VOGONS


Reply 20 of 58, by digicube

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
darry wrote on 2021-01-14, 03:17:

In the end, the NICs are cheap enough that you might as well try both 100Mbps an 1000Mbps and determine for yourself how fast they are in relative and absolute terms . Please let us know if you do run those tests .

I haven't found a cheap gigabit NIC that works with Win95 yet. I'm only willing to spend $20. Hence I'm here asking for the brand and model of these NICs.

Using the 3COM 100Mbps NIC, I'm getting a transfer rate of 1.6MB/s between Win95 and Win7. If getting a gigabit NIC will double it, it'll be worth it.

Reply 21 of 58, by GigAHerZ

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
digicube wrote on 2021-01-14, 09:18:
darry wrote on 2021-01-14, 03:17:

In the end, the NICs are cheap enough that you might as well try both 100Mbps an 1000Mbps and determine for yourself how fast they are in relative and absolute terms . Please let us know if you do run those tests .

I haven't found a cheap gigabit NIC that works with Win95 yet. I'm only willing to spend $20. Hence I'm here asking for the brand and model of these NICs.

Using the 3COM 100Mbps NIC, I'm getting a transfer rate of 1.6MB/s between Win95 and Win7. If getting a gigabit NIC will double it, it'll be worth it.

I think you have a bottleneck somewhere else. 100Mbps should give you close to 10MB/s speeds...

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - And i intend to get every last bit out of it even after loading every damn driver!

Reply 22 of 58, by zyga64

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
digicube wrote on 2021-01-14, 09:18:

Using the 3COM 100Mbps NIC, I'm getting a transfer rate of 1.6MB/s between Win95 and Win7. If getting a gigabit NIC will double it, it'll be worth it.

I have PII 400 on BX with 3com 100Mbit. I may change FSB to 66 and check transfer speed for you to compare.
I also have Intel 100Mbit and Realtek8139 (also 100Mbit) if you want comparison.

No Windows 95 though (only 98SE), but eventually I may install clean Windows 95 on another disk 😀

1) VLSI SCAMP /286@20 /4MB /TVGA9000C /CMI8330
2) i420EX /486DX33 /16MB /TGUI9440 /YMF718+GUS
3) i430HX /P233MMX /64MB /VirgeDX+3DFX /YMF701
4) i440BX /P II 400 /192MB /MX440SE /SBLive!+Vibra16s
5) i865G /E5800 /2GB /Ti4200 /YMF724

Reply 23 of 58, by LewisRaz

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
digicube wrote on 2021-01-14, 09:18:
darry wrote on 2021-01-14, 03:17:

In the end, the NICs are cheap enough that you might as well try both 100Mbps an 1000Mbps and determine for yourself how fast they are in relative and absolute terms . Please let us know if you do run those tests .

I haven't found a cheap gigabit NIC that works with Win95 yet. I'm only willing to spend $20. Hence I'm here asking for the brand and model of these NICs.

Using the 3COM 100Mbps NIC, I'm getting a transfer rate of 1.6MB/s between Win95 and Win7. If getting a gigabit NIC will double it, it'll be worth it.

If you are only getting 1.6mb/s on a 100Mb card then you already have a serious bottleneck or config issue. Figure that out before investing time and money on 1000Mb

Reply 24 of 58, by digicube

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
GigAHerZ wrote on 2021-01-14, 09:45:

I think you have a bottleneck somewhere else. 100Mbps should give you close to 10MB/s speeds...

Any idea what the bottleneck is? 4GB CF card writes at 8MB/s in Win7. Could it be the Startech CF card adapter? P2 266, 256GB RAM? ASUS P2B-D mobo? I'll test with win98se on a 6GB HDD.

Reply 25 of 58, by OzzFan

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
LewisRaz wrote on 2021-01-14, 11:34:
digicube wrote on 2021-01-14, 09:18:
darry wrote on 2021-01-14, 03:17:

In the end, the NICs are cheap enough that you might as well try both 100Mbps an 1000Mbps and determine for yourself how fast they are in relative and absolute terms . Please let us know if you do run those tests .

I haven't found a cheap gigabit NIC that works with Win95 yet. I'm only willing to spend $20. Hence I'm here asking for the brand and model of these NICs.

Using the 3COM 100Mbps NIC, I'm getting a transfer rate of 1.6MB/s between Win95 and Win7. If getting a gigabit NIC will double it, it'll be worth it.

