# WiFi cards and transfers



## golden member

Lets talk about the wireless thing, transmissions and speed.

I ve recently got a 300mbps router. I have 2 PC. I need 2 wireless cards of 300mbps each in order to have highest possible speed when I transfer files between them, right?

Right now, I had a pci card of 54mbps in the first pc, and I just bought temporarily this usb card of 150mbps in the second pc.
So my current speed is 54mbps.

Shall I see big difference if I get two 300mbps cards? Or maybe I should just replace the 54mbps card with a 150/300mbps one?


----------



## Agent Smith

golden member said:


> I ve recently got a 300mbps router. I have 2 PC. I need 2 wireless cards of 300mbps each in order to have highest possible speed when I transfer files between them, right?



Yes.





golden member said:


> Shall I see big difference if I get two 300mbps cards? Or maybe I should just replace the 54mbps card with a 150/300mbps one?




Yes. You will get the max speed supported by your router.


----------



## ninjabubbles3

Please for dear god don't get the same WiFi card I have, it sucks way to much and its a waste of money and gets like 3 Mbps. Maybe get a nicer Asus, but not this one for sure


----------



## golden member

Agent Smith said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes. You will get the max speed supported by your router.



Right now, if I transfer a file of 150MB I need 90''-120'', how much time shall I need if I get  300mbps cards?

Another question is if the folders will open quicklier. You know, if its a folder with many files in it, f.e. 50 movies, you need some time to see them all.




ninjabubbles3 said:


> Please for dear god don't get the same WiFi card I have, it sucks way to much and its a waste of money and gets like 3 Mbps. Maybe get a nicer Asus, but not this one for sure



Which is your card?


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> Lets talk about the wireless thing, transmissions and speed.
> 
> I ve recently got a 300mbps router. I have 2 PC. I need 2 wireless cards of 300mbps each in order to have highest possible speed when I transfer files between them, right?
> 
> Right now, I had a pci card of 54mbps in the first pc, and I just bought temporarily this usb card of 150mbps in the second pc.
> So my current speed is 54mbps.
> 
> Shall I see big difference if I get two 300mbps cards? Or maybe I should just replace the 54mbps card with a 150/300mbps one?


The max speed listed on wireless cards is the theoretical max speed you can achieve, however that depends on the signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio between your access point and client.  Generally, you will only get the max speed if you are in the same room, or otherwise very close, the speed drops significantly as you get further away.

Do you know how fast your internet is?  If you only have say, 25Mbps download, and you are currently connected at 54Mbps, then no, as far as internet goes you won't notice a difference.  However if your internet is faster than what you can get now, and/or you transfer files over your WLAN then yes you would notice the difference.

If you are going to buy a new wireless adapter, look at getting a dual-band 802.11n or 802.11ac wireless adapter.  



ninjabubbles3 said:


> Please for dear god don't get the same WiFi card I have, it sucks way to much and its a waste of money and gets like 3 Mbps. Maybe get a nicer Asus, but not this one for sure


You should tell us what you have.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> The max speed listed on wireless cards is the theoretical max speed you can achieve, however that depends on the signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio between your access point and client.  Generally, you will only get the max speed if you are in the same room, or otherwise very close, the speed drops significantly as you get further away.



I want to know what happens in real, not theoretically. If the difference is zero or too small then I wont buy anything.
Router is some meters away from my pc s and through a wall and a door.
Right now I have--> router 300mbps, card 54mbps, card 150mbps. The transfer speed for a file of 150MB is 90''-120'', is it a good speed? 



WRXGuy1 said:


> Do you know how fast your internet is?  If you only have say, 25Mbps download, and you are currently connected at 54Mbps, then no, as far as internet goes you won't notice a difference.  However if your internet is faster than what you can get now, and/or you transfer files over your WLAN then yes you would notice the difference.



My internet is theoritically 24mbps(18 in real) but we are talking for wireless transfers between 2 pc in a local network. Has something to do with?


----------



## beers

golden member said:


> The transfer speed for a file of 150MB is 90''-120'', is it a good speed?



Transfer rate is a lot easier to compare with.  150 MB in 90 seconds is ~1.67 MB/sec, which in bits is 13.36 mbit.

Transfer rate depends a lot on other factors.  If you are transferring wireless client to wireless client, the rate is going to be a lot lower than a wired client to a wireless client based on CDMA/CA among others.  A large impact of performance is also other wireless traffic on your channel or surrounding channels that interfere with your portion of the spectrum.

I'd at least upgrade the 802.11g card (54 mbps) to 802.11n.  The difference between 150 and 300 mbps is that the latter utilizes multiple spatial streams to increase bandwidth.


----------



## golden member

beers said:


> I'd at least upgrade the 802.11g card (54 mbps) to 802.11n.  The difference between 150 and 300 mbps is that the latter utilizes multiple spatial streams to increase bandwidth.



I have no idea about these terms. What do u suggest me to do? Stay as I am? Get one/two 300mbps cards? Get a 150mpbs card to pair it with the 150one I already have? 
Will I see faster speed in file transfers? Will the folders open quicklier?


