Home Internet Speed - 200, 400, 800mbps. Can we really tell the difference?

[ShokWaveRider]

This year I cut my cable and increased my Internet speed from 400mbps to 800mbps. I am not sure I can tell the difference. I upgraded my Modem and Router, and the OKLA speed test shows a consistent 945mbps.

I do a lot of downloading of Movies and TV Series, DW does a lot of YouTube probably averaging total around 700gb a month.

My internet usage other than that is what one would expect from an active user.

I am tempted to downgrade to 200mbps to test it out but thought I would ask the folks here if they have any real-world experience.

We always want to get the fastest possible, it is in a techie's nature to "think" faster is better.

Any input would be appreciated.

 

[Car-Guy]

Not much choice here... ~15 Mbps dsl. Which is fine for browsing and streaming.

 

[qwerty3656]

Most people wouldn't notice the difference between 200 and 400 - the sites you are accessing are not transferring data at those speeds. Like Car-Guy said, for surfing the web, 15 is enough.

 

[fosterscik]

Not quite what you asked but I use a 300 Mbps fiber link and have no trouble streaming video/movies etc. The only time I see any buffering stuttering issues is when I use a VPN site in the UK to stream BBC Iplayer content. I suspect the problem is not my connection but the server in the UK.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Not quite what you asked but I use a 300 Mbps fiber link and have no trouble streaming video/movies etc. The only time I see any buffering stuttering issues is when I use a VPN site in the UK to stream BBC Iplayer content. I suspect the problem is not my connection but the server in the UK.

I use a VPN and a VmWare Virtual Machine most of my activity, so that is a good point.

 

[folivier]

I have about 18 DSL at the cabin and over 500 cable at the condo. Both work well for watching tv and internet usage. But at the cabin it slows down considerably when more than 2 are using it.
But if you downgrade will your monthly usage be capped at a lower level?

 

[bloom2708]

You would notice it with multiple people working from home, streaming TV etc.

If there are just 2 of you and you aren't working from home, 200 is likely plenty.

We noticed 200 vs 800 when we were working from home, kids schooling from home, streaming at the same time.

Many times they lower the upload speed in notches when you lower the download speed, so also look at the upload/download combination.

You can always move back up if you move down.

Also a good mesh router can increase speeds around the house and make it feel faster with less lag or signal issues.

 

[Qs Laptop]

This year I cut my cable and increased my Internet speed from 400mbps to 800mbps. I am not sure I can tell the difference. I upgraded my Modem and Router, and the OKLA speed test shows a consistent 945mbps.

I do a lot of downloading of Movies and TV Series, DW does a lot of YouTube probably averaging total around 700gb a month.

My internet usage other than that is what one would expect from an active user.

I am tempted to downgrade to 200mbps to test it out but thought I would ask the folks here if they have any real-world experience.

We always want to get the fastest possible, it is in a techie's nature to "think" faster is better.

Any input would be appreciated.

I don't recall--do you have high speed cable internet access or do you have fiber?

If you have cable internet access you can be subject to the "loading" effect. This means when several neighbors are sharing the same cable junction box for internet access and are heavily using the internet, it will slow down everyone's download speeds.

If you are downloading 700GB+ content you will be extremely disappointed in 200Mbps download speeds. Unless you are the type to download something and then go do something for a while as you wait for the content to finish, then you might be OK with 200Mbps.

Do this--next time you download something that is, say, 5GB, time how long it takes to download. Then take that time and multiply it by 5X to get your speeds if you were to downgrade to 200Mbps.

Realize you're probably not getting the advertised rate when you download dense content like 4K video files.

15Mbps is the bare minimum for streaming 4K content. With two TVs watching 4K content on a 15Mbps connection you'll likely have buffering issues.

I recently went from 130Mbps to 800 Mbps and I can tell the difference. Not mind bending blazingly faster but noticeable. I don't download much though, and certainly not files over a GB.

How much money are we talking about saving? $20 a month? $25? Blow that dough...