If you are only getting 1.6mb/s on a 100Mb card then you already have a serious bottleneck or config issue. Figure that out before investing time and money on 1000Mb

+1 Good catch! That's about 1/10 the speed of 100Mbit, or about 10Mbit speeds. Something else is going on.

A (mostly accurate) listing of my computer systems: http://www.shelteringoak.com/OzzNet/

Reply 26 of 58, by Tiido

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

On Win98/SE/ME I use a program called TCPoptimizer, I'm not sure if it works on Win95 but it should be able to cure the bottleneck you're seeing.

T-04YBSC, a new YMF71x based sound card & Official VOGONS thread about it
Newly made 4MB 60ns 30pin SIMMs ~
mida sa loed ? nagunii aru ei saa 😜

Reply 27 of 58, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Tiido wrote on 2021-01-14, 20:20:

On Win98/SE/ME I use a program called TCPoptimizer, I'm not sure if it works on Win95 but it should be able to cure the bottleneck you're seeing.

+1 to that . I seem to remember something called TCPAdjust that might work . Always backup the registry if trying a program like that. Program will usually offer to do it for you.

Reply 28 of 58, by digicube

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I ran TCPoptimizer and load optimal settings. Transfer rate is 800KB/s in Win98SE on 6GB HDD. NIC is 3COM 3C905C-TX. I get same results using Netgear GA311 gigabit NIC. Bottleneck is HDD and CF card? So no point in getting gigabit NIC then.

Reply 29 of 58, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
digicube wrote on 2021-01-14, 21:18:

I ran TCPoptimizer and load optimal settings. Transfer rate is 800KB/s in Win98SE on 6GB HDD. NIC is 3COM 3C905C-TX. I get same results using Netgear GA311 gigabit NIC. Bottleneck is HDD and CF card? So no point in getting gigabit NIC then.

That HDD seems awfully slow . My 52MB Quantum Prodrive from 1991 was about that speed . Even without DMA, it should be much faster, AFAICR .

Reply 30 of 58, by digicube

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I forgot to do HDD auto detect in BIOS after switching from CF card to HDD. After doing that, I'm getting 1.7MB/s with a 6GB HDD on a 100mpbs NIC and 1.8MB/s on a gigabit NIC using Cat5 cable. So is the bottleneck still with the HDD and CF card?

Reply 31 of 58, by OzzFan

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Have you tried setting up something like an iPerf test between two systems to see if the network bandwidth is there?

A (mostly accurate) listing of my computer systems: http://www.shelteringoak.com/OzzNet/

Reply 32 of 58, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
digicube wrote on 2021-01-14, 02:58:

The idea is to have fastest transfer speed possible, so a gigabit card will definitely be faster than a 100mbps card even if I can't reach 100mbps.

Not necessarily.

You have to find the bottleneck and then remove it. If it's the NIC itself, then what you say is right. However if it's hard disk etc, it won't make the slightest difference, and if it's CPU, it could actually make matters worse. NICs don't just differ in the PHY rate they offer but also in how much of the processing they offload. That was a BIG thing in the old days. Both silicon (the chips/cards) and drivers had a role to play there. If you had a weak, crappy CPU but a card that could do a lot itself and drivers for your chosen OS that supported that functionality, it could run rings around a fast but unaccelerated design.

I don't think anyone seriously tried networking with Win95, but in the P3 era when FPS games on LAN under Win98SE were a thing, people did and benchmarked them. If you're only doing network transfers, Realtek NICs (eg. RTL8139B) are cheap and fast. But they hog CPU very badly. Your Q3A framerate would take a nosedive. A 3Com NIC from the same time (eg. 3C905C-TX) would perform similarly in pure network stuff, but in games it would thrash the Realtek. Now, you're proposing using a significantly slower CPU with an OS known for bad network performance. I'd be surprised if you even came close to 100Mbps, let alone any more. You should be focusing on best drivers. In Win9x days that invariably meant 3Com, so a 3Com PCI Gigabit NIC would probably be your best choice.

As for PCI-X cards: yes, they are backwards compatible with PCI, but if the card needs PCI 2.2 your old P2 board with max PCI 2.1 isn't going to be able to run it. But... the card you mention isn't a PCI-X card, just a regular 64b PCI card. Still, it's PCI 2.2. That can be backwards compatible with PCI 2.1 buses, but no guarantees.

But to go back to performance, take a look at this thread:
Maximum Network Speed on Win 95/98/SE

CPU plays a big part as others say. 9x is especially inefficient. WinME might be a significant improvement over 95/98. It has some network improvements.

