Does higher line speed = lower latency?

Moonfruit

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Location
Dark Side Of The Moon
Hi all

Just wondering, is there a big difference in international gaming latency (especially World of Warcraft) when upgrading from 2mbps to 4/10mbps? I'm currently running at 174ms on my 2mbps line, but was considering upgrading if it would bring it down even lower.

I remember back in the old days jumping from 512kbps to 4mbps dropped the latency from 900ms+ to around 500ms, so just wondering if it's still applicable these days?

Thanks :)
 
Hi all

Just wondering, is there a big difference in international gaming latency (especially World of Warcraft) when upgrading from 2mbps to 4/10mbps? I'm currently running at 174ms on my 2mbps line, but was considering upgrading if it would bring it down even lower.

I remember back in the old days jumping from 512kbps to 4mbps dropped the latency from 900ms+ to around 500ms, so just wondering if it's still applicable these days?

Thanks :)

Nope. And impossible. There's a limit to the speed of light. You're lucky you're getting 174ms. That's damn low already.
 
Off Topic: Which ISP are you with that you're getting those kinds of latencies? I would really like to have a reliable ping of under 200.

On topic: 2mb-4mb just increases your throughput. It makes your pipe fatter, not faster. It will be faster to download your WoW updates for sure of course, but wouldn't ordinarily decrease your ping.
 
As a postgraduate IT student I'm well aware of the theory behind it all, however as stated the main reason I asked was because back in the day, increasing my line speed almost halved my latency. Although in hindsight, perhaps my 512kb line was too slow to process all the gaming data and as a result my latency was unbearably high.

Markd: I'm using a 50GB Vox fatpipe ADSL account, and am very happy with it for the price/performance ratio :)
 
As a postgraduate IT student I'm well aware of the theory behind it all, however as stated the main reason I asked was because back in the day, increasing my line speed almost halved my latency. Although in hindsight, perhaps my 512kb line was too slow to process all the gaming data and as a result my latency was unbearably high.

Markd: I'm using a 50GB Vox fatpipe ADSL account, and am very happy with it for the price/performance ratio :)

Well maybe it has to do with the round trip.. remember u need to send a request to receive one. If your upload was hampered by something, then I can understand.. But like everyone else say.. latency is not effected by speed.

But depends what u use to measure latency too. The game itself ?

512kb line had a terrible upload speed :)
 
Last edited:
Technically the means of connection (ADSL) defines your latency, so it will be the same across the board of speeds on a pure ping test.

However in game if you don't have enough bandwidth to actually send all the data back and forth or you have packet loss then it might present itself as higher latency. This however shouldn't be a problem on 2MB...but like Varksteaks said the upload might be the real limiter which means your problem won't change even on a 4MB.
 
During the first few years of WoW, you could easily play on a 512kbps line without experiencing any type op congestion (resulting in lag spikes). I started off playing on a 56kbps dial-up modem, and everything would be fine up to the point where more than 20 people appeared in my screen. My low bandwidth would become the bottleneck, and the latency would spike to 5-10k ms until I managed to run to a quiet area.

Later on, we used to play 2 people on a 384kbps line in a 40-person raid, without any latency at all. Even Alterac Valley with 80 people in it provided no noticeable latency increase.

But, I remember WoW got a new network setting at some point a couple of years ago, where you have the option of it spamming packets to the server at a much higher rate than was previously allowed, which increased the responsiveness of the game and reduced the latency slightly. Perhaps this would have killed a 512kbps line? This setting is enabled by default now. I can't remember what it is called, but if you dig around your WoW network settings, you should see it.

I know there was also a trick of playing with a windows registry entry to disable or modify a parameter in the TCP windowing algorithm, which could have improved latency but caused instability when downloading data. It had something to do with ACKing each TCP packet, as opposed to waiting for two or more before ACKing.

Lastly, there were services like Smoothping, that tunnelled all your WoW packets over SSH, which has precedence over normal internet traffic. This, in the past, gave a solid latency of just under 200ms where normally I got around 300-320ms - I have no idea how effective this is nowadays.

So, in short, you'll only have a better latency on a 4mbps line if your 512kbps line was congested, either by that "new" WoW network setting, or some background process in Windows causing crap, but typically the latency should be exactly the same.
 
On my lines I got

2Meg = 190ms average
4Meg = 190ms average

From 512 to 1meg to 2meg you saw an improvement but that stopped at a 2meg line for myself.

p.s same IP across the board.
 
TL;DR:
Line speed will only affect latency if your line is maxing out either on the downstream or upstream as the packets need to queue up first before they are sent.
 
For what it's worth, your geographical location will have a more significant impact, since latency is largely influenced by distance (provided that, as other posters have stated, the line isn't being maxed out). I'm based in Cape Town, with my international packets going out through IS to either SAT-3 or WACS (uncertain of which West Coast cable system they use, but probably WACS these days) and have noticed latencies of ~165ms before, though ~180ms is more common. Inland people will see higher latencies as their packets have to travel to a coastal landing station. (I also believe that latencies through SEACOM will be higher as the physical distance is further, though I stand to be corrected here -- ideally, in Durban that a) has international going through SEACOM and b) has a domestic route that goes straight from Durban to Mtunzini without going via Johannesburg should post their findings.)

That said, all of the above should only add 20ms-50ms on anyway.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X