NETGEAR XE104 85Mbps Powerline Ethernet Adapter Deal - 1x $23.5, 2x $35, 3x $49 + $15.95 Shipping

Related Stores

MegaBuy

• 

  Kill Joy on 02/07/2012 - 16:38

  +3

  Really cheap, but really slow. This is one quarter the theoretical max of N (300Mb/s). So if you intend to stream or file transfer over this, I'd invest in something in the 200MB/s range, because If you are buying this to replace slow wireless it isn't going to fix the issue.

  Though as I said, for the correct audience/crowd this is a steal me thinks.

  • 

    Russ on 02/07/2012 - 17:45

    Maximum theoretical speed of 802.11n is higher than 300Mbps, here's a router that can do 750Mbps (theoretical) over the air: http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/?model=TL-WDR4300

    300Mbps is the maximum that can be achieved if your router only does the 2.4GHz band.

    • 

      guidedlight on 02/07/2012 - 17:52

      300Mpbs is half-duplex (i.e. download + upload speed). So that's only 150Mbps maximum download or upload… and that's still only a theoretical speed.

    • 

      Kill Joy on 02/07/2012 - 19:16

      99% of n routers use the 300mb/s standard. And it doesn't matter if its 2.4ghz or 5ghz as far as i know, I thought it was based on the band (dualband or not). Dualband is simply put 2 n connections, which more or less means the capabilities of a single n connection is still 300mb.

      but that was very obviously not the point of the post; the point was this is not a good enough standard of speed to stream media or file transfer without lag.

      • 

        Russ on 02/07/2012 - 21:50

        Each 802.11 "channel" is 150Mbps, and occupies a 20MHz bandwidth. The 2.4GHz band is wide enough for two channels, the 5GHz band is wide enough for three channels. Using all five channels together will achieve 750Mbps maximum speed.

        Theoretically, higher speeds again are possible by "spatial multiplexing", using combinations of antennas to send signals in different directions, and using reflections off nearby surfaces to send extra channels to the receiver. The receiver would use its multiple antennas to separate the signals coming from the different directions, and achieve more than five channels, although the reflected signals would be expected to be lower signal strength and therefore somewhat less than 150Mbps each. AFAIK, nobody is doing this yet, I think it is just to "future proof" the standard.

        I agree with you that most WiFi routers only do 300Mbps. I think this is because of the speed limitations of the receivers (PCI WiFi cards, USB dongles, laptops) usually being 150Mbps or 300Mbps. If these are available at more than 300Mbps, they aren't obvious in the marketplace.

      • 

        Kill Joy on 03/07/2012 - 21:03

        Again, not the point i was making at all…

        Point is, it snot fast enough for data streaming.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 02/07/2012 - 16:55

  +1

  Just curious. Why does it cost extra $14 to buy the third unit when the second unit only costs $11.5 extra?
  Shouldn't it be the other way around? :/

• 

  ash2000 on 02/07/2012 - 17:07

  +5

  Good lord…..85Mbps?……..even the Amish use 200Mbps.

• 

  Hellfire on 02/07/2012 - 17:08

  Similar price on eBay (Buy it now) and less for auctions

• 

  syl on 02/07/2012 - 17:26

  +2

  While Stocks Last??

  more like clearing out your trash

• 

  Luke212 on 02/07/2012 - 17:30

  .

• 

  c64 on 02/07/2012 - 17:37

  nothing beats a good old cat5/6 cable

  • 

    GregFiona on 02/07/2012 - 19:51

    +1

    wrong! two good old cat5/6 cables can easily beat one! :P

• 

  BH1 on 02/07/2012 - 17:42

  I reckon a snaill transmits faster using its antennae. :)
  $12, possibly a deal. :)

• 

  matt777 on 02/07/2012 - 17:53

  Waste of money.
  Best to use a Wireless access point and plug Ethernet cable into that.
  Dont waste your $$$

• 

  petestrash on 02/07/2012 - 17:57

  +1

  These have been around for over 6 years.

  I tried them myself a few years ago, and found real world speeds of around 9Mbps. Searched online and found that was the experience with many others, So I returned them.

  Would be ok at this price for basic computing, but no streaming.

  And remember you need to have at least 2 units for it to work.

  Shopping Square is auctioning these on eBay with a few going for less than $20 including shipping.

  http://www.ebay.com.au/csc/i.html?rt=nc&LH_Complete=1&LH_Pre…

  • 

    lostn on 02/07/2012 - 19:12

    Are you plugging them directly into the wall or into a power strip? A power strip will severely affect its performance.

• 

  OzzyMozzy on 02/07/2012 - 18:02

  Old stock, dont bother.

• 

  troyww on 02/07/2012 - 18:14

  I tried some netgear gigabit units about 6 months ago and they were an epic fail . They wouldn't work at all using power boards and even without powerboards they were infuriatingly unreliable . I wouldn't bother for free unless there was some incredible reason I couldn't use cat5 and or wireless .

  • 

    lostn on 02/07/2012 - 19:13

    They're not supposed to work in power boards. That's how the technology is. It isn't Netgear's fault. You need a direct connection to the wall.

    They're meant to be more stable than wireless though. And routing Cat5 over long distances can be a task in itself.

    • 

      stumo on 02/07/2012 - 19:18

      +1

      It makes very little difference even back to back on the same plug! I've also been badly burned by a pair of netgear "gigabit" units.

      One other thing to consider now is the carbon tax. These things each draw over 13W, so thats nearly 30W for a single link 24/7. A typical router is 10W.

  • 

    syl on 02/07/2012 - 20:17

    werent designed to work on power board but my netgear worked on the belkin surge protector.

    it only gets warm.. not like the belkins.. they are hot and massive!
    returned the belkins the couple of days later

• 

  onethepan on 02/07/2012 - 19:22

  http://www.maximumpc.com/article/netgear_xe104

  not the best of reviews….