I've played with Intel Pro 100 and Pro 1000 GT on 98SE with very fast hardware. Like Athlon 64. The Pro 1000 GT gets you a touch more LAN SMB transfer speed but we're talking like 100mbps at best.

So with a CPU ten times the speed of yours and some known-fast Intel NIC hardware - plus a lot of experience/knowledge in optimizing network performance - he's not getting over 100Mbps on Win98SE.

You really shouldn't be looking at faster NICs on this OS. With NT4 it *might* be relevant, but even there that CPU is likely to bottleneck faster than the NIC.

Reply 34 of 58, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
digicube wrote on 2021-01-15, 01:55:

I just installed NT4 and got same results 1.7MB/s. Must be a CPU bottleneck then. I'll forget about gigabit NICs on CPUs < 1GHz.

Could be HDD too. iPerf was already suggested, that might show differences.

Reply 35 of 58, by digicube

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Windows 95/98/NT doesn't seem to be supported. https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php#windows

WINNT is only using 30-50% CPU usage when I copy files to it at 1.5MB/s from WIN7. So looks like it's the CF card that is the bottleneck.

Last edited by digicube on 2021-01-15, 03:28. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 36 of 58, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
digicube wrote on 2021-01-15, 03:07:

Windows 95/98/NT doesn't seem to be supported. https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php#windows

You must go further back in time for Windows 9x support...

https://web.archive.org/web/20040205053529/ht … .1/release.html

Reply 38 of 58, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
digicube wrote on 2021-01-15, 03:32:

Do I use the latest version on my WIN7 machine or the old WIN9X version?

Iperf2 and Iperf3 are nor compatible . I can't find info as to Iperf vs Iperf2 .

I would go with the same version on both machines .

Reply 39 of 58, by digicube

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I get this result between WINNT4 and WIN7 using this instruction https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/0001 … dth-using-iperf
Looks like IT IS the CF card/HDD bottleneck.
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[164] 0.0- 1.0 sec 13.0 MBytes 109 Mbits/sec
[164] 1.0- 2.0 sec 8.13 MBytes 68.2 Mbits/sec
[164] 2.0- 3.0 sec 10.3 MBytes 86.6 Mbits/sec
[164] 3.0- 4.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.1 Mbits/sec
[164] 4.0- 5.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.4 Mbits/sec
[164] 5.0- 6.0 sec 6.77 MBytes 56.8 Mbits/sec
[164] 6.0- 7.0 sec 8.33 MBytes 69.9 Mbits/sec
[164] 7.0- 8.0 sec 11.0 MBytes 91.9 Mbits/sec
[164] 8.0- 9.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.8 Mbits/sec
[164] 9.0-10.0 sec 11.0 MBytes 92.1 Mbits/sec
[164] 10.0-11.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.3 Mbits/sec
[164] 11.0-12.0 sec 8.66 MBytes 72.7 Mbits/sec
[164] 12.0-13.0 sec 10.8 MBytes 90.8 Mbits/sec
[164] 13.0-14.0 sec 10.1 MBytes 84.7 Mbits/sec
[164] 14.0-15.0 sec 9.52 MBytes 79.8 Mbits/sec
[164] 15.0-16.0 sec 10.6 MBytes 88.6 Mbits/sec
[164] 16.0-17.0 sec 8.96 MBytes 75.2 Mbits/sec
[164] 17.0-18.0 sec 10.8 MBytes 91.0 Mbits/sec
[164] 18.0-19.0 sec 10.8 MBytes 91.0 Mbits/sec
[164] 19.0-20.0 sec 8.70 MBytes 72.9 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[164] 20.0-21.0 sec 4.10 MBytes 34.4 Mbits/sec
[164] 21.0-22.0 sec 10.1 MBytes 85.1 Mbits/sec
[164] 22.0-23.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.4 Mbits/sec
[164] 23.0-24.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.7 Mbits/sec
[164] 24.0-25.0 sec 11.0 MBytes 92.1 Mbits/sec
[164] 25.0-26.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.6 Mbits/sec
[164] 26.0-27.0 sec 10.8 MBytes 90.4 Mbits/sec
[164] 27.0-28.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.3 Mbits/sec
[164] 28.0-29.0 sec 9.51 MBytes 79.8 Mbits/sec
[164] 29.0-30.0 sec 10.1 MBytes 84.4 Mbits/sec
[164] 0.0-30.2 sec 300 MBytes 83.4 Mbits/sec