Gigabit ethernet performance

I am connecting my 2013 MBA to a 27in Thunderbolt monitor. From the monitor the I connect to a gigabit ethernet network.
I am transferrring large files to a NAS. The maximum GE network throughput I can archieve is about 52MB/sec.
I disconnect the network cable from the monitor and connect the same cable to a Dell laptop runnning WIndows 8.
I transfer the the same huge file. Windows monitor show network throughput of 106MB/sec
How can I tune the MBA network setting to archive similar throughout as a Windows Laptop?

journaling is not an issue on these throughput numbers, since there is no disk involved in these tests. I am dumping /dev/zero into netcat to send and sending the traffic to /dev/null on the receiving end, so this is truly a measure of raw network throughput....

Similar Messages

Mac Gigabit Ethernet Cards Network Performance

I now have a 1.8ghz CoreDuo MacMini and 2.0ghz MacBook and both have gigabit Ethernet cards in them, based on the Marvell Yukon chipset i believe.
I was wondering upto what speeds people have driven these ethernet cards?
I'm doing some testing using iperf version 2.0.4 but I can't seem to get any more than around 30MB/sec out of the cards.
Is this their limit? Have you managed to get better out of them? If so, how?
Synology have just brought out a NAS box (DS209), that reads and writes at around 60MB/sec, but pretty pointless unless your ethernet card is upto the same speeds.

If your notation is technically correct, you are saying you are getting 30 megabytes per second as your tested speed. That would translate to 240 megabits per second, which is above the old 100 megabits per second limitation. If this is all accurate, then the next question is what cabling and other equipment are you using to connect the two? If the cabling is not Cat6 (category 6) you may not be able to achieve optimal transfer speeds. If you are using a hub, switch, or router which is not gigabit rated, you would have limitations there.

Gigabit ethernet + TC doesn't mean gigabit transfer rates to the TC drive..

Alright.... I've spent a ton of time trying to figure this out (probably more than I should have) and I thought I'd post my findings so that either a) I'll save someone else time out there or b) someone can tell me I'm a complete moron
So I had an airport extreme. I replaced it with a Time Capsule. I have a Windows (boooo) PC connecting directly to my TC using a gigabit ethernet card (which I bought specifically connect it to the TC) so (I thought) I could enjoy gigabit transfer speeds to the internal hard drive from the wired PC. I had some fun plans of shoving my itunes directory on the TC and letting appletv sync (yes through my pc) and keeping lots of videos there, etc. Who cares - it'd be at gigabit speeds! But, in reality, things didn't quite work that way (though my itunes directory does still live on my TC...for now).
Well, I had a semi-unique situation to do some pretty massive testing because I have 2 gigabit network cards, 1 100mb network card, and a wireless-n network card and two internal hard drives - both very fast. I also tried Cat 5, Cat 5e, and a Cat 6 cable.
And here's what I (think I) figured out:
The hard drive in TC can not achieve gigabit transfer speeds. Your transfer rates will be limited by the IO to the hard drive. In fact, it can't even come close.
Using my "fastest" setup - so Cat 6, fastest internal drive, gigabit ethernet, and transferring a file exactly 1 gig in size I was able to have a sustained transfer rate of 140 megabit per second - that's 17.4 MB/s for folks not wanting to do the math (that's reading FROM the TC. Writing TO the TC dropped the speed down to 106 megabit/second or 13.35 MB/s). Going to a 5e cable knocked that down to 130 megabit a second. Putting in a Cat 5 cable knocked me down to 110 megabit a second. Switching between my two gigabit network cards did nothing. Switching my cards between two computers did nothing.
Now, just changing the above setup to use my 100Mb network card resulted in these results: 67 megabit read (8.4MB/s) and 65 megabit write (8MB/s)...
And using wireless N, I got about 10MB/s up and down.
And just as a final test, connecting my two computers together using the 2 gigabit network cards through the TC, I was able to achieve standard gigabit speeds.
SO what does this all mean?
I think the IO to the hard drive in the TC can only read at about 140 megabit/s and write at about 110 megabit/s. I'm not sure if it's the HD itself or how it's connecting to the TC - but that's why I'm not aware of anyone getting faster transfer rates to the drive in the TC (maybe you guys are?). The gigabit ports themselves are fine - and if you're doing anything from one gigabit port to another gigabit port you'll be fine.
So stop beating yourself up trying to find some elusive XP specific issue with gigabit transfer rates (though vista had a problem - shocker), or that you must have a defective gigabit card (which is why I have two cards now instead of one :)), or that your cable must be bad ("maybe my cat 5e isn't good enough?")... it's just this drive ... or how the drive is connecting to the network - can't handle the gigabit speeds.
Unless someone else out there has another explanation? Do these speeds mesh with what you're seeing in "optimal" situations? Or maybe there's just a throttle switch for goobers like me using Windows instead of MacOS!

