I'd much prefer a consistent <1ms latency 10 Mbit connection than 10ish ms gigabit with 100ms spikes when next door boils their kettle, etc.
I'd much prefer a consistent <1ms latency 10 Mbit connection than 10ish ms gigabit with 100ms spikes when next door boils their kettle, etc.
Most home users aren't going to really notice or care about a 6-7ms latency for even network file protocols. They're probably using Wi-Fi anyway.
My MoCA devices don't use crazy amounts of electricity either.
It could also depend on where you are. In the US, homes often have quite good coax wiring. That might not be the case in many parts of the world.
> I'd much prefer a consistent <1ms latency 10 Mbit connection than 10ish ms gigabit with 100ms spikes when next door boils their kettle, etc.
Honestly, this just feels like FUD. You've made up a scenario with latency numbers that are wrong claiming with zero support or evidence that a neighbor boiling their kettle will make a connection bad. It sounds like you briefly looked at MoCA, never tried it, but formed a very strong opinion about it based on basically nothing.
3.5 ms is between 5x - 53x worse than what you'd see out of gigabit ethernet, depending on the quality of the equipment, but even at the low end this is absolutely something noticeable in any application heavy on round-trips (such as those mentioned). Nothing breaks my focus more quickly than an unpredictably slow or janky UI, it is far from a made up scenario, just open an explorer window pointing at an SMB share with a few hundred JPEGs with uncached thumbnails and you've already hit it. I'd much prefer consistency of a slower network than usability that evaporates at random, else what is the point of preferring a wired network over wireless in the first place?
FWIW, listing a directory or opening a single file over SMB is at least 4 round-trips, that's 14 ms burned on lag just for a single thumbnail, in the best case, and it only multiplies from there.