----------



## beers

What is your performance expectation?  That may give you a better indication of either how you should do things or what pieces to start looking at if you can't do that with what you have.  (Personally I don't like waiting on anything under 500 MB/s  )


----------



## golden member

beers said:


> What is your performance expectation?  That may give you a better indication of either how you should do things or what pieces to start looking at if you can't do that with what you have.  (Personally I don't like waiting on anything under 500 MB/s  )



Well, I said my devices, I said my speed, I said what I need.
So whats the answer about the wireless cards? Keep what I have or go for 150/300 ones?


----------



## beers

You only really said 'I want faster', and not really specifying at what point would be 'fast enough'.

Personally I would just do wired transfers.  Otherwise you'll see better transfer rates with 300 & 300, but wireless-to-wireless performance isn't going to be worth the cost.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> Well, I said my devices, I said my speed, I said what I need.
> So whats the answer about the wireless cards? Keep what I have or go for 150/300 ones?


I wouldn't upgrade to a 300Mbps 2.4GHz N card, I would get at least a dual-band N, preferably 802.11ac, then upgrade your router.


----------



## golden member

beers said:


> You only really said 'I want faster', and not really specifying at what point would be 'fast enough'.
> 
> Personally I would just do wired transfers.



I want fast speed in files transfers between my 2 pc. 
Must be faster than what I now have, and faster enough to worth the cost.
How much faster is card 54+card 150 against card 150/300+card 150/300?
Faster cards can make folders open quicklier? Thats important to me. Or it is a matter of fast disk?

We are not talking for wired now. Only wireless.



WRXGuy1 said:


> I wouldn't upgrade to a 300Mbps 2.4GHz N card, I would get at least a dual-band N, preferably 802.11ac, then upgrade your router.



Plz make it easier, dont use terms like_ 2.4ghz, dual-band, 802.11ac.
_
Router is new and wont change.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> I want fast speed in files transfers between my 2 pc.
> Must be faster than what I now have, and faster enough to worth the cost.
> How much faster is card 54+card 150 against card 150/300+card 150/300?
> 
> We are not talking for wired now. Only wireless.
> 
> 
> 
> Plz make it easier, dont use terms like_ 2.4ghz, dual-band, 802.11ac.
> _
> Router is new and wont change.


802.11ac supports up to 1.3Gbps currently, your router only supports up to 300Mbps.  If you are going to upgrade your client wireless card, you should get an 802.11ac card.  It will work with what you have now, but is capable of faster speeds when you upgrade your router.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> 802.11ac supports up to 1.3Gbps currently, your router only supports up to 300Mbps.  If you are going to upgrade your client wireless card, you should get an 802.11ac card.  It will work with what you have now, but is capable of faster speeds when you upgrade your router.



As I just said, router wont change.
Plz dont use terms like 802.11ac, not familiar to me.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> As I just said, router wont change.
> Plz dont use terms like 802.11ac, not familiar to me.


I'm not saying to upgrade your router now, but eventually you will replace it, and when you do your client will be more capable than if you bought an already outdated wireless card.

802.11ac is how the cards are labeled and marketed, you will see that on the name when looking for a wireless card.

Such as these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833168129
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320181


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> I'm not saying to upgrade your router now, but eventually you will replace it, and when you do your client will be more capable than if you bought an already outdated wireless card.
> 
> 802.11ac is how the cards are labeled and marketed, you will see that on the name when looking for a wireless card.



Router will never change

Now, can you tell me what to do? Stay as I am or buy cards? How much faster speed and how much quicklier folder openings?


----------



## Darren

Theoretically you will have faster transfer speeds. Real world use will vary. If you feel like you need it to be faster than buy a faster card.

Also, quicklier isn't a word.


----------



## golden member

Denther said:


> Theoretically you will have faster transfer speeds. Real world use will vary. If you feel like you need it to be faster than buy a faster card.
> 
> Also, quicklier isn't a word.



Replace it with the right word, but plz answer my question, it is important to me.


----------



## johnb35

Folders opening depends on a few things. 

1.  Speed of processor
2.  Speed of hard drive
3.  Amount of files in folder

Folders with gigabytes of data will take longer to open then a folder with just a few files in it.


----------



## Darren

golden member said:


> Replace it with the right word, but plz answer my question, it is important to me.





Denther said:


> Theoretically you will have faster transfer speeds. Real world use will vary. *If you feel like you need it to be faster than buy a faster card.*



I did answer you.


----------



## golden member

johnb35 said:


> Folders opening depends on a few things.
> 
> 1.  Speed of processor
> 2.  Speed of hard drive
> 3.  Amount of files in folder
> 
> Folders with gigabytes of data will take longer to open then a folder with just a few files in it.



We are talking for folder opening wirelessly, you remember that, right?

Hard drives are ssd. But opening a folder wirelessly is not the same with opening a folder of the local disk.
Does the wlan speed affect the wireless opening?




Darren said:


> I did answer you (_If you feel like you need it to be faster than buy a faster card_)



As I said, I need to know if worths the cost. How much faster will be card 150/300+card 150/300 against card150+card54[router 300mbps]?


----------



## ScottALot

golden member said:


> We are talking for folder opening wirelessly, you remember that, right?
> 
> Hard drives are ssd. But opening a folder wirelessly is not the same with opening a folder of the local disk.
> Does the wlan speed affect the wireless opening?



The WLAN speed doesn't really affect opening and viewing the contents of folders wirelessly, it only really affects file transfer.  Hard disks need to spin up or move their armatures, while SSD's don't have moving parts. There's actually a pretty good chance that opening an SSD on a remote computer will be quicker than opening a folder on a hard disk on a local computer.



golden member said:


> As I said, I need to know if worths the cost. How much faster will be card 150/300+card 150/300 against card150+card54[router 300mbps]?