Hi,
the interfaces available today which connect your drives integrated electronics to your computer can handle that speeds. but the drive itself is limited by the mechanical things going on in there
You can get such transfer speeds if the data you request is in the cache of the drives internal electronics for example. Some drives have 8 MB of cache memory. So if you request to read or write less than 8 mb and (in the read case) you are lucky enough to have those few megabytes cached then you may get that performance
Regards,
somi

What is faster thunderbolt or usb 3.0 gigabit ethernet

What is faster a thunderbolt to gigabit ethernet adapter or a usb 3.0 gigabit ethernet adapter?
Thanks

Both Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 have bandwidths that exceed gigabit ethernet so based on theoretical numbers they should perform the same. However, different product manufacturers will write different drivers and use different hardware so unless you test specific products the question can't really be answered. Probably have to wait until magazines such as MacWorld or other Mac related websites test and compare devices.

How do I maximize LAN speeds using Gigabit Ethernet, jumbo frames?

I move a lot of large files (RAW photos, music and video) around my internal network, and I'm trying to squeeze out the fastest transfer speeds possible. My question has to do both with decisions about hardware and what settings to use once it's all hooked up.
This is what I have so far:
-- imac 3.06GHz, macbook pro 2.53GHz
-- Cisco gigabit smart switch capable of jumbo frames
-- Buffalo Terastation Duo NAS (network attached storage), also capable of Gbit and jumbo frames
-- All wired up with either cat6 or cat53e.
-- The sizes of the files I'm moving would include large #s of files at either 15MB (photos), 7MB (music), 1-2GB (video) and 650MB (also video).
-- jumbo frames have been enabled in the settings of the macs, the switch and the buffalo HD.
-- I've played with various settings of simultaneous connections (more of a help with smaller files), no real difference
-- Network utility shows the ethernet set to Gbit, with no errors or collisions.
-- have tried both ftp and the finder's drap and drop
-- also, whenever I'm doing a major move of data, I kick my family off the network, so there is no other traffic that should be interfering.
Even with all that, I'm still lucky to get transfer speeds at 15-20mbps, but more commonly at around 10. The other odd thing I've encountered while trying to up my speeds, is that I might start out a transfer at maybe 60mbps, it will maintain that for about 30-60sec and then it appears to ramp itself down, sometimes to as low as 1-5mbps. I'm starting to think my network is mocking me
I also have a dual band (2.4/5) wireless n router (not jumbo frame capable), but I'm assuming wired is going to trump wireless? (NOTE: in my tests, I have disabled wireless to force the connection through the ethernet).
Can anyone help with suggestions, and/or suggest a strong networking reference book with emphasis on mac? I'm willing to invest in additional equipment within reason.
Thanks in advance!
juliana

