve found good results with Google Wi-Fi—it’s straightforward and often reliable in my experience. Even with a 500mbps connection, it easily exceeds that limit, especially if gigabit speeds become available. Adding a gigabit switch would be ideal, though you’ll need a router for security and management. A switch isn’t meant for external internet access; it’s best suited for internal networks only. Ubiquity Certify is an option, but it may just add complexity without clear benefits. For most users, a standard router with a decent Ethernet cable (like Cat 5e) should suffice. I’ve used Google Wi-Fi in four different setups and seen consistent performance. Spreading a few of their access points around your home can significantly improve coverage thanks to their mesh technology.
Several entry-level routers, regardless of price, struggle with 1Gb/s WAN speeds. Initially, my Verizon FiOS Quantum router caused problems, so I switched to a Netgear model near $300 that handled about 650Mb/s before its CPU ran out. Returning to the Quantum version improved performance to around 950/950Mb/s. The newer versions they advertised should perform much better.
Give me a shipping address and I'll send you the devices to get them on wifi, then.
I checked the information on that page and found similar results. It suggests that both consumer and professional devices can handle wired networks effectively. However, the article implies that if speeds were consistently dropping, it might point to older router hardware or poor Ethernet cabling rather than a lack of overall performance. I agree that broader availability usually benefits more users, but it’s not necessarily about individual gains. What do you think?
Is there a hidden punchline here I’m overlooking? Why buy fast internet just to keep most of your gadgets stuck on slow cell data? Wouldn’t you prefer tablets, streaming services, Roku, smart TVs, laptops, or other computers instead? I’d hate to be limited to watching over the LAN to my phone with Plex.
It was just a joke. I was talking about your previous comment: "I would definitely get your devices on Wifi…" In my mind, the router’s gigabit claim matched its performance. Still, others reported different results. Some claimed insufficient speed due to the limited CPU in consumer routers. A few forum members even questioned whether a 750MHz processor could reach close to 1Gbps. Despite showing them a screenshot of my wired download speeds, which exceeded 900Mbps, they still doubted stable 1Gbps connections on multiple devices. Honestly, I don’t see the need for such high performance unless you have more demanding tasks like gaming or streaming. For basic use, an entry-level router from Ubiquiti or MikroTek might suffice.
Oh, I understand. Play on words… But, no, you won’t ever get concurrent gigabit streams. Your ISP delivers you a 1gbps pipe, that has to flow all to your house through it, it’s not 1gbps per device….. no consumer grade router would be able to support that, that is correct, but your ISP is not providing that, you would need much faster internet (and a much better modem) for this. The router is going to take your 1 gbps connection and split it up between all devices connected. If only 1 device is really doing much, it’ll get all the bandwidth. If 5 are, then each will get ~200 mbps, etc. Google Wifi really is a simple setup, you instal the app on your phone and it mostly just works. I have recommended it to many people and have never had anyone have issues.
Mobile suffices for simple web browsing on a phone today. At home I don’t require much more. For videos or streams I prefer larger screens connected to powerful devices, not pocket-sized ones that can overheat during extended use. We don’t use those services often here (Eastern Europe). Personally, I find phone screens too small and the overheating issues make it a poor viewing experience. For content, big screens are ideal. I’d only use phones outdoors when access is necessary.