How Fast is Your Computer???

[swingdjted]

My internet connection used to be DSL, which was less than 2 megs down, which was inadequate for HD video. I'm on a cable connection now at 8 megs down, which can stream full HD (1080p) without hesitation.

Widdy, your computer is quite strong in every way when it comes to the ability to be a media machine. You shouldn't notice any weaknesses if you're mostly interested in images/audio/video playback with that machine.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

personally i have 20 megabits down, 10 up, it's about what i really have a need for, it's a little more per month than it should be though $60, but i really couldn't stand living with any less at this point.

[Widdykats]

^ Good speed, you got it!

[fc*uk]

Widdy for reference as I've had a bit of time to look it up ... It looks like the bitrate commonly used for 1080p video lands between 4-5m/sec. So, as long as your Internet connection if faster than that.

For completeness, a raw 1080p video feed seems to be about 20-25m/sec, which is why no one streams raw video anymore...

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by fc*uk

For completeness, a raw 1080p video feed seems to be about 20-25m/sec, which is why no one streams raw video anymore...

hopefully anyway, i don't know much about streaming or encoding or all that, but i know raw video is one hell of a huge format.

[Widdykats]

Originally Posted by fc*uk

Widdy for reference as I've had a bit of time to look it up ... It looks like the bitrate commonly used for 1080p video lands between 4-5m/sec. So, as long as your Internet connection if faster than that.

For completeness, a raw 1080p video feed seems to be about 20-25m/sec, which is why no one streams raw video anymore...

Thanks for the information. I gather "RAW" , as TDM mentioned, is a format.

[swingdjted]

Try speedtest.net if you want to know what your connection speed is. Hopefully it is as good as they advertised to you or better. If not, call your provider and threaten to switch providers.

[Psythik]

Bow down to my fat pipe!



My upload speed is actually 20Mb (which I only achieve when torrenting), but SpeedTest's servers seem to choke around 10.

Oh, and to actually stay on topic, here are my specs:

Laptop (shitty specs, I know, but it was free)
ASUS U52F

• 2.9GHz Core i5 460m
• 4GB DDR3 1100 7-7-7-20
• Intel HD Graphics (ugh)
• 600GB 5200RPM HDD
• Win7 x64 Premium (discovered the other day that this edition automatically restarts your PC after updates; so fucking frustrating)

Desktop (ancient as fuck, but still runs BF3 on Medium @ 1920x1080)
Custom Built

• 3.42 GHz Core 2 Duo E8400 (OC'd from 3.0GHz)
• 4GB DDR2 960 5-5-5-16 1.95v (OC'd from 800MHz 5-5-5-18 1.8v)
• 1GB AMD HD 5770 960/1200 (OC'd from 850/1200; shame the VRAM on mine so unstable above 1200, cause it really bottlenecks the card. Jealous of those who can get theirs to 1400MHz)
• 2x 1TB WD EALS (RAID 0)
• 1x 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1
• Gigabyte X48-DS4 mobo
• Stock Realtek audio (stupid XONAR had to die on me; I miss that sound card)
• Corsair tx650w PSU
• NZXT Apollo copper mid tower
• Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 (CPU), Accelero S1 (GPU; had to mod it to fit)
• Win7 x64 Ultimate

[fc*uk]

@Widdy: raw is an uncompressed format. Kinda like shooting raw pics on an SLR camera. No
compression at all.

I've got a 10.1 MP nikon. If I shoot in raw, each pic is 10.1M. No compression; each pixel equals one byte.

A 1080p stream in raw is much the same ...

Sorry that's the best way I can explain it. It's not a format, yet it is. I guess another analogy would be an audio cd (wave file/raw) to a compressed format (mp3/mpeg4 [or mp4]). In each example it's (audio/video).

Sorry. iPhone. Only Internet I have. Movers come tomorrow. My wife and I head off Wednesday morning. Detroit to FL. Exited! Bloody subzero appliances in the place we are renting! OMG! Foodgasm!

[rockouthippie]

This is while I was watching a movie on Netflix and on wireless. It's 25/25 if I actually hook to the router with a wire. I could go up to 100mbps, but I think 25 is fine. It's not like most servers you're gonna use are gonna give up more than a few megabits anyway.

I used to have 5/5, which worked, but I could choke that pretty easy.

I think the deal in Portland right now for the average person is Clear 4G. It runs about 6, which is a little light, but it's wireless (over the entire metro area), unlimited and $50 a month.

I pay $100 for my fiber connection. That's a little steep.

[mike-db]

[fc*uk]

Sweet Mary Jesus, Mike ...

[deeder7001]

Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
Dell Inspiron 1545
Core 2 Duo T6500 2.10GHz
4.00 GB RAM

It does what I want it to do. Internet connection from a crappy Sprint connection from my Evo.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

i should strangle someone at frontier over getting about half the upload speed i'm paying for, but in all honesty, i couldn't give a shit less, most i ever let it upload is around 250kb/sec anyway.

also, RoH, which websites give even single megabit? i can't think of a single one....
well... maybe some private/personal ones, but no public ones that give you more than 700kb/s come to mind and most much less than that.