I'm going to pick and choose to answer just a few of the items you have listed. Hopefully others will address other items.
• This setup was getting me speeds as high as 10-15MB/sec, and as low as 5-6MB/sec when I was transferring video files around 1-2 GB in size
I would think a single large file would get the best sustained transfer rates, as you have less create new file overhead on the destination device. It is disturbing that the large files transfer at a slower rate.
• Would a RAID0 config get me faster write speeds than RAID1? I have another NAS that can do other RAID configs, which is fastest as far as write times?
RAID0 (Striped) is generally faster, as the I/O is spread across 2 disks.
RAID1 is mirrored, so you can not free the buffer until the same data is on BOTH disks. The disks are NOT going to be in rotational sync, so at least one of the disks will have to wait longer for the write sectors to move under the write heads.
But RAID1 gives you redundency. RAID0 has not redundency. And you can NOT switch back and forth between the 2 without reformatting your disks, so if you choose RAID0, you do not get redundency unless you provide your own via a backup device for your NAS.
• what is the most efficient transfer protocol? ftp? smb? something else? And am I better off invoking the protocol from the terminal, or is the overhead of an app-based client negligible?
Test the different transfers using a large file (100's of MB or a GB sized file would be good as a test file).
I've had good file transfers with AFP file sharing, but not knowing anything about your NAS, I do not know if it supports AFP, and if it does, whether it is a good implementation.
If your NAS supports ssh, then I would try scp instead of ftp. scp is like using cp only it works over the network.
If your NAS support rsync, that would be even better, as it has the ability to just copy files that are either NOT on the destination or update files which have changed, but leave the matching files alone.
This would help in situations where you cannot copy everything all at once.
But no matter what you choose, you should measure your performance so you choose something that is good enough.
• If a client is fine, does anyone have a suggestion as to best one for speed? Doesn't have to be free -- I don't mind supporting good software.
Again just test what you have.
• Whats a good number to allow for simultaneous connections, given the number of files and their size?
If the bottleneck is the NAS, then adding more I/O that will force the disk heads to move away from the current file being written will just slow things down.
But try 2 connections and measure your performance. If it gets better, then maybe the NAS is not the bottleneck.
• What question am I not asking?
You should try using another system as a test destination device in the network setup to see if it gets better, worse, or the same throughput as the NAS. You need to see about changing things in your setup to isolate where the problem might be.
Also do not rule out bad ethernet cables, so switch them out as well. For example, there was a time I tried to use Gigabit ethernet, but could only get 100BaseT. I even purchased a new gigabit switch, thinking the 1st was just not up to the task. It turned out I had a cheap ethernet cable that only had 4 wires instead of 8 and was not capable of gigabit speeds. An ethernet cable that has a broken wire or connector could exhibit similar performance issues.
So change anything and everything in your setup, one item at a time and use the same test so you have a pear to pear comparision.

Aggregation 4 gigabit ethernet low speed

Hello
I've got a Synology DiskStation DS3612xs (Ultra-high performance of 1000+ MB/sec throughput and 100,000+ IOPS)
connected to my MAC PRO with 4 gigabit Ethernet connection with Link Aggregation,
and I only got 233.9Mo/s
the same performance with dual gigabit link aggregation.
What am I doing wrong to get the same speed result with 2 link aggregation than with 4 link aggregation ??
is this a apple bug ?

no the 4 link aggregat by apple is not fast enough.
if I have to different computer connected to my DiskStation via 2aggregat ethernet
each computer got 233.9Mo/s speed.
but when I connect only one computer via 4aggregat ethernet : I got only 233.9Mo/s speed
BUT I should have the +/- 466 Mo/s speed as I got with the 2 different computers insn't ???
Please help.
Thanks anyway

Airport Extreme with Gigabit Ethernet - Does it have jumbo frame support?

Please, can I get definite answer to this question? I do not need speculations as I read some reviews already. Can we have Apple finally put complete specification of the product rather than "popular one" with attachement of protocol numbers?
I just need simple answer possibly from Apple engineering team to the following questions:
1. Does current Airport Extreme have support for jumbo frames (everything above 1500bytes per frame)? (if one does not know what that is them perhaps understanding acronym "MTU" can help a bit)
2. If there is support then what is the maximum supported size of jumbo frame? (Some products do not go above 6k and I read some statistics that traffic somwhere is usually 66% at about 4k jumbo frames and above that there is not much...)
3. If there is no support then does Apple plan on update for this (firmware or hardware) in the future?
Please, do not tell me that someoene ran something with jumbo frame and it worked as I tried yesterday LaCie Ethernet drive with supposedly setup (I set it myself) of jumbo frame 4k and on soft reboot of the drive it worked when connected to Airp[ort Extreme, but after hard reboot the disk is not visible anymore. I will recover the disk, but I need to understand if I have chance of using jumbo frames that tremendously improve performance with large files (e.g. try movies stored for AppleTV on network drive) when using Airport Extreme with its gigabit Ethernet... or that is just Gigabit Ethernet for product marketing purposes only.
I just need reliable answer by product specification that should be on paper at Apple, but it is not so I hope that one of guys here has access to some engineering team.
Thank you,
Maciek Samsel

