From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

After a supposed upgrade from 1 Gpbs to 2 Gpbs for Internet speed, I am
still getting downstream and upstream speeds that I had before. No
increase in speed. I got the upgrade for free, but I'd still like to
effect the upgrade.

https://speedtest.xfinity.com/ is Comcast's speed test site, so you stay
within their network. https://www.speedtest.net/ is Ookla's speed test
site, and is outside Comcast's network.

I asked my ISP (Comcast) several times if they had provisioned the cable
modem to bind a sufficient number of bands to achieve the higher
bandwidth, and they kept saying yes. I remember a couple times when
they reprovisioned the cable modem, because I saw the lights change on
the cable modem, and lost the Internet.

I checked the specs on their cable modem (XB6, XB7, XB8, and XB10). XB6
to XB8 support up to 2.5 Gbps. XB10 supports 10 Gbps. I had the XB7,
but replaced with the XB8 to see if changing to a later model got the
higher speed. Nope.

https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/broadband-gateways-userguides

Then I pondered if there was a bottleneck in my setup. Maybe the fault
is on my end. The NIC I'm using in the desktop PC is integral to the motherboard: Asrock Taichi Z390. The specs at:

https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z390%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification

say the NIC supports 10/100/1000 Mbps. Well, there looks to be the
bottleneck. Maybe the pipe is bigger from the cable modem, and beyond,
but the choke point is my mobo's onboard NIC.

I've got a couple unused and unblocked PCIe 3.0x16 slots available, so
guess I'll have to get a faster NIC daughtercard. Looks like those
slots should handle up to 16 GBps (that's big B for byte, not little b
for bit) bandwidth. 16 lanes with each capable of delivering 980 MBps
is 15.7 GBps across all 16 lanes. Seems like a PCIe 3.0 x16 could
easily support 2 Gbps bandwidth. However, all the NICs look like PCIe
3.0 x1, so only 1 lane. With just 1 lane, seems the PCIe 3.0 x1 NIC
could only get up to 960 MBps, or 7680 Mbps, but that's a lot faster
than the 930 Mbps I get now with the onboard NIC.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sat, 1/10/2026 9:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

After a supposed upgrade from 1 Gpbs to 2 Gpbs for Internet speed, I am
still getting downstream and upstream speeds that I had before. No
increase in speed. I got the upgrade for free, but I'd still like to
effect the upgrade.

https://speedtest.xfinity.com/ is Comcast's speed test site, so you stay within their network. https://www.speedtest.net/ is Ookla's speed test
site, and is outside Comcast's network.

I asked my ISP (Comcast) several times if they had provisioned the cable modem to bind a sufficient number of bands to achieve the higher
bandwidth, and they kept saying yes. I remember a couple times when
they reprovisioned the cable modem, because I saw the lights change on
the cable modem, and lost the Internet.

I checked the specs on their cable modem (XB6, XB7, XB8, and XB10). XB6
to XB8 support up to 2.5 Gbps. XB10 supports 10 Gbps. I had the XB7,
but replaced with the XB8 to see if changing to a later model got the
higher speed. Nope.

https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/broadband-gateways-userguides

Then I pondered if there was a bottleneck in my setup. Maybe the fault
is on my end. The NIC I'm using in the desktop PC is integral to the motherboard: Asrock Taichi Z390. The specs at:

https://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z390%20Taichi/index.asp#Specification

say the NIC supports 10/100/1000 Mbps. Well, there looks to be the bottleneck. Maybe the pipe is bigger from the cable modem, and beyond,
but the choke point is my mobo's onboard NIC.

I've got a couple unused and unblocked PCIe 3.0x16 slots available, so
guess I'll have to get a faster NIC daughtercard. Looks like those
slots should handle up to 16 GBps (that's big B for byte, not little b
for bit) bandwidth. 16 lanes with each capable of delivering 980 MBps
is 15.7 GBps across all 16 lanes. Seems like a PCIe 3.0 x16 could
easily support 2 Gbps bandwidth. However, all the NICs look like PCIe
3.0 x1, so only 1 lane. With just 1 lane, seems the PCIe 3.0 x1 NIC
could only get up to 960 MBps, or 7680 Mbps, but that's a lot faster
than the 930 Mbps I get now with the onboard NIC.

They are NOT all one lane cards.

The proposed (new) RealTek fleet of garbage, have x1 and x2 chips. They
are mainly intended for a non-existence massive number of PCs with
available PCIe Rev4 slots. I would have to use my only video card
slot, to host a RealTek one. Plugging to a PCie Rev3 slot would be useless
and a waste of cash. If you're going to buy a whizzy rate card, it had
bloody well work.

This chip was one of the first chips to offer 10GbE at a more reasonable price. The company may have been bought by the company that buys small firms like this.
(Aquantia AQC107, to Marvell?).

Syba is just a user of the technology and does not make the chip. Syba used
to be offered with domestic distribution, but so far it's not looking good.
At a computer store, maybe an Asus version of the card might exist
(not a BestBuy a real computer store). I checked my computer store chain,
and searching for that was a "No match". No AQC107 on site.

