Is Cable or DSL better for gaming?

Hi,
first of all I would say DSL is much better cuz it´s the latest technology and lots of broadband connection are on dsl.
Not always ADSL but that´s the most common method.
Hehe, but that´s no argument....
But DSL is actually better than cable because of the ping, which is in fact the most important aspect for online gaming, can be 15< ms and on cable you always have around 100ms and that is even slower than ISDN. However you could be unlucky if the provider uses a transfer technic (method, or how you want to call it ) called "interleaving". That means that the data you transfer runs the way to the gateway twice and then, according to the level this method is used, your low-ping-ability gets worse. So first inform at your dsl supplier if he doesn´t use "interleaving" but "Fastpath" (that´s the faster one where the (same) data runs one time).
But why all this ****? Why are they forcing the data to run twice, you may ask....
Yes, that´s because of the (datapackage) "loss". You know, when the data runs twice, package loosing is minimized.
So if the provider uses fastpath there could be more connection errors.
But in my, and in the opion of a lot of other broadband suppliers, that´s not very dramatic *gg*.
So, take (A)DSL.

Btw: I´m not an employee of any provider or someting like that. I´m a 15 year old pupil
And sorry for my English - I´m German...

Heh, that is so not true. I get great pings on cable. Much better than I did on my old DSL line. It depends where you live and what isp. Go to dslreports for a lot of info...

PS I can get as low as 20 ms to my favorite inf server. That is not the least I have gotten in online gaming, either... Beats the hell out of my old DSL connection. Oh, the 10 mbps of downstream bandwidth (only 1 mbit up) is nice too.

It is totally dependant on the ISP involved. In generally, latency is more important to gaming, voip, remote control, and any other time sensitive application than overall bandwidth. Bandwidth is important for large transfers (downloads). Usually DSL will be better for this, but that is not always the case. The problem with cable is that you are more likely to be affected by your neighbors than with DSL. Of course, DSL you are still going to hit a bottleneck (your ISP's POP/routers, upstream) where the other subscribers will affect you...

It really doesn't matter - both are about equal.

Depends on location.

I would have to say cable. It has a higher download rate. I've gotten speeds of 800k once.

ONLY 800k on cable? Back when they first installed it at my friends house, he was getting 1.8 meg/sec always.

I'd check http://groups.google.com for reviews of the providers you are considering.

I have had cable for the last 1.5 years and it works great!

Your AVERAGE cable has higher download speeds than DSL, but it usually has the same or lower upload speed. And then there is the ping. In my own personal experience cable sucks a big one compared to my DSL as far as ping times. My father has cable at his house, and I ping at least 100 more ms ping to most Inf servers that I regularly play on. And his house is only like 2 miles away from my house...

My best friend had DSL, and switched to cable due to his ISP taking a **** on him, and while his cable is slightly faster on downloading(it varies alot now though), it's upload is less than half what the DSL's was, and his pings to Inf servers are like double. Literally. However, overall the cable is working better for him due to the ISP problems he was having. He can't even think about hosting any servers on that cable though, the lousy 128k upload is crap for hosting more than a couple people.

You need to find out exactly what kind of speeds of cable and DSL your local ISPs are offering, and pick on an individual basis. For downloading and playing games online, the upload won't matter. However, if you want to run any kind of file server, or game server upload is very important. With standard DSL you also need to pay attention to your distance from the phone company Central Office (CO). The max distance for decent DSl is like 30,000 ft from the CO if I remember correctly. If you are near the limit you'll want to stick to cable. DSLreports.com used to have a line distance guestimator, don't know if they still do...

If your local conditions are good, I would personally get the DSL. Especially if you have some options with 384k or more upload while still having a decent download (cable is typically limited to 128k or maybe 256k if you're lucky, VERY few cable companies off any faster uploads). However, if your conditions aren't favorable for DSL there, your speed options aren't very good, etc, cable will do well enough then. Especially compared to the worthless dialup you're on now...

Originally posted by Keganator
ONLY 800k on cable? Back when they first installed it at my friends house, he was getting 1.8 meg/sec always.

Click to expand...

I am on the edge of the boundary line. Plus this was with Cox@home. And we alll know @home is the AOL of broadband.

Bussiness class SDSL. 'Nuff said.

On NA servers, I get a 40-60 ping. And that's in INF. A less demanding game (even vanilla UT) is a near-LAN quality experience at 10-30 pings.

It greatly depends on the provider, but overall unless you've got a ****ty cable provider, Cable's going to beat the pants off of DSL.

AT&T Broadband has *GREAT* ping times due to it's routing (I see around 50-100 ms on half-life games, and 10-75 or so on UT/INF games. Halflife local bots ping at 15, so.)

Download speeds, Cable spanks DSL for download speeds unless you live in canada, where they offer some of the 1.5mbit DSL for reasonable prices (here in colorado, anything over 256k costs you $$$), I generally see 1.5 mb/sec downloads, but I've seen as high as 10 mbit. (seriously).

Upload speeds, both are going to be about the same, ATTBI is capped at about 128k up, so are the local DSL lines. Generally you have to pay $$$ for more than 128k up. I think Qwest charges an assload for you to get 256, and above that it's just insane.

Reliability, well, I live in Qwest (USwest) territory - DSL lines simply don't stay up in most neighborhoods that have them.
Excuses range from "Well you are pretty far from the co" (guy was a whole 100 yards from it) to "Sunlight is interfering with the fiber lines" - both are serious responses from Qwest technical support.

Your local DSL provider will probobly be better than qwest.

As for cable, the only downtime I've had was when a truck slammed into the node a couple years ago, (wound up being a qwest truck too, heh!) and then again when @home went kerplewie, but I was up a couple days later, and it's been alot better directly under AT&T - lets face it, Ma Bell knows how to get **** done.

Prices, Cable's cheaper than DSL in my area, but, YOUR RESULTS MAY VARY.

highly dependant on the "competition" in the region...
i know a friend in galseburg where theres very little competition but one dsl or cable provider AND THER BOTH SLOW alot of the time
its rediuclous
and she gets charged about $50 AMERICAN a month

ADSL is far better to cable,
l mean the more people using cable the more it sucks...
ADSL you always get 512...

So basically your better off with whatever is cheaper. Only difference between DSL and Cable is their connection type. Cable is used to transfer video and audio (TV, anyone?) so you get fast speeds. DSL is alittle fuzzy, but IIRC, its basically a souped up 56k modem where your the only one on and never get disconnected.

Originally posted by BlAcK_PlAgUe22
So basically your better off with whatever is cheaper. Only difference between DSL and Cable is their connection type. Cable is used to transfer video and audio (TV, anyone?) so you get fast speeds. DSL is alittle fuzzy, but IIRC, its basically a souped up 56k modem where your the only one on and never get disconnected.

Click to expand...

true go on whats cheaper and what as better deals