The spec. on the chip used by Apple support your conclusion.
BCM5395 Features
Complies with IEEE802.3, IEEE802.3u, IEEE802.3ab standards
5 10/100/1000Mbps Auto-Sense RJ45 ports supporting Auto-MDI/MDIX
All ports Support Full/Half Duplex transfer mode for 10/100Mbps and Full Duplex transfer mode for 1000Mbps
Port-based and MAC-based VLAN
IEEE 802.1Q-based VLAN with 4K entries
Port-based rate control
Port mirroring
Compact field processor (CFP)
512 rules
Filtering, classifications, remarking, and priority actions.
Priority modification on egress
DOS Attack Prevention
Loop detection for unmanaged configurations with Broadcom’s patented LoopDTech™ technology
CableChecker™ with unmanaged mode support
Double tagging
IEEE 802.3x programmable per-port flow control and back pressure, with IEEE 802.1x support for secure user authentication
4K entry MAC address table with automatic learning and aging
128-KB packet buffer
128 multicast group support
Jumbo Frame support up to 9728 byte

Dropping Gigabit Ethernet connection

Hello,
I found out a strange issue on my mac mini 2011 with Gigabit Ethernet port and what I see that it is works on automatic mode, in 100 mbit speed, but today I bought cisko 1 gbit switch and I still see in network utility 100 mbit. If I force the 1 gbit speed in seeting I will get error message like cable was unplugged.
Don't tell me that I have broken logic board. My varanty finished 2 months ago.
Thank you.

OK ****! - was I wrong...
After the above entry I packed up my MacBook, headed out to the Mac store and dropped it for repair; they had it overnight. "The Genius" called me to pick it up the next day. The answer:
There's nothing wrong with your MacBook. They copied files back and fourth between my MacBook and many other hosts on their network; it performed as expected.
I gave him a short history of the problem, and he said, "OOOOOooohhh, it's the Belkin." I brought my baby home, did a little research, found that others had a similar problem and found an acceptable fix. I ordered the new switches, a 5-port for my desk and an 8-port for the servers in the back room; incidentally, these items were inexpensive.
I swapped out the Belkin F4G0500 for the TrendNet TEG-S50g and everything started popping:
The MacBook received (and retained) a DHCP lease
Files copied between the Mac and other hosts at gigabit speeds
I should say the rest of my gear, 3 Linux Servers, a Linux Desktop/Laptop, and printer all made use of the Belkin at gigabit speeds (100MB file between Host A <--> Host B in 2 seconds), it was only the Mac that had trouble with the Belkins.
I split this evenly between Belkin and Apple as a responsibility to fix for we the buyers. It's 2012, we should have layer 3 (switching) sorted out by now. This was minor but pricey pain in the ***.
Troubleshooting Techniques:
Create Files of a Specific Size
You can use the "dd" (Unix) program to create files of a specific size. To test gigabit speeds, specific file sizes take the guessing out of the equation.
Open the Terminal (Utilities directory)
To create test files, enter both of the following lines (line one, then line two, giving each time to finish):
dd if=/dev/zero of=~/Desktop/output_100MB.dat bs=1M count=100   # Creates a 100MB file
dd if=/dev/zero of=~/Desktop/output_1GB.dat   bs=1M count=1000 # Creates a 1GB   file
The files created in Step 3 will now be on your desktop ready for transfer/testing.
Quit the Terminal.
File Transfer Calculator
This calculator will give you an approximation of what transfer times should be; at least it's close enough for me. There will be a little flux due to various (network) conditions, within 2-3 seconds it seems, but generally these estimations should hold.
For my problem, I wanted to test a 100MB & 1GB file transfer between 2 computers (both with Gigabit Network Cards) on the same switch.
EG: for the 2 files, I fill in the calculator:
100MB file: Size: 100; Size Lable: MB; Speed Lable: -none ; Select Speed by interface: Wired Lan Gigabit Ethernet --> click Calculate = estimated 2 seconds.
1GB file: Size: 1; Size Lable: GB; Speed Lable: -none ; Select Speed by interface: Wired Lan Gigabit Ethernet --> click Calculate = estimated 9 seconds.
Verify Gigabit Speeds on the Switch
The Trendnet ports will light up GREEN for each port that is functioning at gigabit (1000 Mbit/s) speeds; ports that are only running at Fast Ethernet speeds (100 Mbit/s) will light up AMBER. Transfers must occur between any 2 computers lit green on the switch.
When I copy the files to another (host) computer I see transfer times for:
The 100MB file is on the money: 100MB   50.0MB/s 00:02 seconds.
The 1GB file takes a little longer: 1000MB 47.6MB/s 00:21
Here we see approximately 50.0MB/s transfer times for both. The File Transfer Calc estimate was off by 12 seconds but I did notice that the transfer degraded slightly (in speed) the longer it persisted; even though that's true, the MB/s is similar.
If you have a similar setup as me (1 switch under your desk, and 1 in the server room), repeat the transfers to (hosts) computers in the back room with a green light on the switch. The transfers should be similar if not the same.
It's not perfect but it's a week later and I'm almost $200 down; it's close enough for jazz and better than what I had before. I'm tired of screwing with it.
Cheers all,
TT