We don't know your financial situation, so we can't tell you whether it's worth it or not for you. We're feeding you a wealth of information so you can make a decision on your own based on your needs and finances. If you have some extra cash and this is important to you, buy the card. If spending money on a wireless card is a stretch for you or if your current speeds are enough for you, then don't buy a card. It sounds like you're not willing to upgrade your router for whatever reason, so I assume money's tight or you're not willing to learn how to do things.

This forum's purpose is to inform and educate so people can make their own informed decisions. This isn't Yahoo Answers where we would just tell you Yes or No. That would be unprofessional.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> Router will never change
> 
> Now, can you tell me what to do? Stay as I am or buy cards? How much faster speed and how much quicklier folder openings?


So you're saying that in 5 or 10 years you will never have to replace your existing router?  There's a good chance it will die within that time, or you will want even faster speeds.



golden member said:


> We are talking for folder opening wirelessly, you remember that, right?
> 
> Hard drives are ssd. But opening a folder wirelessly is not the same with opening a folder of the local disk.
> Does the wlan speed affect the wireless opening?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I need to know if worths the cost. How much faster will be card 150/300+card 150/300 against card150+card54[router 300mbps]?


Are these folders that you're trying to open stored on your computer, or are they network folders mapped to a server?  If they are just local folders like your documents, pictures, desktop, downloads, etc., your network speed makes zero difference.  Only if they are network folders will you notice any difference upgrading your wireless card.

If they are wireless, the time it takes to open a network folder may be _slightly _faster, but I wouldn't expect much of a difference.  The big difference would be transferring/opening files.


----------



## golden member

ScottALot said:


> The WLAN speed doesn't really affect opening and viewing the contents of folders wirelessly, ......................
> 
> There's actually a pretty good chance that opening an SSD on a remote computer will be quicker than opening a folder on a hard disk on a local computer.



Are you 100% sure that wlan speed does not affect folder opening on a remote computer?

I have already ssd in my systems. I can tell you there is delay. A folder which contains 50 video files needs some time to appear them all. If you click to open a sub-folder, then goBack, again delay to appear all files...

So, opening an ssd on a remote computer IS NOT quicker than opening a folder on a hard disk on a local computer.
Apparently you never tried that yourself.



ScottALot said:


> We don't know your financial situation, so we can't tell you whether it's worth it or not for you..............



Dont bother about my financial situation, let me worry about that.
From you I want to tell me what speed shall I have with card 150/300+card 150/300, in order to compare it with my already existed card54+card150. 




ScottALot said:


> This forum's purpose is to inform and educate so people can make their own informed decisions. This isn't Yahoo Answers where we would just tell you Yes or No. That would be unprofessional.



Give me a break, pal 



WRXGuy1 said:


> So you're saying that in 5 or 10 years you will never have to replace your existing router? ..............



We are not talking for after 5-10 years my friend, after 5-10 years the internet probably will have space speeds.



WRXGuy1 said:


> Are these folders that you're trying to open stored on your computer,...............
> if they are network folders will you notice any difference upgrading your wireless card.



As I said, the folders are in another pc of my local network.
So you disagree with Scott who said "WLAN speed doesn't really affect opening".




WRXGuy1 said:


> If they are wireless, the time it takes to open a network folder may be _slightly _faster, but I wouldn't expect much of a difference.



If now with  54mbps cards I need f.e. 15 seconds to see all contains of a folder on a remote pc, with  300mbps cards how many seconds shall I need?


----------



## beers

golden member said:


> From you I want to tell me what speed shall I have with card 150/300+card 150/300, in order to compare it with my already existed card54+card150.



There are too many variables unique to your (or any, really) environment to give you a hard number.

If budget was no problem then just upgrade your router and NICs with 802.11ac.  The fact you're rummaging around with G equipment still indicates the opposite.

So here:
Upgrading will be slightly faster.  If you want slightly faster, buy the damn card.    Adding one of your PCs as a wired connection will give you about double the transfer rate.  This is basically a 'free' option.  Unfortunately, you clearly did not give two craps to read any shred of advice given to you or even vaguely consider any alternatives, so you can sort it out yourself.


----------



## golden member

beers said:


> There are too many variables unique to your (or any, really) environment to give you a hard number.



But we have the data of my enviroment of the existed cards and speed.
Doesnt this helps?



beers said:


> If budget was no problem then just upgrade your router and NICs with 802.11ac.  The fact you're rummaging around with G equipment still indicates the opposite.



I have stated many times but no problem to repeat it. Router wont change. It is new and 300mbps. We discuss only for the cards.
I have no idea about terms like NICs, 802.11ac, G equipment...
Can we talk more simply? Card 150 or card 300?  



beers said:


> Upgrading will be slightly faster.  If you want slightly faster, buy the damn card.



How much faster? How much time needs a 100MB file to be transfered via 300mbps cards(real speed)?




beers said:


> Adding one of your PCs as a wired connection will give you over double the transfer rate.  This is basically a 'free' option.  Unfortunately, you clearly did not give two craps to read any shred of advice given to you or even vaguely consider any alternatives, so you can sort it out yourself.



