Question PCI WiFi card or USB 2.0 WiFi adapter for an old motherboard ?

[B!gMeme]

Hello,
My motherboard is quite old, and the only PCI-E slot is taken by my GPU. I am looking for a WIFI adapter, and I know that the non-express PCI is supposedly a bit faster than USB 2.0. The question is, are those real world measurements? Should I get a PCI adapter? Or should I get a USB adapter that was most likely meant for USB 3.0 and will not be performing how it should? I run linux on this machine and I don't think getting drivers for either will be too much of a hassle since PCI has been around forever and TP-link USB adapters have lots of support.


EDIT: My motherboard actually has 3 PCI-Express 1x slots, they were just colored white so I assumed they were PCI. I know even gen 2 PCI-E is a lot faster than USB 2.0 so should I go with that?

 

[Paperdoc]

We're missing some info here. PCIe version naming is a bit confusing, but what it comes down to is there are TWO numbers involved. The name will be of the form PCIen1 xn2 . The n1 part is the VERSION of PCIe over the years. The n2 part is the number of data lanes the socket provides. So for the SAME xn2 value a more recent VERSION of PCIe will have a different data rate. Do you have a manual for this board with the info in it? If it is called simply PCIe with NO number after that, it may be the FIRST version at the slowest rates. Or, if you tell us the maker and exact model of the mobo we may be able to find that info.

 

[COLGeek]

Regardless of PCIe version, it should be faster and more reliable than a USB device.

Something like this should perform well:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZV2CJL2

I have in both a Linux and a Windows system. Works well.

 

[Vic 40]

What speeds do you pay for? What modem/router? The pc interface might not matter too much if what you pay for/get isn't really fast anyway.

 

[Paperdoc]

Regardless of which PCIe card system OP chooses, he is right to consider the limits imposed by the PCIe slot he has. IF it is original PCIe (version 1) and ONE lane (x1), then the max data rate on that slot will be 250 MB/s (0.25 Gb/s) no matter how fast the CARD added into that slot can run. PCIe2 raised that to 500 Mb/s for one lane, just about matching the slow 480 Mb/s of the original USB2 system. So in fact IF OP has only a Version 1 single-lane slot available, any card in that would be SLOWER than a standard USB2 port.

If OP has slots of PCIe2 or higher, then I do agree that a card to provide the WiFi port he wants directly is much better than a card to provide a USB2 port and then using a USB-connected device to provide the WiFi point of access. But with today's high-performance WiFi systems, almost all modern cards can do MUCH higher data rates that an old PCIe slot can provide, so the max WiFi speeds still will not be achieved.

 

[COLGeek]

Regardless of which PCIe card system OP chooses, he is right to consider the limits imposed by the PCIe slot he has. IF it is original PCIe (version 1) and ONE lane (x1), then the max data rate on that slot will be 250 MB/s (0.25 Gb/s) no matter how fast the CARD added into that slot can run. PCIe2 raised that to 500 Mb/s for one lane, just about matching the slow 480 Mb/s of the original USB2 system. So in fact IF OP has only a Version 1 single-lane slot available, any card in that would be SLOWER than a standard USB2 port.

If OP has slots of PCIe2 or higher, then I do agree that a card to provide the WiFi port he wants directly is much better than a card to provide a USB2 port and then using a USB-connected device to provide the WiFi point of access. But with today's high-performance WiFi systems, almost all modern cards can do MUCH higher data rates that an old PCIe slot can provide, so the max WiFi speeds still will not be achieved.

Even if the OP's motherboard is that old, I would still recommend a PCIe network adapter over a USB one. They are just more reliable and less prone to failure than USB devices.

If the system is that old, neither solution can hope to match the potential of newer devices/protocols.

It would be good to know what motherboard the OP is using.

 

[Moonstick2]

250 MB/s is ~2 Gbps.

I doubt the OP is going to get 2 Gbps over WiFi, so I don't seem them needing to worry about speed limitations in PCIe 1.0 x1.

 

[Paperdoc]

The way current high-speed WiFi units work, for ONE device the max data transfer speed is usually about 300 Mb/s, and could be twice that. IF you have three such devices working maxed out, EACH device can achieve that so the TOTAL data rate though the WiFi unit is 800 Mb/s or a bit more. OP's concern is that the minimum in this - one device only in use - is MORE that the max ability of the OLDEST PCIe (original, version 1) x1 system, although not by a lot. If using two WiFi connected devices you would want to have at least the next version (PCIe2 x1) rated for max total data rate of 500 Mb/s. If that it not possible (really does have only version 1) then hypothetically a USB2 connection at 480 Mb/s max might be faster IF OP is using two WiFi devices simultaneously.

 

[Moonstick2]

The way current high-speed WiFi units work, for ONE device the max data transfer speed is usually about 300 Mb/s, and could be twice that...you would want to have at least the next version (PCIe2 x1) rated for max total data rate of 500 Mb/s....

You're mixing up units. WiFi speeds are given in Mbps, while PCIe 2.0 x1 is 500 MB/s (and PCIe 1.0 x1 250 MB/s). Bytes versus bits, which is a factor of 8.

PCIe 1.0 x1, like I said, is roughly 2 Gbps. That's going to be more than enough.

 

[Paperdoc]

Wow! My BAD! I am embarrassed because I usually pay attention to the "B / b" thing! I should have paid attention to a buzz in the back of my mind that it is really ODD to think that the original PCIe bus was SLOWER than a simple USB2 system!

With that correction my opinion changes, of course. The oldest original PCIe (version 1?) x1 slot can do up to 250 MB/s, which is already 10 times faster than the 480 Mb/s of USB2. Even that slow USB2 speed is close enough to the needs of a SINGLE WiFi user device. But if OP has more than one, certainly the better routes are a real WiFi card or a USB 3.2 port card and then a USB 3.2 Gen1 WiFi transceiver. Unless OP needs a set of USB 3.2 ports anyway, I agree with ColGEEK above - choose the WiFi card. The model ColGeek first suggested on May 22 would do the job very well.