Dual Channel Gigabit Ethernet on MBP!?

Hi all,
I have a MBP with the ExpressCard/34 slot.
I am wondering, if I get an ExpressCard/34 to Gigabit Ethernet Card can I create a dual channel setup using the MBP's existing Gigabit port and the port on the Express/34?
If this was possible do I also need XSAN?
Cheers

Ned the point of the benchmark is (at least with the Core Duo) that the FSB limits memory access to 5.33 GB/s. Single Channel PC2 5300 667MHz RAM has a bandwidth of 5.33 GB/s. So what does doubling bandwidth via dual-channel to 10.66 GB/s do for you if the FSB is limiting it to 5.33 GB/s anyway. You can saturate the bus twice as fast? It is still saturated.
I am not speakng of saturating RAM, but rather saturating the FSB which is where the bottleneck occurs.
That is what the test is designed to show.
That is why I say that the benefits of 3GB outweigh the benefits of dual-channel. At least in terms of the Core Duo what are you really gaining from the dual-channel? In theory..nothing...in testing...nothing.
Nothing will slow down performance like paging out to a slow hard drive however.
edit
Not trying to be argumentative on this, I just have not seen any evidence of dual-channel having any signficant benefit to performance that would warrant being afraid to give it up for 3GB single-channel.
From Barefeats:
DO MATCHING PAIRS OF MEMORY HELP?
Though we ran the tests above using matching 1GB SODIMMs in both MacBook Pros (for a total of 2GB), we also ran the same tests in the 15" MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo with one 1GB SODIMM and one 2GB SODIMM for a total of 3GB of memory. We wanted to see if non-matched modules would cause the MacBook to slow down due to the loss of interleaving.
The answer is "no, it didn't slow down." In some cases we saw a gain in speed. An example is Aperture where the "lift and stamp" ran 11% faster with 3GB of RAM. But that's probably due to the fact that Aperture + OS X = more than 2GB of total memory usage.

Dual 450mhz Gigabit Ethernet - Processor drops out.

Hi,
I have a G4 Gigabit Ethernet with dual 450mhz processors, and I am having a problem where one of my processors will drop out all together. This has happened sporadically over the past year and a half that I've owned the machine, but it has happened three times in the past month. This doesn't seem like a good sign to me. When the processor fails - according to the activity monitor it's always the same processor - the only way one can tell is by the slowdown of the machine; there are no app crashes, freezes or anything out of the ordinary. A simple shutdown and boot up is all that is needed to get the processor back online, and once that has happened the processor keeps going. I can continuously run this Mac for days without incident. Before this, months.
Has anybody else run into this problem?
Thanks in advance.
Malcolm

Thank you Japamac and Rodney,
When my friend, who is a Apple certified tech, comes around later this week to scope things out with my Mac, I'll have him check the heat sink and thermal compound.
When the processor dropped out the first two times, it did seem to coincide with an application crashing, the same app both times. However with the latest three episodes, there was no crash and that application was not running - The app I suspected I use almost on a daily basis and it has crashed a couple of times without coinciding with the processor dropping out - so I'm moving away from that theory. As I said previously, when the processor fails, the only way you know for sure is by the degradation of performance. I have also had one freeze up quite recently (maybe the third in a year in a half) but I don't know how you could determine if it was related to this problem, though. There was no information in hardware diagnostics.
Again thank you for your replies.

Gigabit Ethernet Cable?