As I said, I do not talk about wired connection now. Plz stay ontopic.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> As I said, the folders are in another pc of my local network.
> So you disagree with Scott who said "WLAN speed doesn't really affect opening".


54Mbps vs 300Mbps will have only the slightest of difference, most likely not even noticeable.  The difference comes in opening/transferring.


----------



## ScottALot

golden member said:


> Are you 100% sure that wlan speed does not affect folder opening on a remote computer?
> 
> I have already ssd in my systems. I can tell you there is delay. A folder which contains 50 video files needs some time to appear them all. If you click to open a sub-folder, then goBack, again delay to appear all files...



Sounds like you've got something set up wrong with your page file or RAM, but that's outside the context of this thread.



golden member said:


> So, opening an ssd on a remote computer IS NOT quicker than opening a folder on a hard disk on a local computer.
> Apparently you never tried that yourself.



I've FTP'd into my desktop over a LAN and there is no delay whatsoever in opening files on an SSD remotely and miniscule delay with HDD remotely. 



golden member said:


> Dont bother about my financial situation, let me worry about that.
> From you I want to tell me what speed shall I have with card 150/300+card 150/300, in order to compare it with my already existed card54+card150.



Sounds like you're going to have to make your own decision. Sound familiar?



golden member said:


> We are not talking for after 5-10 years my friend, after 5-10 years the internet probably will have space speeds.



This is not an internet discussion thread. Plz stay ontopic.


----------



## Geoff

Anything local will be faster than network-based, the overhead and latency will always be greater with network shares and folders.

If all of your data is accessed over the network, and you are doing this wirelessly, I would upgrade to 802.11ac to get up to 1.3Gbps.  300Mbps is pretty slow.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> 54Mbps vs 300Mbps will have only the slightest of difference, most likely not even noticeable.  The difference comes in opening/transferring.



You mean the difference is just a couple of seconds? 
So you tell me to keep 54mbps under a 300mbps router and dont buy faster cards.
This slighest difference is in openings too? You know 5 seconds less in a transfer is nothing, but 5 seconds less in a folder opening is important.





ScottALot said:


> Sounds like you've got something set up wrong with your page file or RAM, but that's outside the context of this thread.



If  pagefile or ram affect then it is inside the condext of this thread. I have 8gb of ram in one pc and 4gb of ram in the other pc. Pagefile is just 512MB in both, they told me that ssd dont like much pagefile...





ScottALot said:


> I've FTP'd into my desktop over a LAN and there is no delay whatsoever in opening files on an SSD remotely and miniscule delay with HDD remotely.



Have you tried a folder with 50 video files in it, total size 60-90GB?
Is your lan wireless? How many mbps is router & cards?




ScottALot said:


> Sounds like you're going to have to make your own decision.



Which is what?
Boy, I m trying to get a clue because I have to make my order these days. I still dont know if I need faster cards or not.




ScottALot said:


> This is not an internet discussion thread. Plz stay ontopic.



That was an answer to our friend beers. When you read a post, read also the quote.



WRXGuy1 said:


> Anything local will be faster than network-based, the overhead and latency will always be greater with network shares and folders.



I didnt understand that phrase.



WRXGuy1 said:


> If all of your data is accessed over the network, and you are doing this wirelessly, I would upgrade to 802.11ac to get up to 1.3Gbps.  300Mbps is pretty slow.



If you are talking for another router, this is out of question.
My router is this.


----------



## johnb35

> Have you tried a folder with 50 video files in it, total size 60-90GB?



That is your problem.  There is no way your going to make it open any quicker because of the amount of data in that folder.  I don't know why its so hard for you to understand this.  If you want faster transfer speeds then get better cards.  But better cards isn't gonna make that folder open any quicker.  End of discussion....


----------



## ScottALot

golden member said:


> If  pagefile or ram affect then it is inside the condext of this thread. I have 8gb of ram in one pc and 4gb of ram in the other pc. Pagefile is just 512MB in both, they told me that ssd dont like much pagefile...



This thread is titled WiFi cards and transfers, plz stay ontopic.


----------



## beers

It sounds like you have preview listed for viewing files, just switch it to detailed view and then you won't have to load video preview data for each file.



golden member said:


> I have 8gb of ram in one pc and 4gb of ram in the other pc.



That is off-topic, please stay on topic.


----------



## golden member

johnb35 said:


> That is your problem.  There is no way your going to make it open any quicker because of the amount of data in that folder.  I don't know why its so hard for you to understand this.  If you want faster transfer speeds then get better cards.  But better cards isn't gonna make that folder open any quicker.  End of discussion....



So you say thay wireless speed does not affect the opening of a large folder.
Lets see if other friends will agree with you. WRXGuy1 seems to disagree.




ScottALot said:


> This thread is titled WiFi cards and transfers, plz stay ontopic.





beers said:


> That is off-topic, please stay on topic.



Bad humor wont help thread.
If pagefile affects the point of the thread, then its ontopic.




beers said:


> It sounds like you have preview listed for viewing files, just switch it to detailed view and then you won't have to load video preview data for each file.



I need to view as big images with preview, detailed view doesnt help me.


----------



## Geoff

> You mean the difference is just a couple of seconds?
> So you tell me to keep 54mbps under a 300mbps router and dont buy faster cards.
> This slighest difference is in openings too? You know 5 seconds less in a transfer is nothing, but 5 seconds less in a folder opening is important.