[mike-db]

Originally Posted by fc*uk

Sweet Mary Jesus, Mike ...

It's a bit disappointing eh?

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by mike-db

It's a bit disappointing eh?

not at all, then again, i'd be lying if i said i think it's possible you're paying anything under $100 a month as my guess, also 250GB/month cap? none for me

[Psythik]

Originally Posted by fc*uk

Sweet Mary Jesus, Mike ...

I know, right? His upload speed is horrendous!

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by Psythik

I know, right? His upload speed is horrendous!

upload speed? wait? people care about that?
i mean don't get me wrong you want something competent but either way even 500kb/s is more than i'll ever really have an actual use for.

[mike-db]

And yet this site takes forever to load.

[Widdykats]

^I thought that was just me....

[DrO]

it's an on going thing and some of us keep pestering about it especially as it's gotten worse again in the last 2 weeks - at least it's not like it was a month or 2 back when it took ages and timed out, at least the timeouts aren't happening now. main issue is from a lack of time on people already stretched with other projects (so just be glad that the forum loads at all).

it's worse when you're outside of the US so if you think it's bad, think of the issues us brits might be having...

-daz

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally Posted by mike-db

And for me:



Not bad for my middle of Boonies West Virginia.

[DrO]

hadn't thought mine was too bad though supposedly am getting a doubling of speeds by July 2013 at the latest (or so they say as part of a national upgrade).

-daz

[rockouthippie]

RoH, which websites give even single megabit?

Netflix needs about 4 for HD. Most video sites run unfettered briefly (to give the video a head start), so you might see 4 or so for a few seconds.

Godaddy cloud hosting will give up 2. I have dedicated servers for doing video hosting. I have those set to give up 2. Hulu gives up about 2.

For the backbones, they'll almost always give up 2, but 7 isn't out of the question.

This is a lot faster than it was even a year ago.

I've seen Internet Archive give up 7 or 8 and my connection to Oregon State sometimes runs full blast. I can get Ubuntu in 4 minutes on a good day.

You should check your router (probably the QoS) because Frontier really does give up it's advertised bandwidth. Try removing all the QoS settings. It seems like the combination of that and wireless slows it down. At least that's why my uplink speed was very low a while back.

A wire seems to give full blast not caring about QoS.

More bandwidth does help even if you don't get the whole tamale in a single socket. I almost never have a problem with Skype or VOIP, even if I am downloading stuff and watching movies.

I'd give Frontier high marks, but I wouldn't have when they took over from Verizon. Mainly the problem was overloaded nameservers. It looks like they fixed that though. I haven't had any problems lately. The big advantage is what you see here. They don't hand out uplink with a thimble.



I wouldn't like this. You really need 5 up regardless of what the downlink is. Do an upload and Skype somebody and you're clogged. That ping sure isn't what you'd want either.

I did my record upload this year. I uploaded 400GB in a session. Took a couple days. 4 uploads at a whack. Filled up a server faster than I would have thought was possible.

My connection was still usable while doing that. I know I will miss FIOS if I don't find it where I move. You might not know what you missed, but it is really good to have at least 5 for uplink. 10 is better.

The speed test above looks like what you get if you run a test on Comcast around here. At least for Comcast, it's misleading. They run hyper-fuk or something that gives you really fast bandwidth for a few seconds and then settles at about 6. This bandwidth shaping is a good thing, but it's not like having the real deal. It also suffers from 8PM problems from being overloaded by your neighbors. And add 30ms of ping compared to FIOS.

It's not hard to figure out why TDM and I went with FIOS. The fallen cable modem warriors have 30 extra ms to think about their demise.

If you can get FIOS, it's what you want. It looks like this Verizon experiment might largely be the end of FIOS for a while though. It proved too expensive to install and that most people didn't care and bought Comcast. Lacking a TV product seems to be a big deal.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by rockouthippie

It's not hard to figure out why TDM and I went with FIOS. The fallen cable modem warriors have 30 extra ms to think about their demise.

indeed, there are still some trolls who believe comcast is an ISP though.
and i assumed it goes without saying i'm using ethernet, i wouldn't rely on wireless for anything but my phone.

i should have guessed you meant for streaming video, even if i looked i doubt i could find any downloads over a megabit.

while we're on the topic of netflix, it was pretty pointless for me at least, took about 5-6 months for new episodes to get added after they had aired from what i could tell and i was never interested in the mail it back and forth crap, if they kept the same schedule as over the air or at least a day or two behind at worst i'd probably kept it, not only that a lot of the movies that got added were either ancient or just outright horrible B movies that were never shown in theaters anyway.

