Superhub : Shall I switch to superhub or not?

[boroboi]

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

lower constant jitter coupled with the ability to bond more channels

Prove it (jitter)

[RB2004]

Don't need to, lots of people on the R36 trial have already discovered the jitter reduction to be true.

They can't all be wrong!

[boroboi]

Originally Posted by RB2004

Don't need to, lots of people on the R36 trial have already discovered the jitter reduction to be true.

They can't all be wrong!

I wasn't disputing the reduction in jitter to be true, i was asking for proof that the reduction in jitter rivals and beats the VMNG300 as has been claimed...

[craigj2k12]

agree with modem mode outperforming, the fact it has wireless is irrelevant as theres still a tonne of bugs not to mention poor speeds, plus they will never fix range issues with the crappy positioned internal antannae

[boroboi]

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

agree with modem mode outperforming, the fact it has wireless is irrelevant as theres still a tonne of bugs not to mention poor speeds, plus they will never fix range issues with the crappy positioned internal antannae

Thanks for the undisputable comparative evidence between the two... there is truly no doubt what so ever

[adduxi]

Originally Posted by RB2004

....So even in normal mode it has become what is looking like a better device.. and in modem mode certainly now there is possibility it is outperforming the VMNG300 now that VM are starting to iron out the problems.

Sounds like a Harry Hill 'FIGHT' situation going on here .....

Yes, I agree some are reporting better, but also some are reporting not.
I think I will just sit tight and wait for the firmware to come out of beta and see how it shapes up.

I've never wanted or needed an "all in one" and still maintain my stance that Virginmedia should have provided (even at an extra one off cost) a solid reliable modern cable modem for those who want to maintain their own LAN side equipment.

Anyway, time to get off my soapbox!!

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by adduxi

Yes, I agree some are reporting better, but also some are reporting not.

exactly, you have hit the nail on the head. There has never been any consistancy; some shubs crash, some don't, wireless works fine for some, others it doesnt.

I don't care what people say, I am never going to use a shub till my poor VMNG300 dies (may it rest in peace) and I am forced to. Even if this revision of firmware does fix everything (which it doesnt), it is still too little too late.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by boroboi

Thanks for the undisputable comparative evidence between the two... there is truly no doubt what so ever

keep up you daft pillock

[boroboi]

Hearsay. Where is the hard proof?

Show me a ping graph comparing the VMNG300 and the Superhub in modem mode under R36 firmware. Like i said, i am not disputing it, simply asking for evidence, which isn't too hard is it?

I'm trying to determine whether it may be worth activating my Superhub, because Mark Wilkin will go ahead and update me if that is the case.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by boroboi

Hearsay. Where is the hard proof?

Show me a ping graph comparing the VMNG300 and the Superhub in modem mode under R36 firmware. Like i said, i am not disputing it, simply asking for evidence, which isn't too hard is it?

I'm trying to determine whether it may be worth activating my Superhub, because Mark Wilkin will go ahead and update me if that is the case.

Superhub R36 (ignore hump and packet loss - packet loss due to SNR, hump due to routing issue)



VMNG300 on 100mb:

seems all my VMNG TBB charts are gone!?! Dont know why it lets me go on previous days but doesnt show any data

[edit] never mind i was looking at the wrong IP, ignore the graph title this was using VMNG, you can see the "blocks" of low jitter the VMNG gives, compare this to the superhubs now steady graph

[boroboi]

Good stuff. Be interesting to see what happens with mine then on Monday... watch it go to poop and VM refuse to reactivate my vmng300 aha

[kwikbreaks]

Rather than comparing TBB charts has anybody done some real world tests and compared actual gaming performance rather than just artificial ping testing?

It occurs to me that prioritising ICMP within the router firmware could possibly give the appearance of better performance - a bit like the processor manufacturers were found to be doing some years back to make their chips look good in benchmarks.

[qasdfdsaq]

VM prioritise UDP (i.e. gaming data) on their network too.

[Eeeps]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Rather than comparing TBB charts has anybody done some real world tests and compared actual gaming performance rather than just artificial ping testing?

It occurs to me that prioritising ICMP within the router firmware could possibly give the appearance of better performance - a bit like the processor manufacturers were found to be doing some years back to make their chips look good in benchmarks.

That could assist with improvements in upstream latency (i.e if ICMP packets jumped the send queue) but can't impact the downstream.

The upstream can be tested if a large TCP upload is started and then ICMP packets sent during this. If the ICMP are really queue jumping then latency for these would stay low.

But I agree, real world gaming or voip comparisons would help.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Rather than comparing TBB charts has anybody done some real world tests and compared actual gaming performance rather than just artificial ping testing?

Cant really do that with 10% packet loss around the clock

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

It occurs to me that prioritising ICMP within the router firmware could possibly give the appearance of better performance - a bit like the processor manufacturers were found to be doing some years back to make their chips look good in benchmarks.

Im in modem mode using my own router (the same on as before the beta)