Cat5e or Cat6

[D-Dan]

Hi guys,

In a bid to minimise problems originating in my home, I'm reworking my internal set up. Unfotunately, my master BT socket is in the hallway, which has no power outlets whatsoever, which has restricted me to using a (long) modem cable from the filtered faceplate to the router. Now I have a shielded 10m cable, but I'm still conscious that this is the most likely source of unwanted noise in the network.

A friend who specialises in power cables has made me up a custom mains extension lead that will allow me to position the router within short reach of the router (and hopefully the lack of any electrical equipment in the immediate vicinity will keep noise to the router to an absolute minimum. The downside is I will need two 10m ethernet cables to connect the computers. I can get 10m leads of Cat5e or Cat6 for roughly the same price, so which should I go for. I realise that 10m is well within operating range for both, though they are both described as patch cables, which would tend to limit them to around 10m to keep within spec. I don't anticipate any major problems, but wondered if there was any advantage in choosing one rather than the other?

Thanks in advance.

Steve

[Simon]

Sorry Steve, I don't know, but I'm sure someone else will. 

[Lance]

I don't know the answer for certain, but would imagine the cat6 supports something extra or has extra shielding or something.

[bobleslie]

Cat6 supports Gigabit network, but is only necessary if you have (or intend to have) an all-gigabit network.

You're right that prices are now close. A 10m cat5e is £2.75 and cat6 is £3.85 incl. VAT. So not worth worrying about the extra cost. You can buy both types in 30m lengths as well.

If I were setting up a new network today from scratch, I would go cat6 and make sure that all components in the network were gigabit rated. Otherwise, it's a waste of money.

I'm not, so all mine (8 wires) is cat5e and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

[Rik]

Like Bob, I'd say go for Cat6 and get future protection. Incidentally, the limit on any one segment of ethernet is 100m, not 10m.

[D-Dan]

Thanks guys - Cat6 it is then.

Incidentally, the limit on any one segment of ethernet is 100m, not 10m.

Rik:

I used Wikipedia as my source which suggests that the 100m limit comprises 90m + 10m patch cable. Hence my assumption that a patch extension would be restricted to 10m. Not that it matters in my case, I don't need more than 10m.

Steve

[Rik]

If the entire length of wire is a patch cable, Steve, it can be 100m. I have several 30m cables, for example.

[wecpcs]

Cat6 supports Gigabit network, but is only necessary if you have (or intend to have) an all-gigabit network.

You're right that prices are now close. A 10m cat5e is £2.75 and cat6 is £3.85 incl. VAT. So not worth worrying about the extra cost. You can buy both types in 30m lengths as well.

If I were setting up a new network today from scratch, I would go cat6 and make sure that all components in the network were gigabit rated. Otherwise, it's a waste of money.

I'm not, so all mine (8 wires) is cat5e and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

CAT5e also supports Gigabit Ethernet, see the article below.


Question: What are the transmission speed for Cat 5, Cat 5e, Cat 6 network cable?

Cat 5 and Cat 5e UTP cables can support 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet. Although Cat 5 cable may support to some degree in Gigabit Ethernet (1000 Mbps), it performs below standard during high-data transfer scenarios, so I do not recommend you to use Cat 5 cable in Gigabit Ethernet, use Cat 5e instead (of course Cat 6 is the best).

Cat 6 UTP cable is manufactured targeting on Gigabit Ethernet and backward compatible with 10/100 Mbps Ethernet. It performs better then Cat 5 cable with higher transmission rate and lower transmission error. If you plan to have Gigabit network, look for Cat 5e or Cat 6 UTP cables.

Note: Cat 3 UTP cable? Forget about it... It's not popular anymore since it can only support 10 Mbps Ethernet.

Colin

[D-Dan]

Well, following your reassurances I decided to get two 20m Cat 6 cables (gives me more options for routing the cables), and after 2 hours of drilling, hammering and shifting, I now have the router located within spitting distance of the master socket, and both PCs connected using the wired network.

Here's hoping this signals the end of my occasional stability problems.

Steve

[bobleslie]

Here's quite an interesting article explaining why you would want to go cat6  given the opportunity. It's worth reading to the end.

[D-Dan]

Very illuminating. Seems like I made the right choice 

[Rik]

Here's quite an interesting article explaining why you would want to go cat6   given the opportunity. It's worth reading to the end.

Great find, Bob. 

