Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

LAN & WAN Reviews


My performance testing was quick and dirty, since a true switch performance test would require a Spirent SmartBits test platform or its equivalent, which I don't have access to. I used two computers with 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon 3000+ processors, both running Windows XP SP2. Yes, I know that the Windows TCP/IP stack isn't the fastest, but it's what I had handy. (Pummel me in the comments if that's what you enjoy...)

The gigabit adapters in each machine were Intel PRO/1000 MT Desktop PCI cards with drivers downloaded from Intel's support website. I tried both 4 and 9K jumbo frame settings, but settled on using 4K, since it seemed to work best with my setup. Short (under 6') CAT 5e cables were used to connect each computer to the switch.

I ran separate transmit and receive tests using IxChariot, with the console and Endpoint 1 running on the P4 machine. So the data directions are with respect to the Intel system. I used the IxChariot high_performance_throughput script, running 1 minute tests in each direction using TCP/IP. This script uses a 10,000,000 byte filesize and 65,535 byte send and receive buffers and blasts data as fast as it can.

Figures 1 and 2 plot the average transmit and receive throughputs reported by IxChariot for the six switches. They also include reference runs using the same two computers connected via a 100 Mbps switch and the same two CAT 5e cables attached to each machine connected via a generic, i.e. not bandwidth or Category rated, RJ45 inline coupler. The Gigabit Straight cable runs were done without jumbo frames and with 4K jumbo.

Transmit Performance Comparison
Click to enlarge image

Figure 1: Transmit Performance Comparison

Figure 1 clearly shows three things:

  • There is a significant difference (~20%) between not using jumbo frames and 4K jumbo frames
  • There is little difference among switches
  • Best-case % throughput loss is significantly less for 100 Mbps than gigabit Ethernet (7% vs. 30%)

Table 2 summarizes the percent of throughput loss for each switch and the no jumbo frame case, using the straight cable, 4k jumbo frame test as a reference. All transmit results are within 5%, which I think can safely be said to be within measurement resolution.

Product Transmit (Mbps) % Loss
Gigabit Straight cable -no jumbo 551.7 20%
Linksys SD2008 658.2 5%
Belkin F5D5141-8 666.8 4%
Trendnet TEG-S8 671.8 3%
Netgear GS108 685.4 1%
D-Link DGS-2208 685.7 1%
Netgear GS608 692.7 0%
Gigabit Straight cable - 4k jumbo 692.5 -
Table 2: Transmit throughput relative loss

Similar conclusions can be reached using Figure 2 and Table 3, which summarize receive test results.

Receive Performance Comparison
Click to enlarge image

Figure 2: Receive Performance Comparison

Receive loss is a bit of a puzzle, since the percentage throughput reduction for the Belkin and Linksys switches is twice that of the other switches. But I'm reluctant to attribute the loss to anything other than measurement error, since both Vitesse and Broadcom-based products show higher losses.

Product Receive (Mbps) % Loss
Gigabit Straight cable -no jumbo 578.6 23%
Belkin F5D5141-8 668.8 12%
Linksys SD2008 689.5 9%
D-Link DGS-2208 728.6 4%
Netgear GS108 734.4 3%
Trendnet TEG-S8 734.5 3%
Netgear GS608 742.7 2%
Gigabit Straight cable -4k jumbo 755.8 -
Table 3: Receive throughput relative loss

Closing Thoughts

So there you have it. It's nice to see that manufacturers have gotten the word that jumbo frames count, even if only for bragging rights and to make a potential sale-killer go away. Every one of these switches automatically supports jumbo frames up to 9K, although it would be nice if Linksys and Belkin added this information to product boxes and the information posted on their websites.

Note that when consider the throughput loss data you have seen, your mileage may vary for jumbo frame performance improvement and actual throughput obtained. Pumping bits along at gigabit speeds demands much more from your OS, computer bus architecture (and speed!) and TCP/IP stack. So those of you with speedier machines than mine might see faster speeds and lower throughput loss.

But what won't make a difference is the switch you choose. You can buy any of these products and feel confident that they aren't a throughput bottleneck.

Check out the slideshow Be sure to see the slide show for the inside details on each switch.

More LAN & WAN

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

Hi. I added an exception rule to the firewall, to allow BOTH TCP and UDP to port 53, from/to all, because I run a DNS server. I enabled 'log dropped p...
Dear guys I have already done a search on this topic, but I could not find an up-to-date answer to my questions.I have an open ticket with my seller o...
Continuation of. . .
Hello allI find these entries along all my kernel messages. What does it mean?Thanks!May 26 09:52:54 router kernel: net_ratelimit: 18 callbacks suppre...
How can I connect 2 or more PCs/Laptop using a non-manage switch without connecting to the network?Is there a setting in Windows 10 required? Thanks. ...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3