I'm thinking the difference would be less than a second, at least in terms of loading a list of contents within folders.  Opening folders would vary between seeing a very slight, less than 1 second difference for files like text files, where the file sizes are just a few KB's, however if you're trying to open videos and photos that are much larger, you will see a much greater difference after upgrading.



> If  pagefile or ram affect then it is inside the condext of this thread. I have 8gb of ram in one pc and 4gb of ram in the other pc. Pagefile is just 512MB in both, they told me that ssd dont like much pagefile...


The size of the pagefile depends on how much RAM you have, and how much you typically have free when performing day-to-day tasks.  4GB of RAM is not much on Windows 7/8.



> Have you tried a folder with 50 video files in it, total size 60-90GB?
> Is your lan wireless? How many mbps is router & cards?


When you open a folder with media, it has to show a preview, so those will take longer.



> Which is what?
> Boy, I m trying to get a clue because I have to make my order these days. I still dont know if I need faster cards or not.


The whole point I am trying to make, is that in my opinion, it's not worth upgrading from 802.11g to 2.4GHz 802.11n.  If you are going to upgrade, you should go with 802.11ac.



golden member said:


> I didnt understand that phrase.


How is that difficult to understand?  Accessing files over the network takes longer than locally.



> So you say thay wireless speed does not affect the opening of a large folder.
> Lets see if other friends will agree with you. WRXGuy1 seems to disagree.


We are both saying roughly the same thing.  Accessing a folder filled with videos will take a while to load over the network, regardless of your connection speed, due to the overhead and latency I mentioned earlier with network folders.  What I'm saying is that if opening large videos over the network is important to you, you should look at upgrading your router and client to 802.11ac.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> I'm thinking the difference would be less than a second, at least in terms of loading a list of contents within folders.  Opening folders would vary between seeing a very slight, less than 1 second difference for files like text files, where the file sizes are just a few KB's, however if you're trying to open videos and photos that are much larger, you will see a much greater difference after upgrading.



Less than a second?! You mean no difference at all then.

And something else important  I just remembered,
what about the HD videos?
So far, I have delays with the HD videos(1920x1080), the picture sticks from time to time or doesnt rw/ff normally.
Will a faster card(300mbps instead of 54) eliminate this problem? 



WRXGuy1 said:


> The size of the pagefile depends on how much RAM you have, and how much you typically have free when performing day-to-day tasks.  4GB of RAM is not much on Windows 7/8.



Yes, but a zero pagefile is one of the advices for faster SSDs.
The size of pagefile affects the wireless speed, as someone said before?

The 4GB of ram is in a pc which works as htpc.




WRXGuy1 said:


> How is that difficult to understand?  Accessing files over the network takes longer than locally.



I didnt understand that previous phrase because of my bad english. I understood it now.
Accesing files over the network takes longer yes, point is if a faster card helps.



WRXGuy1 said:


> We are both saying roughly the same thing.  Accessing a folder filled with videos will take a while to load over the network, regardless of your connection speed, due to the overhead and latency I mentioned earlier with network folders.



You dont say the same thing, he said "_There is no way your going to make it open any quicker because of the amount of data in that folder........But better cards isn't gonna make that folder open any quicker. End of discussion_".
You had said something different.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> Less than a second?! You mean no difference at all then.
> 
> And something else important  I just remembered,
> what about the HD videos?
> So far, I have delays with the HD videos(1920x1080), the picture sticks from time to time or doesnt rw/ff normally.
> Will a faster card(300mbps instead of 54) eliminate this problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but a zero pagefile is one of the advices for faster SSDs.
> The size of pagefile affects the wireless speed, as someone said before?
> 
> The 4GB of ram is in a pc which works as htpc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt understand that previous phrase because of my bad english. I understood it now.
> Accesing files over the network takes longer yes, point is if a faster card helps.


Since upgrading your router doesn't seem to be something you are willing to consider, then yes, I would say you should upgrade your wireless card to the 300Mbps card, assuming your router does indeed support it.  Just understand where I'm coming from, 300Mbps 2.4GHz 802.11n is an old standard, it will still give you significant loading time and lag compared to 1.3Gbps 802.11ac.

HD video steaming over 54Mbps is bound to cause lag and stuttering, if you upgrade it will help or eliminate that.

Getting rid of the page file is good advice if you have enough RAM, check task manager, if you still have a fair amount of free memory you should be fine.  I've never heard that getting rid of the pagefile increases network performance.



golden member said:


> You dont say the same thing, he said "_There is no way your going to make it open any quicker because of the amount of data in that folder........But better cards isn't gonna make that folder open any quicker. End of discussion_".
> You had said something different.


Then in that case I would disagree with him.  I am not saying that upgrading will make the lag of loading that folder go away by any means, but increasing your wireless speed upwards of 6x is going to improve the loading of those video previews, and decrease the time it takes to open.  It will still take much longer than if they were local on your PC however, or even if you had them hard wired in at 1Gbps.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> Getting rid of the page file is good advice if you have enough RAM, check task manager, if you still have a fair amount of free memory you should be fine.



8GB DDR3 1600MHz isnt enough ram?
I keed 512MB. I always watch the amount of my ram via a win7 gadget(desktop accesories).




