[LiveBrianD]

Recently I got a letter in the mail that comcast made improvements to the internet speed and I had to reboot my equipment to get the best speed, so I did. Now, on my desktop, pages seem to load quite a bit faster than usual - just a second or two usually. I pay for 15mbps down 3mbps up. I got around 27mbps down 3.7mbps up. (they have TurboBoost, which makes the first little bit of a download faster) When I download a file first, wearing off the effects of turboboost, it's around 17mbps down 3.7mbps up. On my laptop, it's the same. However, whether ethernet or wifi, pages still take the same amount of time to load. (could that be due to the slower CPU? The CPU usage spikes towards 90-100% while loading a page for a second) It doesn't matter if I use comcast's default dns or opendns...

How does your ISP's advertised speed compare to what you actually get?

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 08 August 2011 - 10:53 AM

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 08 August 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

Recently I got a letter in the mail that comcast made improvements to the internet speed and I had to reboot my equipment to get the best speed, so I did. Now, on my desktop, pages seem to load quite a bit faster than usual - just a second or two usually. I pay for 15mbps down 3mbps up. I got around 27mbps down 3.7mbps up. (they have TurboBoost, which makes the first little bit of a download faster) When I download a file first, wearing off the effects of turboboost, it's around 17mbps down 3.7mbps up. On my laptop, it's the same. However, whether ethernet or wifi, pages still take the same amount of time to load. (could that be due to the slower CPU? The CPU usage spikes towards 90-100% while loading a page for a second) It doesn't matter if I use comcast's default dns or opendns...

How does your ISP's advertised speed compare to what you actually get?

There could be little difference due to a number of reasons.

First, keep in mind that with most webpages today, downloading loading the content is only part of the equation. With today's webpages, you tend to get a LOT of javascript and other stuff that requires the CPU to do some work (which is why your CPU use will spike). If you are using an older, slower CPU, then that means that it might take longer for a page to display. Your Internet connection speed will have ZERO effect on this.

Then you need to keep in mind that your ISP (Comcast in your and my case) only controls a very small part of the browsing experience. You can kind of think of it like the subdivision road that many people live on. On that local subdivision road, there is not going to be much traffic and it is easily controlled to keep this flowing well. This is kind of like what Comcast controls. At some point, however, you leave the subdivision or local roads and get out into roads with a LOT more traffic. This is like your Internet connection. At some point, you go beyond Comcast's network and they no longer have any control over how faster or well your data travels. Their advertised and/or provided speeds only apply to what they control (i.e. typically it is essentially your connection speed from your house to one of their main switching stations). This is why you will tend to get different speeds with Speedtest.net depending on the server you choose...the level of traffic your data has to navigate will vary based upon its path.

Then there is the server that you ultimately connect to. Not all servers are equal. Some will take longer to serve up the data after you make the request for it (i.e. click on the link). So, while your request might get to the server in blazing fast speed and the server might actually send data back to you in blazing fast speed, it might still take the server a second or two to "process" the request and respond.

So, you combine all that with the fact that webpages typically are VERY small amounts of data in the grand scheme of things (i.e. compared to videos or ISO downloads or even MP3/music downloads) and you are faced with the fact that the actual transmission of the data of a typical webpage is a relatively minor part of the process and can be overwhelmed by the time needed for the server to process the request and also for your computer to process the webpage data and display the page. Kind of think of it like you decide to call up a friend just to say "Hi" and you get their voice mail. Even though your data that you send (i.e. a message of "Hi, just wanted to see what's up! Call me.") is relative small and does not take long to transmit (i.e. that phrase would be all of about 1 second to speak), you spend a LOT more time dialing the number, waiting for the system to actually process the call (if a cell phone), the phone ringing, listening to the message, and then you friend has to do a similar process to get the message. Most of the time has nothing to do with the actual transmission of the data.

[LiveBrianD]

Yeah the javascript and such explains why my slower laptop takes longer to load stuff than my fast desktop does. Come to think of it, I get about 2MB/sec, and if that were the only thing involved, everything would load instantly, which isn't quite the case. I'm using whatever server speedtest.net suggests automatically. btw I get that 2MB/sec when downloading things like Microsoft service packs - when I downloaded openoffice, I got about 160KB/sec, about the same as my old 1.5mbps DSL connection.