[AmandaM]

I bought my computer in 2005, it's outdated and working very badly.
Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
Intel Celeron 560 @ 2.13GHz

[Widdykats]

Well, you got here didn't ya'?

[Psythik]

Originally Posted by Too-DAMN-Much

upload speed? wait? people care about that?
i mean don't get me wrong you want something competent but either way even 500kb/s is more than i'll ever really have an actual use for.

Never uploaded anything to YouTube or Mediafire, share torrents, or ran a SHOUTcast station? Personally I'd go nuts if I was limited to 500Kb/s.

[Sabine Klare]

I have uploaded many music-videos in YouTube, the latest music-videos have 1920x1080 pixel, created with MAGIX Video Deluxe 17 Premium (the other music-videos were created with Windows Movie Maker). The biggest file-size of my WMV-Files is over 2 GB, and the upload-time in Google Chrome was over 9 hours. My Winamp-Milkdrop-Videos have very large file-sizes. But Winamp-Milkdrop-Videos are my life. This is my YouTube-Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sternenmaschinebine
Our WLAN-Router is 5 years old now. I don't know, how fast it is. Sometimes our router has to be rebooted (we have to turn it off for 5 minutes and then to turn it on again). Cable LAN works very fine, but Wireless LAN doesn't work for me, I don't know, why...
Greetings from Sabine Klare Aka Sternenmaschinebine

[rockouthippie]

Personally I'd go nuts if I was limited to 500Kb/s

Ditto. That isn't even enough to Skype well. I'd groan about anything less than 5 megabits. I think 1 megabit is about as low as a guy could go and have full use of the internet. That would be for one person using 1 computer. The other thing you have to consider is that if you saturate your connection in either direction, it slows both down both ways.

I get quite a bit of company sometimes too. It's not real uncommon to have a bunch of kids using my wifi. They don't get to do this at home. It's always a fight over choking the connection at home.

The biggest file-size of my WMV-Files is over 2 GB, and the upload-time in Google Chrome was over 9 hours.

On a bad day, that might take me a half hour. It's probably more like 20 minutes.

TDM... You are using fiber like me. Using a feebler connection... you wouldn't be happy. My brother uses Comcast. It sucks. Comes over sometimes and uploads a camera just because he didn't want it to take eternity.

That's another problem. When I had DSL and uploads took hours instead of minutes, more often than not, the connection would just screw up before you got the upload done.

I uploaded 400GB a couple months ago. It took a couple days. I think it would not only be too slow to upload 400GB, I don't think you could period. The longer a transaction takes, the more likely it is to malfunction.

I don't think you'd be able to keep an ftp session going for months. Your computer would crash, the internet would have a malfunction... something would stop you.

I remember 1.5/512 DSL. It was problematic to even upload 100MB files. Crash before done. Let's play it again Sam. Now if I upload something, I don't have to check that it really got there in one piece.

Speed is also reliability.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by Psythik

Never uploaded anything to YouTube or Mediafire, share torrents, or ran a SHOUTcast station? Personally I'd go nuts if I was limited to 500Kb/s.

i do actually, somewhat often as well but frankly uploading is a liability and something i avoid as much as possible, my vuze is set to automatically stop all torrents as soon as they complete and not seed back anything at all.

[rockouthippie]

I always found with torrents that if I didn't give, I didn't get. Not always, but it seems like a lot of the torrent clients push leechers to the back of the bus.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by rockouthippie

I always found with torrents that if I didn't give, I didn't get. Not always, but it seems like a lot of the torrent clients push leechers to the back of the bus.

not at all, if i can't max out my downstream or it takes too long to max it out, i'm already looking for a replacement, if you're using utorrent that would explain it however.

[rockouthippie]

I dunno. It just seems like there's enough content that I can just buy and not fiddle with the torrent sites. Pirate sites live in a bad neighborhood with porn sites. I'd just rather pay a couple bucks and not mess with it.

Netflix and Hulu Plus are good. I have a Netflix box. Redbox is good some times. Amazon has almost everything new for online rental.

I used to keep a few movies on the hard disk, but now days I never watch anything twice. There's always something else to watch.

[fc*uk]

Re: upload speeds

I'm actually just as concerned with what I can push back as I can pull down. I would love it if I could get about a 20M symmetrical line.

It's just the music. I download nearly as much as I upload and pass back between folks. Raw audio files are not small, as we are all aware ...

[rockouthippie]

Wow. For a couple days there I was at DSL speeds. It sucked.

[Warrior of the Light]

If the majority of the people would get more than a 15/15 Mbit connection, it'd change the internet into something we have never dreamed of.
I imagine it'd be more like a worldwide network I guess - sharing files online like I do now in my home network.

[. - .... .- -. ....]

Fastest internet connection in this CITY, and I am the only one using it at the moment. Count yourselves lucky

[Too-DAMN-Much]

Originally Posted by . - .... .- -. ....

Fastest internet connection in this CITY, and I am the only one using it at the moment. Count yourselves lucky

is it your phone as well?