WRXGuy1 said:


> Since upgrading your router doesn't seem to be something you are willing to consider, then yes, I would say you should upgrade your wireless card to the 300Mbps card, assuming your router does indeed support it
> 
> 
> HD video steaming over 54Mbps is bound to cause lag and stuttering, if you upgrade it will help or eliminate that.




Ok, you were absolutely clear.
What do you suggest me to get? pci or pci express? Is TP-LINK a good firm?
And whats that with 2 or 3 antennas?

I heard good reviews for these cards, what do you think?
link
link


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> 8GB DDR3 1600MHz isnt enough ram?
> I keed 512MB. I always watch the amount of my ram via a win7 gadget(desktop accesories).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you were absolutely clear.
> What do you suggest me to get? pci or pci express? Is TP-LINK a good firm?
> And whats that with 2 or 3 antennas?
> 
> I heard good reviews for these cards, what do you think?
> link
> link


8GB is fine, I was talking about your 4GB system.

Anything PCI-E based or USB 2.0 or better would be fine, if you upgrade past this such as dual-band 802.11n or 802.11ac, you want PCI-E or USB 3.0.

I would get this one: http://www.tp-link.com/lk/products/details/?model=TL-WN881ND

Just be sure you have a PCI-E slot in your computer available.

The different number of antennas are used for MIMO to increase speed, 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, etc. are used to increase speed and range of WiFi.


----------



## beers

Upgrading your card to 300/300 is going to give you the same problems simply based on CSMA/CA.  Trying to view the folder with previews is both ridiculous as well as too bandwidth intensive for the setup you want to use.  Higher bitrate 720p and 1080p videos will still lag and stutter.

You can keep asking or being rude to people until someone says "YES, IT WILL BE AMAZING! ", even though that is the answer you are painstakingly looking for, it is not reality.

Everything on each of your PCs is irrelevant based on a larger degree of wireless problems.  Looking a RAM is a waste of time, looking at page file is a waste of time, looking at HDD/SSD is a waste of time.  If the video plays OK locally then it's clearly a network related issue.  Given that you are using a 'turd-grade' setup, it's to be expected.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> 8GB is fine, I was talking about your 4GB system.



But this system is only for downloading and play movies.



WRXGuy1 said:


> Anything PCI-E based or USB 2.0 or better would be fine, if you upgrade past this such as dual-band 802.11n or 802.11ac, you want PCI-E or USB 3.0.
> 
> I would get this one: http://www.tp-link.com/lk/products/details/?model=TL-WN881ND
> 
> Just be sure you have a PCI-E slot in your computer available.
> 
> The different number of antennas are used for MIMO to increase speed, 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, etc. are used to increase speed and range of WiFi.



When you say usb2/3.0 you re talking for usb cards? I prefer to avoid usb cards, I have bad experiences with them.
But you prefer pci express instead of pci. May I ask what more has pci express?

So you agree TL-WN881ND is good, get two of them? They are cheap also, just 14€.

I dont know what is mimo. More antennas mean more speed and range?



beers said:


> Upgrading your card to 300/300 is going to give you the same problems simply based on CSMA/CA.  Trying to view the folder with previews is both ridiculous as well as too bandwidth intensive for the setup you want to use.  Higher bitrate 720p and 1080p videos will still lag and stutter.



Lets see if there is anyone else who will agree with that.



beers said:


> You can keep asking or being rude to people until someone says "YES, IT WILL BE AMAZING! ", even though that is the answer you are painstakingly looking for, it is not reality.



I was never rude. 
Your reality is not necessarily the common reality.



beers said:


> Everything on each of your PCs is irrelevant based on a larger degree of wireless problems.  Looking a RAM is a waste of time, looking at page file is a waste of time, looking at HDD/SSD is a waste of time.  If the video plays OK locally then it's clearly a network related issue.  Given that you are using a 'turd-grade' setup, it's to be expected.



What are you talking about, we look everything which has to do with our point. 
But if you tell me "get a wired for better speeds" thats indeed a waste of time. I was wired for years.


----------



## ScottALot

golden member said:


> Your reality is not necessarily the common reality.



Yes it is.


----------



## Geoff

golden member said:


> When you say usb2/3.0 you re talking for usb cards? I prefer to avoid usb cards, I have bad experiences with them.
> But you prefer pci express instead of pci. May I ask what more has pci express?
> 
> So you agree TL-WN881ND is good, get two of them? They are cheap also, just 14€.
> 
> I dont know what is mimo. More antennas mean more speed and range?


Yes I was referring to USB adapters.  PCI-E is the best way to go, it offers more bandwidth throughput than PCI. 

Why do you need two of them?



golden member said:


> Lets see if there is anyone else who will agree with that.
> 
> What are you talking about, we look everything which has to do with our point.
> But if you tell me "get a wired for better speeds" thats indeed a waste of time. I was wired for years.


I agree with him.  You seem to be thinking there are only two possible scenarios, either it works perfectly with no lag or delay, or it has tons of issues.  Upgrading from 54Mbps wireless to 300Mbps wireless will improve load times when opening videos and so forth, but it is still horrible compared to wired or viewing local content.

If you were wired before, why did you downgrade and go with 802.11g wireless?


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> Yes I was referring to USB adapters.  PCI-E is the best way to go, it offers more bandwidth throughput than PCI.
> 
> Why do you need two of them?



funny question.
Because its not possible to transfer files between 2 pc if one of them has no card.

In the same way, pci express soundcard is better than a simple pci soundcard?