[bobleslie]

 

[D-Dan]

As a matter of interest for anyone else using a long socket to router cable, since my re-wiring exercise I've gained more headroom on my SNR:

Uptime:   1 day, 4:14:10
Modulation:   G.992.5 annex A
Bandwidth (Up/Down) [kbps/kbps]:   867 / 6.652
Data Transferred (Sent/Received) [MB/GB]:   70,51 / 1,49
Output Power (Up/Down) [dBm]:   12,5 / 0,0
Line Attenuation (Up/Down) [dB]:   25,0 / 43,5
SN Margin (Up/Down) [dB]:   5,0 / 8,0

As seen in red. This used to be between 5 and 6, but has been steady at 8 all day today. The odd thing is this didn't increase immediately, but waited until today.

I'm not going to tempt fate by trying to sync at a higher speed. I'll simply wait until it does it itself

Steve

[Rik]

Wait 14 days or so, Steve, and you may get a 6db target margin back.

[psp83]

I agree with Rik.

I have 2x 25m, 1x 10m & 1x 55m cat5e FTP ethernet cables going around the house. I would never go over 90m thou.

[Sebby]

If you can get them for the same price, go for Cat6.

[D-Dan]

I did (go for Cat6) - and I've re-wired my network at home completely, and have potential performance gains waiting to be realised

The only slightly disconcerting thing I've found is, since the router is no longer in the same room as my computer corner (as I like to call it), I can't see it. Not such a big deal, except I keep finding myself peeking around the door to check on it - even though I know everything is working fine. Very odd, but like the average Borg, I will adapt.

Steve

[Rik]

Or run Routerstats.

[Sebby]

I did (go for Cat6) - and I've re-wired my network at home completely, and have potential performance gains waiting to be realised

The only slightly disconcerting thing I've found is, since the router is no longer in the same room as my computer corner (as I like to call it), I can't see it. Not such a big deal, except I keep finding myself peeking around the door to check on it - even though I know everything is working fine. Very odd, but like the average Borg, I will adapt.

Steve

The joys of using a BT line.

[D-Dan]

I run Routerstats all the time, so I do have some visual aid - but I still miss the reassuring green lights blinking away on the router.

I'm still trying to figure out who's bright idea it was to install the master socket in the hallway, miles away (well, yards away) from just about any other useful location 

Steve

[bobleslie]

The G.P.O used to site the single 'phone near the hallway table. It's an old English tradition.

[D-Dan]

Hallway table? I need to be able to walk down that hallway. A table would be an effective barricade.

Steve

[bobleslie]

Every house used to have a hallway table (small), hat/coat/umbrella stand, and a large mirror.

The 'phone was always located in the hall, on the table, so the householder could have a 'private' conversation if visitors were in the living room.

It may also have been something to do with the G.P.O charging more to locate the telephone point further than a set distance.

[Rik]

Of course, it had the added benefit of keeping calls short in winter.

[Glenn]

It's hard to site phones in halls in new built houses now, most don't seem to have them, or if they do, the hall is too small, only the larger houses seem to be built with them.

[bobleslie]

Of course, it had the added benefit of keeping calls short in winter.

Indeed. Most homes didn't have central heating as we know it.

It also meant no interruptions to the T.V. for those who could afford to rent them.

Most people did not have a telephone, either.

No wonder we spent most of our time outside. 

[Inkblot]

My sister is one of the few people I know who still has a single telephone point in the house, not only that it's in the hall with no nearby seating. Want to make/receive a call? Go stand 3ft from the front door in a draft. I guess with 4 (Now grown up) kids it was a good way of keeping them off the phone!

[Rik]

Indeed. Most homes didn't have central heating as we know it.

It also meant no interruptions to the T.V. for those who could afford to rent them.

Most people did not have a telephone, either.

No wonder we spent most of our time outside. 

Dad worked for the then GPO, hence the phone but we were definitely one of the few. Calls cost 3d, about 1.25p, but with inflation, that's a lot more expensive than we now pay. If you wanted to call the States, you phoned the operator, booked the call and got it several hours later at a cost of £5/3 minutes. You didn't do it often!

[bobleslie]

Aaah...the old threepenny bit. I used to love those because they were 'different'.

But not  as much as I loved the sixpence, which used to turn up automagically in my Christmas puddings.  

[Fox]

Argh...don't get Rik reminiscing, he will start going on about his Boer War experiences and how you could go out with a fiver and get a new suit, 8 pints and still have change for a fish supper 

[Inkblot]

Argh...don't get Rik reminiscing, he will start going on about his Boer War experiences and how you could go out with a fiver and get a new suit, 8 pints and still have change for a fish supper 

But no bus home again afterwards?

[Rik]

Argh...don't get Rik reminiscing, he will start going on about his Boer War experiences and how you could go out with a fiver and get a new suit, 8 pints and still have change for a fish supper 

[bobleslie]