Hi,
What kind of cable should I use to get the maximum performance, connecting two MacPro's? (Gigabit Ethernet)
Greetings,
Michiel

Hi Forrest;
Thanks for the correction. I wanted to type Cat 6 but some how I managed to type Cat 5 instead. You are absolutely correct.
Allan
Message was edited by: Allan Eckert

Supplementing Airport Extreme 802.11n network with Gigabit Ethernet wired

Right now, I have an AEBS (Gigabit Ethernet) as my Internet router and network host, with an Airport Express elsewhere in the house to extend range for wireless devices. I'm steadily gaining A/V items with Internet or networking connectivity. AEBS and the A/V equipment are in different rooms. I am concerned that setting those devices up for wireless will cause needless complexity with inferior performance to Ethernet.
Here is what I think I should do:
1. Get wall panels installed by both the AEBS and A/V equipment wired for Ethernet;
2. Set up a Gigabit Ethernet switch in the basement, into which all these Ethernet outlets would run; and
3. Connect both the AEBS and the various A/V devices into the wall (and thereby through to the Ethernet switch) through their Ethernet ports. The goal is to have all of the devices on the same AEBS-hosted network to share data and have access to the AEBS Internet connection.
Any reason this should not work? Would the AEBS and the Ethernet switch need to be in the same room for any reason? I'd just like to make sure all of my ports are running in the right direction. In particular, I'd like to know if I am making this more complicated than it needs to be.
Thanks for your comments.

What you are planning should work without any problems.

Gigabit ethernet vs Firewire

Hello,
Is it technically possible to use ethernet instead of firewire to connect hard drives to a computer ?? The GIGABIT (1000 vs 400-800) and CABLE LENGTH 15ft vs 45ft ???) could be serious advantages for ethernet over firewire.
Does a gigabit ethernet hard drive exist ?? Thanks in advance.
Robert

Robert,
I'm not sure what your budget or needs are, but I think in general, a directly attached Firewire 800 drive will be less costly, and be easier to set up that a NAS devise. All things being equal, I think NAS over Gigabit Ethernet is capable of out performing Firewire, but would require high performance from the LAN, and a higher cost NAS devise. The optimum transfer rate via Ethernet with the Iomega drive is listed at "100 Mb/s", quoting their web site.
I don't recall the theoretical speeds for all the drive types, hopefully someone will post, or try Googling for the specs.
The only other products I have experience with are the Lacie Ethernet Disk at home (only 100 Mb Ethernet, and not great performance), a Lacie portable Firewire drive (OK performance, purchased for it's portability), and Apple XSAN/XserveRAID at work (great performance, but uses Fiber Channel, high cost). Again, depending on your needs, there are a number of other vendors, hopefully someone will post that has direct experience with them.
Here's a couple links to more info that may help:
http://www.wiebetech.com/whitepapers/firewireevolution.pdf
http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/printpage/234/

Extremely poor ethernet performance?

If I burn a DVD from one Mac on the network to the MBP the network performance is so poor that even web pages stop loading and iTunes can't stream music. This is with 1000T ethernet.
Now I have plenty of other mac's on the network that are 5 years old and they handle it flawlessly.
Any else have ethernet problems when coping large files?

I'm not sure exactly what you are doing with a DVD, but the MBP has gigabit Ethernet which should transfer files very rapidly. Perhaps you could explain a bit more fully?
Is the rest of your network also gigabit? The cables, switches, etc?
If you look at your Network Utility (in /Applications/Utilities) what sort of Link Speed are you getting for your Ethernet connection? If you move the MBP to the connection being used by another computer that is getting high speeds, does anything change?
Let us know, we'll keep working on it with you.

Upgrade GigaBit Ethernet Processor to Dual 1.0+

I have the Gigabit Ethernet Power Mac G4 and I want to upgrade the current processor to a Dual Processor above 1.0. The higher the better as well as the price is reasonable. I have seen some by Sonnet and others but I was asking what is the best I can get from a price and quality perspective. Thank you!

Hi-
Welcome to Discussions!
There aren't many dual processor upgrades currently available.
Of these upgrades, the 1.5ghz OWC single processor will outperform a dual 1.0ghz processor. There is a dual 1.8ghz Sonnet, but it will be out performed by the Newertech 7448 based 2.0ghz processor. For best price/performance, either the OWC or the Newertech would be the better choice.
For a dual processor, the FastMac dual 1.4ghz will be the strongest dual processor upgrade, better than the dual 1.8ghz Sonnet by virtue of the 2mb L3 cache.
The FastMac, OWC and the Newertech have three year warranties, as opposed to Sonnets one year.

Gigabit ethernet performance

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for