WRXGuy1 said:


> I agree with him.  You seem to be thinking there are only two possible scenarios, either it works perfectly with no lag or delay, or it has tons of issues.  Upgrading from 54Mbps wireless to 300Mbps wireless will improve load times when opening videos and so forth, but it is still horrible compared to wired or viewing local content.



how you agree with him?

He said _Higher bitrate 720p and 1080p videos will still lag and stutter_
You said _HD video steaming over 54Mbps is bound to cause lag and stuttering, if you upgrade it will help or eliminate that_

He said that upgrade from 54 to 300mbps means no faster speed, you said there will be faster speed.

We do NOT compare with wired situation, how many times do I have to remind that?



WRXGuy1 said:


> If you were wired before, why did you downgrade and go with 802.11g wireless?



Because I wanted get rid of wires and remove router from my room, as million of other users.


----------



## ScottALot

golden member said:


> funny question.
> Because its not possible to transfer files between 2 pc if one of them has no card.



Yes it is.

We don't know your network situation. Therefore, we have to speculate. A common setup is to have a desktop hooked up to the router on a wired connection and a laptop on a wireless. You're asking about getting a WiFi card for PCI / PCIe, so we can replace that wireless laptop with a desktop. However, we don't know what's on the other end. You could have a desktop with an onboard wireless connection (not a card), you could have a laptop with a built in wireless adapter (not a card), you could have either one of those be wired (not a card), or a million other things...heck you could be talking about a NAS, but we have no idea. 

If you want clear answers, provide clear questions.



golden member said:


> In the same way, pci express soundcard is better than a simple pci soundcard?



Generally, yes. However, this is a thread on WiFi cards and transfers. Plz stay ontopic.


----------



## Geoff

> funny question.
> Because its not possible to transfer files between 2 pc if one of them has no card.


Yes, it is.  Your other PC could be hard wired, you could have a server, you could have a USB drive connected to your router, you could have a NAS, hundreds of possible configurations.  You only told us about your one desktop.



> In the same way, pci express soundcard is better than a simple pci soundcard?


No, not at all.  The interface doesn't make a difference for sound cards, for networking you want higher bandwidth with newer protocols and for longer life, as PCI is a dead interface.



> how you agree with him?
> 
> He said _Higher bitrate 720p and 1080p videos will still lag and stutter_
> You said _HD video steaming over 54Mbps is bound to cause lag and stuttering, if you upgrade it will help or eliminate that_
> 
> He said that upgrade from 54 to 300mbps means no faster speed, you said there will be faster speed.


Notice how I said it would help, or eliminate.  Streaming HD content would be fine over 300Mbps, however you may still get a bit of lag here and there on occasion.  It's obvious that 300 is faster than 54.  It's still not as good as hard wired or newer wireless protocols.



> We do NOT compare with wired situation, how many times do I have to remind that?


Once more.  Wired is better.  Dual-band 802.11n is better.  802.11ac is better.



> Because I wanted get rid of wires and remove router from my room, as million of other users.


Fair enough, or you could upgrade your router to 802.11ac for a more wired-like experience.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> Yes, it is.  Your other PC could be hard wired, you could have a server, you could have a USB drive connected to your router, you could have a NAS, hundreds of possible configurations.  You only told us about your one desktop.



I said several times that I m not talking for wired situation.

I told you about 2 desktops, and that I m looking for two cards.



WRXGuy1 said:


> No, not at all.  The interface doesn't make a difference for sound cards, for networking you want higher bandwidth with newer protocols and for longer life, as PCI is a dead interface.



Ok, so for wireless cards we only choose pci expess and not simple pci.
That was a useful info.



WRXGuy1 said:


> Notice how I said it would help, or eliminate.  Streaming HD content would be fine over 300Mbps, however you may still get a bit of lag here and there on occasion.  It's obvious that 300 is faster than 54.



Thats not what he said. He said there will be no difference at all



WRXGuy1 said:


> It's still not as good as hard wired or newer wireless protocols.



I said several times  I m not talking for wired situation.




WRXGuy1 said:


> Once more.  Wired is better.  Dual-band 802.11n is better.  802.11ac is better.



You dont have to replay that all the time, even my grandma knows wired is faster.
But I said several times  I m not talking for wired situation.




WRXGuy1 said:


> or you could upgrade your router to 802.11ac for a more wired-like experience.



I said several times that router wont change.



ScottALot said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> We don't know your network situation. Therefore, we have to speculate. A common setup is to have a desktop hooked up to the router on a wired connection and a laptop on a wireless. You're asking about getting a WiFi card for PCI / PCIe, so we can replace that wireless laptop with a desktop. However, we don't know what's on the other end. You could have a desktop with an onboard wireless connection (not a card), you could have a laptop with a built in wireless adapter (not a card), you could have either one of those be wired (not a card), or a million other things...heck you could be talking about a NAS, but we have no idea.
> 
> If you want clear answers, provide clear questions.



I said several times my network situation.
Plz read thread and dont be feisty.



ScottALot said:


> Generally, yes. However, this is a thread on WiFi cards and transfers. Plz stay ontopic.



Yes that was offtopic, but you disagree with  WRXGuy1.


----------



## Geoff

That's it, I'm done.  It's like trying to get ideas through to a brick.  Good luck dude.