 

[pb4uski]

We ususally go with the lowest speed offered which is ususally the cheapest. We regularly stream movies (no downloading movies) and even 30 mbps has worked fine for us in the past.

Luckily, the speed for the cheapest offering has increased faster than our needs have increased.

We currently have 200 mbps service (just tested at 223 mbps) and it costs us $50/month ($85/month less $35 promotional discount).

I am curious why one would bother to download video when streaming is so ubiquitous these days?

 

[W2R]

I can definitely tell the difference. I have 445 mbps this morning and I'm glad I don't still have the ~200 mbps service I used to get. To me, it's worth paying for speed because I spend a lot of time on the internet. So, I value access to good internet speed more than I value, say, a concert and/or new clothes.

It's all a matter of knowing what you really want, and going for that instead of for something you think you should want (but actually don't).

 

[aja8888]

New home (closed 9/12/2023)

Installed 1 GB Fiber right to the house.

Modem/router is in the family room, 12 feet from the big TV.

New Amazon 4K Fire Stick - last night, watching the football game on Prime, I had buffering issues and a fuzzy screen sometimes. Bad Fire Stick?

Speed test shows greater than 500 MB down and up on wireless.

Who knows?

 

[Sunset]

We have 100 and can't see any issues with both using computers for surfing at the same time.
We stream netflix at 1K and never see an issue on 1 tv.

I think unless you are on a special site, the downloads are throttled by the server being accesssed, I just tried downloading a new version of Ubuntu (OS) and it was coming in at 8.9 Mb/s far below our download ability.

It's just a waste of money for speeds over 100 , in my experience.
Actually I wanted 50, but 100 was the cheapest offered by my ISP...

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I think I am convinced. I will stick with 800 for now. Thanks.

 

[Sunset]

Remember to upgrade the router and modem and cables once the speed gets up really high, as they will cap the actual speed, even if a person pays for more, since they have upper limits/ability.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Remember to upgrade the router and modem and cables once the speed gets up really high, as they will cap the actual speed, even if a person pays for more, since they have upper limits/ability.

All done as per OP. I also put Cat 8 cables in for all hardwired devices.

 

[11522914]

I have Spectrum Internet. I recently had 300 mbps. Google fiber 1k recently became available for $70 + taxes/fees, so around $77. Spectrum has gone crazy raising rates. 2 $5 increases within 1 year. Went from $74.99 to $84.99 all in.

Called them up and said I can get 1k from Google for $70. What will you do for me? She said she can give me 2 years - no contract - for 64.99 all in and increase my Internet to 500 Mbps. Done.

Haven't seen any improvement going from 300 to 500. Still works great.

 

[GenXguy]

I noticed a difference going from 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps only when using multiple devices, and it was minor.

But the jump from 50 Mbps to 75 Mbps wasn't noticeably different at all even when using multiple devices maxing out my bandwidth.

 

[GenXguy]

Remember to upgrade the router and modem and cables once the speed gets up really high, as they will cap the actual speed, even if a person pays for more, since they have upper limits/ability.

I had to replace (there was no upgrade for it) my router around two years ago because of that with a newer model. The old one was an old 802.11g that was quite old, and when my internet speed was increased from 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps, it would only test at about 30 Mbps every time on a hard wired device. I determined the router was the bottleneck and replaced it, and the replacement tested over 50 Mbps every time, and now tests up to 90 Mbps since my internet speed was increased to 75 Mbps.

 

[ERD50]

I noticed a difference going from 25 Mbps to 50 Mbps only when using multiple devices, and it was minor.

But the jump from 50 Mbps to 75 Mbps wasn't noticeably different at all even when using multiple devices maxing out my bandwidth.

