At least the figures are published. If you tie them down enough they wil have some relevence: if only against each other.
And the WiFi numbers are calculated and scientifically determined, for example if you have a WiFi 4 (N) device with single antenna it does 72 Mbps, and if you have two antennas it is 72+72 = 144 Mbps. That has no real relationship with throughput on fixed Ethernet however.
Compare the WiFi 4/N 144 against a WiFi 6 1200 or 1400 and you can see the relative improvement. You can’t compare WiFi 6 1200 with Ethernet 1000.
23 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
broadband66 (knowledge is power)
Fri 18-Aug-23 15:20:06
Car efficiency figures may be published but are of no use as they do their best to shown the most efficient value they can achieve.
Bears no resemblance to real world figures.
Some PHEV show figures of over 300 mpg. Funny that! Then when the battery has run down the fuel consumption is worse than a non PHEV and more pollutants out of the tail pipe.
Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk, upgraded to fibre 40/10
Some PHEV show figures of over 300 mpg. Funny that! Then when the battery has run down the fuel consumption is worse than a non PHEV and more pollutants out of the tail pipe.
The research group Emissions Analytics found that, and others, which along with the DieselGate stuff, caused the likes of EU to change the method they test cars... still not sure its great.
The analogy with WiFi is that the published number is only comparable to another published number, not to actual throughput achieved. UNLIKE with Ethernet where 1000 Mbit/s ethernet will give 940 Mbit/s throughput on a TCP/IP connection.
23 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM