OK thank you - food for thought, I will investigate that further and get back to you.

In reply to a post by wobblymike:

Do you concur?

No, for the reason already given by jchamier regarding the processing power of the box.

I also don't understand the motivation behind the desire to get to the bigger number.

In reply to a post by jpm:

In reply to a post by wobblymike:

Do you concur?

No, for the reason already given by jchamier regarding the processing power of the box.

I also don't understand the motivation behind the desire to get to the bigger number.

Why do people buy a Ferrari rather than a Mini when the speed limit is 70mph? It's a matter of personal choice which is not necessarily governed by practical considerations.

In reply to a post by wobblymike:

jpm thank you for your thoughts I appreciate your concern.

Let me explain what I think the outcome will be if I upgrade to the SKY 2TB UHD box (my current one is a 1TB UHD box). If you think I am missing something I would be grateful to hear your view.

The 2TB box has a gigabit LAN port which I would directly connect to my gigabit router via cat 6 ethernet; my assumption being that it provide gigabit speed at the Sky Q box.

I would then expect the netflix speed tester to reflect that.

Do you concur?

Sky claim your box has a 100Mb port but wired speed tests via the Netflix app show 350-450Mb/s.
How do you expect a new box with a gigabit port to behave any different?

It is impossible to get over 100Mb/s on a single 100Mb Ethernet port. Either you already have a gigabit port or the Netflix speed test is very very broken.

Sky are also very very insistent that ALL their boxes (including those with gigabit ports) are capped to 100Mb/s.
If they boxes aren't capped then someone needs to inform their staff on the forums as they repeat this every time they are asked about boxes with gigabit ports.

It would be a waste of money. Netflix 4k HDR doesn't even hit 30Mb/s.

Could you post the exact model number from your Sky box?

Edited by j0hn83 (Tue 30-Jan-24 11:06:46)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by wobblymike:

Do you concur?

I don't, as the speed test result needs more than just the Ethernet port; the CPU in the box may not have sufficient performance to run the tester at more than 300/400 Mbps.

All you might achieve is a light on your router showing "1000" lit up, instead of a light showing "100".

You make a very good point but even if the speed test did come back faster than 300/400 Mbps I can't see how the OP would leverage that extra speed.

Edited by PCJM40 (Tue 30-Jan-24 11:13:53)

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

Why do people buy a Ferrari rather than a Mini when the speed limit is 70mph? It's a matter of personal choice which is not necessarily governed by practical considerations.

This isn't a "nobody needs broadband faster than 100Mbps" argument, it's questioning why the speed test result on a closed system matters when it has no impact on the operation of that system. It's like if your smart thermostat offered a speed test and as a result of it being low you were upgrading to a newer model with a faster processor in.

In reply to a post by jpm:

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

Why do people buy a Ferrari rather than a Mini when the speed limit is 70mph? It's a matter of personal choice which is not necessarily governed by practical considerations.

This isn't a "nobody needs broadband faster than 100Mbps" argument, it's questioning why the speed test result on a closed system matters when it has no impact on the operation of that system. It's like if your smart thermostat offered a speed test and as a result of it being low you were upgrading to a newer model with a faster processor in.

The continuing discussion all seems a little repetitive when all you are doing is reiterating the point that other people you do not hold your values and attitudes and wish to exercise their own personal choice are being silly.

Edited by GonePostal (Tue 30-Jan-24 13:33:12)

Do what you want to do. It'll make no difference to your viewing pleasure.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

It is impossible to get over 100Mb/s on a single 100Mb Ethernet port. Either you already have a gigabit port or the Netflix speed test is very very broken.

I find the Netflix speed test (https://fast.com) to be unreliable if I don't use a private tab in the browser. (Incognito / InPrivate etc).

Maybe the Q box's implementation of this test is caching.

What is more repetitive is when any of us posts on the OP's original question.

The answers have basically been provided and acknowledged. The OP is well aware, or should be, that extra speed would not provide any benefits beyond the fact that newer kit may be less prone to failure and maybe a miniscule reduction in electricity usage.

The Ferrari v Mini analogy is clearly completely irrelevant as there are several tangible advantages to each over the other, and likewise disadvantages. Particularly wrt to daily costs, where the Ferrari could well cost as much per day to keep on the road as a Mini does for a year. For instance tyres costing hundreds of pounds each and it being illegal to repair them if they get a puncture. Never mind road tax, insurance and E5 petrol swallowing. Routine servicing in four figures, not necessarily starting with a "1".

More prosaically and with a slight connection to the OP's kit, I have been entirely dependent on Three since the start of 2019. No landline. Until about a year ago the maximum the router could receive was 4G, but that sufficed to drive my cloud-based security cameras, smart TV, laptop and iPad, plus my Android phone if I decide to save battery when at home.

Then a 5G mast was installed quite a way away. Unreliable in the summer but since the trees lost their leaves almost constant 5G with a few hundred Mbps downstream. Completely unnecessary for me, but I went for it so needed a router upgrade as the existing one was 4G. Just "satisfying" to have.