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 08 August 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Yeah the javascript and such explains why my slower laptop takes longer to load stuff than my fast desktop does. Come to think of it, I get about 2MB/sec, and if that were the only thing involved, everything would load instantly, which isn't quite the case. I'm using whatever server speedtest.net suggests automatically. btw I get that 2MB/sec when downloading things like Microsoft service packs - when I downloaded openoffice, I got about 160KB/sec, about the same as my old 1.5mbps DSL connection.

That is because either the openoffice server has a limited "pipe" (i.e. limits connections speeds no matter how many are downloading), the path was congested, or there were a lot of people also downloading it such that the overall pipe was saturated. Kind of make sense...OpenOffice is a "freeware"/open source software so they ain't gonna have bucket loads of cash to spend on servers and bandwidth like Microsoft can.

[coastie65]

My service is 20 Down and 5 up. I am getting 25.5 down and 5 up.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/1423834175.png

This post has been edited by coastie65: 08 August 2011 - 05:18 PM

[smax013]

I am not completely sure what my speeds are supposed to be...

Comcast uses "fuzzy math", "marketing" speak for their plans these days.

I have the "Performance" plan, which they describe as "up to 15 Mbps down & up to 3 Mbps up with Powerboost" in one place and "up to 12 Mbps down & up to 2 Mbps up with Powerboost" in another. I know in the past it was described as 6 Mbps service with Powerboost.

When I run Speedtest.net tests, I can typically get around 15 to 20 Mbps down and about 2 Mbps up. And sometimes it is better (I have gotten 25 Mbps down at times) and sometimes worse (just ran a test with about 12 Mbps down). All depends on the server (I tend to use a Comcast server in Chicago as that in theory keeps everything on the Comcast system) and the time of day (I am right in the middle of primetime usage, so that is likely why I just got 12 Mbps).

[Rommel]

Hi Brian,

I have fios, a 15/5 package that consistently runs around 20.5/5.4.
Have not yet experienced any down time in the year I've had it.

Seems to be the same everyday I am online.

I'm satisfied with it but sure would love to be able to afford the max available.

[smax013]

Rommel, on 08 August 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

I'm satisfied with it but sure would love to be able to afford the max available.

Why? Are you constantly downloading stuff? Or are you super impatient with the occasional stuff you download?

While in theory, I have faster options available to me for more money through Comcast, I don't see the point based upon my use. 95% of my Internet use is browsing (such a being on this forum) and checking email. For that stuff, I could realistically likely have less than 3 Mbps and not really notice it that much. The last 5% is for downloading big stuff. Most of it is downloading rented movies on my AppleTV (I still use a first gen AppleTV rather than the "streaming only" 2nd gen), but my "work flow" for those rented movies easily allows for those movies to download in the background (I tend to have about 3 to 4 movies rented, downloaded, and "queued up" at various points in the 30 day period that you get with iTunes rentals...so when I am ready to watch a particular movie, it is all downloaded and ready to go). Of course, there is some downloading of patches, updates, and upgrades for computer software. For example, I did pay for the Mac OS X Lion upgrade. That is about a 4 GB download.

So, most of my use would not really benefit from a faster speed. While the downloads would certainly benefit (yes, it would have been nicer to have a faster download of Lion), the reality is that I don't do them that often for it to be worth spending more money. For the example of Lion, I just let it download in the background will I did other stuff (both on the computer and in "real life").

Is there a part of me that would like to have more speed just to have more speed? Yes, the tech geek part of me would like that. But his allowance is not enough to pay for it, so the stingy, budget hawk part of me (that says we ain't got the money in the budget) teams up with the practical engineer part of me (that says it ain't worth it the added cost even if "we" had the money) tells him too bad. Of course, the real concern is if those parts of me actually start talking aloud to each other!

[coastie65]

smax013, on 08 August 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

I am not completely sure what my speeds are supposed to be...

Comcast uses "fuzzy math", "marketing" speak for their plans these days.

I have the "Performance" plan, which they describe as "up to 15 Mbps down & up to 3 Mbps up with Powerboost" in one place and "up to 12 Mbps down & up to 2 Mbps up with Powerboost" in another. I know in the past it was described as 6 Mbps service with Powerboost.