----------



## ScottALot

golden member said:


> Right now, I had a pci card of 54mbps in the first pc, and I just bought temporarily this usb card of 150mbps in the second pc.
> So my current speed is 54mbps.





golden member said:


> I said several times my network situation.
> Plz read thread and dont be feisty.



You are aware that a "PC" can mean just about any computer, right? More specifically, it often references a Windows machine, but you could be talking about anything. So no, you haven't explicitly and specifically told us about your network situation. You've only given us broad statements. I'm not going to go through this entire thread and piece together your posts.

A thread should go like this, I've rated the quality of this thread as well.

Title which provides the general topic - Good
Original post that lays out the situation in detail that is clear and concise - Poor
Follow-up posts further detailing your situation, answering questions clearly and concisely - Awful
General respect for those who are trying to help you - Deplorable

You seem to think we have to follow your rules and guidelines. You're the guest here. Before you start accusing others of going off topic and criticizing the way people are trying to help you, you're going to have to be a veteran of this forum. You're going to have to know the ins and outs of the sub-communities and the mannerisms of the people here.
So until that happens, you're going to have to default to being unconditionally respectful.



golden member said:


> Yes that was offtopic, but you disagree with  WRXGuy1.



I generalized PCIe and PCI cards. Sure, there might be some rare exceptions, but PCIe cards are based on a newer technology and therefore, generally, are better than their PCI counterparts. No disagreement there.


----------



## golden member

WRXGuy1 said:


> That's it, I'm done.  It's like trying to get ideas through to a brick.  Good luck dude.



Before you leave dont forget to note how much better is the wired thing.

All of us, million of users who are wireless, we are just bricks.



ScottALot said:


> You are aware that a "PC" can mean just about any computer, right? More specifically, it often references a Windows machine, but you could be talking about anything. So no, you haven't explicitly and specifically told us about your network situation.......................



Its so simple and you dont have to be under any confusion.
Data: a router. 2 PC 
Task: wireless files transfer between them
Desideratum: two wifi cards




ScottALot said:


> I generalized PCIe and PCI cards. Sure, there might be some rare exceptions, but PCIe cards are based on a newer technology and therefore, generally, are better than their PCI counterparts. No disagreement there.



May I put the wireless card in a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot?
Will be the same as pci express slot?


----------



## voyagerfan99

golden member said:


> Before you leave dont forget to note how much better is the wired thing.
> 
> All of us, million of users who are wireless, we are just bricks.



Wired will always get better transfer rates than wireless. Period.



golden member said:


> May I put the wireless card in a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot?
> Will be the same as pci express slot?



Yes. Any PCI Express card can go in any size PCI Express slot as long as it is the maximum size of the slot or smaller. I run my PCIe X1 sound card in an x16 slot.


----------



## golden member

voyagerfan99 said:


> Wired will always get better transfer rates than wireless. Period.



Everybody knows that, no need to repeat it all the time like parrots.



voyagerfan99 said:


> Yes. Any PCI Express card can go in any size PCI Express slot as long as it is the maximum size of the slot or smaller. I run my PCIe X1 sound card in an x16 slot.



Me too.

Well, I ordered those cards and I ll soon tell you if transfers are faster and if videos play smoother.


----------



## voyagerfan99

golden member said:


> Everybody knows that, no need to repeat it all the time like parrots.



Well clearly you don't seem to understand that.


----------



## golden member

I installed those cards, first impression is that I m satisfied from transfer speed(that file of 150MB now needs 45'') but in opening large folders or  watching HD still lags, need some time to get a conclution about how much is the improvement.



voyagerfan99 said:


> Well clearly you don't seem to understand that.



Lol, because I want wireless? Topic is about wireless only, so stay ontopic and dont spam.


----------



## beers

golden member said:


> opening large folders or  watching HD still lags



Shocking.


----------



## voyagerfan99

golden member said:


> Lol, because I want wireless? Topic is about wireless only, so stay ontopic and dont spam.



You have no idea what spam is.



beers said:


> Shocking.



Indeed.


----------



## golden member

voyagerfan99 said:


> You have no idea what spam is.



In this case its when you say offtopics.




beers said:


> Shocking.



Dont forget to be shocked about the tranfer speed as well.


----------



## Geoff

We all told you this, yet you didn't want to understand.  300Mbps wireless-N is not ideal for wanting to stream lots of HD content.  You'd want to be wired ideally, or for wireless 802.11ac, or at least 5GHz 802.11n.

Are you trying to stream from one computer to another, with both wireless?  If so, that's another big factor, because you are basically splitting the bandwidth between two devices, you don't have 300Mbps between both devices.  It's 300Mbps shared between all devices on the access point.


----------



## beers

golden member said:


> Dont forget to be shocked about the tranfer speed as well.





> I m satisfied from transfer speed(that file of 150MB now needs 45'')



~3.33 MB/sec (26.64 mbps) is still shockingly bad.  

As directly above, simply putting one side as wired and having one side as wireless would increase your transfer rate and allow you to stream HD.



beers said:


> Adding one of your PCs as a wired connection will give you *about double* the transfer rate.



Here's a transfer from my N network, for reference.  Looks about double to me.






Changing your environment slightly would *clear up all of your issues* (except for giant folder previews, which is bluntly idiotic).

Feel free to develop strong opinions based on your vast, expert level of technical knowledge though.

Edit:
Dropped channel width to 20 MHz for direct comparison.


----------