Yep, people really over-estimate what they need, and stuck in thinking (as OP mentioned) "more is better", rather than understanding when "enough is enough" and "more is just more". We need some numbers!

https://www.vdocipher.com/blog/video-bandwidth-explanation

Streaming High Definition (HD) Video 5 – 8
Streaming Ultra HD 4K Video 25

So even three simultaneous Hi-Def streams would need < 25 Mbps, but as noted, you probably need a higher rated speed to assure you get that when the system is loaded. I'm on a 75 Mbps service, DW and I often watching hi-def videos, and buffering is super-rare, most likely a temporary slow down from the service provider, rather than the internet itself.

edit add: I ran speedtest, and I'm 'only' getting 30 Mbps at my laptop on my 75 Mbps plan, which could be any number of things either the system is slow, my modem may need to be rebooted, and/or my wifi connection is a bit week, reporting 44% strength now. But even at that, multiple hi-def youtube videos play just fine. Maybe I'll try loading them up to see where is starts slowing down - I might hit the limit of my laptop graphics before that?

Update: OK, ran 3 HD full screen streams, audio kept coming through on all, I had them full screen on separate "virtual desktops" on my Linux system (15" laptop with external 'extended' 24" monitor). So I could obnly watch one at a time, but no buffering noticed. I did sometimes get a little lag when switching to that workspace, but I think that was just my computer catching up to fill the display - plus I have tons of windows open, have not rebooted in 11 days, and am using swap memory, so none of that helps). I don't know if youtube adjusts the data rate if you have a smaller window open for the video, but I assume not, they send what they send.

Then I ran the 3 videos in a single window so I could watch and listen - no buffering, and you can see the gray area in the timeline always stays ahead of the video. My process monitor showed only about 10 Mbps at that time, and a simultaneous speedtest still gave 30 Mbps (again, a supposedly 75 Mbps service).

I can definitely tell the difference. I have 445 mbps this morning and I'm glad I don't still have the ~200 mbps service I used to get. ....

I'm curious where you see the difference. I wonder if it could have been to maybe some defective modem that got replaced when you upgraded?

-ERD50

 

[steelyman]

Spectrum cable Internet was fine in this area but gradually became more unreliable. I switched to AT&T fiber and it’s made a huge difference for the better. 300 Mbps upload/download, cost $55.25/mo.

I stopped using my Netgear 1750 router because AT&T provides a gateway (modem/router combination).

One thing I like is that there is a Speedtest that shows two measurements (down/up): 1. to the gateway and 2. to device. They can (and typically do) differ.

 

[W2R]

I'm curious where you see the difference. I wonder if it could have been to maybe some defective modem that got replaced when you upgraded?

-ERD50

Nope! Same cable modem, same router, all the hardware is the same. Now, of course one can't see the difference in some usages (such as reading this message board) because there is no need for speed here, but that's not the case in some other usages.

 

[Golden Mean]

I'm curious where you see the difference. I wonder if it could have been to maybe some defective modem that got replaced when you upgraded?

-ERD50

Nope! Same cable modem, same router, all the hardware is the same. Now, of course one can't see the difference in some usages (such as reading this message board) because there is no need for speed here, but that's not the case in some other usages.

Interesting. I wonder if it was a latency issue (or something like DNS lookup issues) which changed with the different service. I notice no difference in the 3 (free) bumps I've gotten except when downloading multi-GB games.

 

[aaronc879]

I just did a test and i'm at 94 down, 11 up. I doubt I would notice any difference except the price if I got 200+ and I stream TV shows all day most days.

 

[aaronc879]

We ususally go with the lowest speed offered which is ususally the cheapest. We regularly stream movies (no downloading movies) and even 30 mbps has worked fine for us in the past.

Luckily, the speed for the cheapest offering has increased faster than our needs have increased.

We currently have 200 mbps service (just tested at 223 mbps) and it costs us $50/month ($85/month less $35 promotional discount).

I am curious why one would bother to download video when streaming is so ubiquitous these days?

Download ahead of time if you are going somewhere where internet is spotty or doesn't exist. Otherwise I agree no reason to download video on any regular basis.

 

[Kwirk]

We have an extensive network with 6 active users gaming, streaming, surfing. We get about 250 down and I don't hear any complaints about the speed. The only time I think that a higher speed would be useful is when downloading multi gigabyte game files. Speeding up an occasional large download isn't worth the additional cost for us.