When I run Speedtest.net tests, I can typically get around 15 to 20 Mbps down and about 2 Mbps up. And sometimes it is better (I have gotten 25 Mbps down at times) and sometimes worse (just ran a test with about 12 Mbps down). All depends on the server (I tend to use a Comcast server in Chicago as that in theory keeps everything on the Comcast system) and the time of day (I am right in the middle of primetime usage, so that is likely why I just got 12 Mbps).

Hey Rommel. I had the same package with FiOS ( 15/2 ) after two years Verizon upgraded it to 20/5 ( no price increase though ). To be honest and as smax said, I don't think the average user will notice the difference except in the pocketbook for the higher priced service.

[Rommel]

smax013, on 08 August 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

Rommel, on 08 August 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

I'm satisfied with it but sure would love to be able to afford the max available.

Why?

Because it's there.
But the responsible side of me agrees with you that for what I use the internet for, it's not justified.
My performance is quick but if I had more play money I'd go for it because I could answer the why, "because I can".

And those occasional downloads would be done in a flash.

This post has been edited by Rommel: 09 August 2011 - 10:20 AM

[LiveBrianD]

My internet surfing is actually a bit faster compared to my older service (1.5mbps). For instance, the forums load a lot faster. I kinda feel left out without fios - here the options are slow att DSL or fast comcast cable internet. Sure, comcast is a PITA, but my dad finally switched over from att simply because the att connection wasn't fast enough for hd video streaming. It's like we're too far from the att hub here to get anything faster, some neighbors said they couldn't get att service at all, yet in the next city over they have much faster service. wtf? How is it that att isn't capable of doing anything faster than 1.5mbps while comcast offers 50mbps+?

Currently I'm on a deal where I get a nice low rate, 15mbps, for a year or two ($20/month for 6 months, then it's raised, then at 2 years it goes to full price), but otherwise I might've gotten a lower speed.

[LiveBrianD]

On this laptop while just looking at the forums (about 10 tabs open) and pandora streaming (adobe flash, I didn't get the pay version which uses html5 now), I have CPU usage of 30-50%. When I load a page, that spikes to about 90%. I do have a few sidebar gadgets though (weather, cpu, and network). It must be that the laptop is rather underpowered. How do people deal with the atom ones then?

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 09 August 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

On this laptop while just looking at the forums (about 10 tabs open) and pandora streaming (adobe flash, I didn't get the pay version which uses html5 now), I have CPU usage of 30-50%. When I load a page, that spikes to about 90%. I do have a few sidebar gadgets though (weather, cpu, and network). It must be that the laptop is rather underpowered. How do people deal with the atom ones then?

That laptop is a "souped up" netbook. While that CPU is WAY better than an Atom CPU that many netbooks use, it is still not even in the same class as the i5 you have for your desktop. And it is why the previous generation of Airs (with their Core 2 Duo CPUs) still performed about twice as fast as that laptop (see the link to the benchmarks in the other thread).

The end result is that you have a slower CPU and thus it will take a bit longer for it to "process" all the javascript and stuff. It is the same reason why my old P4 felt pokey in browsing compared to the custom built C2D desktop when I got that desktop up and running.

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 09 August 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

My internet surfing is actually a bit faster compared to my older service (1.5mbps). For instance, the forums load a lot faster. I kinda feel left out without fios - here the options are slow att DSL or fast comcast cable internet. Sure, comcast is a PITA, but my dad finally switched over from att simply because the att connection wasn't fast enough for hd video streaming. It's like we're too far from the att hub here to get anything faster, some neighbors said they couldn't get att service at all, yet in the next city over they have much faster service. wtf? How is it that att isn't capable of doing anything faster than 1.5mbps while comcast offers 50mbps+?

Currently I'm on a deal where I get a nice low rate, 15mbps, for a year or two ($20/month for 6 months, then it's raised, then at 2 years it goes to full price), but otherwise I might've gotten a lower speed.

In that particular case, you would notice it. If you were at say 20mbps and went to 30 mbps, probably not.

[LiveBrianD]

smax013, on 09 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 09 August 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

On this laptop while just looking at the forums (about 10 tabs open) and pandora streaming (adobe flash, I didn't get the pay version which uses html5 now), I have CPU usage of 30-50%. When I load a page, that spikes to about 90%. I do have a few sidebar gadgets though (weather, cpu, and network). It must be that the laptop is rather underpowered. How do people deal with the atom ones then?

That laptop is a "souped up" netbook. While that CPU is WAY better than an Atom CPU that many netbooks use, it is still not even in the same class as the i5 you have for your desktop. And it is why the previous generation of Airs (with their Core 2 Duo CPUs) still performed about twice as fast as that laptop (see the link to the benchmarks in the other thread).

The end result is that you have a slower CPU and thus it will take a bit longer for it to "process" all the javascript and stuff. It is the same reason why my old P4 felt pokey in browsing compared to the custom built C2D desktop when I got that desktop up and running.

I wonder how my 1st gen i5 desktop would compare to a 2nd gen i5 (2500K perhaps) one with the same specs (similar gpu, 8GB DDR3 1600MHz...) on that. The CPU usage only spikes to about 30% on it when I load pages. Oh, and any idea why a forum page is using 400MB of ram (according to chrome's task manager)? I've had the tab open all afternoon, though I put the PC in sleep for several hours. That would explain the 2.8GB ram used (of 3.6GB usable, 4.0GB total).

[LiveBrianD]

smax013, on 09 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

The end result is that you have a slower CPU and thus it will take a bit longer for it to "process" all the javascript and stuff. It is the same reason why my old P4 felt pokey in browsing compared to the custom built C2D desktop when I got that desktop up and running.

Why do they need to put all that anyway? I thought webpages were fine several years ago, though lighter weight. The only thing is that nowadays they use better looking graphics and such - but those don't require more resources to process.


Yep, it definitely is faster on the desktop. About half the time to load stuff.

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 09 August 2011 - 06:14 PM

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 09 August 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

smax013, on 09 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

The end result is that you have a slower CPU and thus it will take a bit longer for it to "process" all the javascript and stuff. It is the same reason why my old P4 felt pokey in browsing compared to the custom built C2D desktop when I got that desktop up and running.

Why do they need to put all that anyway? I thought webpages were fine several years ago, though lighter weight. The only thing is that nowadays they use better looking graphics and such - but those don't require more resources to process.


Yep, it definitely is faster on the desktop. About half the time to load stuff.

Depends entirely on the page.

For example, the forum is chalk full of scripting/coding. How in the world do you think it can be interactive like it is? You have to have some "coding" that gets "processed" for it to "do stuff".

The days of plain jane HTML coding are LONG gone.

[LiveBrianD]

smax013, on 09 August 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Depends entirely on the page.

For example, the forum is chalk full of scripting/coding. How in the world do you think it can be interactive like it is? You have to have some "coding" that gets "processed" for it to "do stuff".

The days of plain jane HTML coding are LONG gone.

True, but what about just viewing a page, not posting anything? Does that really require tons of code?

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 10 August 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

smax013, on 09 August 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Depends entirely on the page.

For example, the forum is chalk full of scripting/coding. How in the world do you think it can be interactive like it is? You have to have some "coding" that gets "processed" for it to "do stuff".

The days of plain jane HTML coding are LONG gone.

True, but what about just viewing a page, not posting anything? Does that really require tons of code?

A lot of that code, if not all of it, still needs to be "read" by the computer so that it can be ready when you click on some button like reply. Plus, I would expect that this is some "processing" of how to populate a forum page...forum pages are not "static" pages.

Frankly, I don't know how a lot of it works. My days of messing with webpages are LONG ago when all this "fancy stuff" like javascript, CSS, etc did not exist...or at least where not nearly as prevalent as they are now. I did do a couple pages that made use of javascript for "active buttons" (i.e. running your cursor over the button would cause it to change appearance), but nothing like what even the most basic page tends to do today.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 09 August 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Depends entirely on the page.

For example, the forum is chalk full of scripting/coding. How in the world do you think it can be interactive like it is? You have to have some "coding" that gets "processed" for it to "do stuff".

The days of plain jane HTML coding are LONG gone.

The code that causes the pages to slow to a crawl have nothing to do with the actual site. It is the extra crap.

On this page alone, for example, I have scripts blocked (thank you ad block plus) from cdn.gigya.com, api.viglink.com (more on this sucker later), ad.doubleclick.net, zap.staticworld.net, ping.crowdscience.com, and static.crowdscience.com. All of that is either advertising, or outside tracking.

Viglink is what really aggravates me about this site. Whoever is providing that item needs to add more servers, as the page will hang, waiting on them, for 30seconds or more sometimes.

But I'll say this much, with all of that crap disabled, the site loads FAST.