Syba 1 Port 10 Gigabit Ethernet Network Card - PCIe x4
10Gb 10GBASE-T NIC AQTION AQC107-10Gbps Ethernet PCI-Express x4 Adapter SD-PEX24055

Because it has x4 lanes, it would suit a larger audience of computer users.

It looks like the Newegg listing, the only source is buying cards with that from China. There does not seem to be any domestic distribution.

While Intel keeps cranking out melons, I don't think the price is
coming down anywhere near reasonable levels.

In the era-of-shortage, good luck on your journey.

And before you buy something, find a benchmark where someone has
tested the thing under realistic conditions. It's still possible
if you arrange for a slot with sufficient bandwidth, that the thing
*still* does not deliver.

At one time, the chipset hub for PCIe did not have big enough
buffers. This caused a PCIe rev3 to run at a PCie rev2 rate (small
buffers cut max PCIe rates to about half). The current NVMe seem to be
doing better in terms of acquiring most of the bandwidth an interface
has to offer, suggesting the buffer sizing problem was corrected. That's one
of the potential reasons why buying cards for all the computers in the
room, a 12 year old machine might not manage full rate.

Remember that in Win2K days, the network stack could only manage 40MB/sec
out of a max of 112MB/sec on a 1GbE interface. Later OSes tend to correct
those sorts of sins. But it is still possible a Win11 Home cannot manage ~1100MB/sec on a AQC107. That's why you need to find a bench for whatever (Intel) chip happens to be available where you are. I got a pair of lower
rate Intel from Startech a couple years ago, and they weren't cheap, but
they were Intel (and not the broken RealTek I was replacing).

*******

OK, Project Overkill is underway... 2 NIC ports :-)

https://www.startech.com/en-us/networking-io/st10gspexndp2

And you won't need Jumbo Frame Support, as that is unlikely to
mesh nicely with your BB end of things.

But at least the card does not cost $500 like some of them used to.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/1/11 4:23:39, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 1/10/2026 9:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

After a supposed upgrade from 1 Gpbs to 2 Gpbs for Internet speed, I am
still getting downstream and upstream speeds that I had before. No

[]

Then I pondered if there was a bottleneck in my setup. Maybe the fault
is on my end. The NIC I'm using in the desktop PC is integral to the

[]

They are NOT all one lane cards.

[]

Paul

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that
speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been
told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking
of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it were not for France, the Americans would be speaking English
right now. - @mrbrown9z on YouTube, about June 2025
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/1/11 4:23:39, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 1/10/2026 9:59 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

After a supposed upgrade from 1 Gpbs to 2 Gpbs for Internet speed, I am
still getting downstream and upstream speeds that I had before. No

[]

Then I pondered if there was a bottleneck in my setup. Maybe the fault
is on my end. The NIC I'm using in the desktop PC is integral to the

[]

They are NOT all one lane cards.

[]

Paul

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that
speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been
told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking
of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)

When you pay a premium for a certain tier of service, it is
common practice to check the service the day it is "turned up".

It's also a test of your technical chops, installing equipment
which can verify the promise the ISP is making. Over on DSLreports,
in the early days of "weird fibre offerings", there would be tales
of people trying to find this-and-that, so they could test their
new "weird 3Gbit/sec service". At the time, 10GbE was a little less
common as a card in a PC.

And we do this, because in the early days, we were cheated,
we were treated badly. The maxim "an elephant never forgets"
comes to mind. "THIS is why we test" :-) It's that
elephant thing and being treated like crap by an ISP.

It would be a mighty server, that would agree to deliver
at 2Gbit/sec. Speedtest.net (which runs cached in the ISP
facility), is an example of a server that doesn't burn up
transit fees, but still allows buzzing out the local loop.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that
speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been
told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking
of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)

In some cases, with new things, you don't find out until you get there.

Normally, 2Gbit/sec could support quite a few PCs doing web browsing.

And a ton of TV sets.

And even when you pay for a 4K tier of video service, you
don't always get it. I don't know if there is enough 8K service
for that to be a thing yet.

But when you want that Microsoft Win10 installer DVD, it's
not going to take long on that sort of service. Get the URL,
fire up aria2c (to open multiple connections), and "test their server" :-)

You no longer have to worry about your Zoom session being jerky.
For once, it's better than the doctors setup at the other end :-)

One of my doctors used to conference with some big-assed Mac
screen, while I was transmitting at 640x480 or so (due to my
upload limitations). I was concerned at first, that conference
services wouldn't be possible on my shitty upload, but
they worked. There was still a little headroom.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

After a supposed upgrade from 1 Gpbs to 2 Gpbs for Internet speed, I am
still getting downstream and upstream speeds that I had before. No
increase in speed. I got the upgrade for free, but I'd still like to
effect the upgrade.

Everything from source to endpoint needs to capable of running at 2 Gbps
under load and with other traffic being managed.

This is not going to happen except for things that are extremely close to
your "edge" to the internet. Then you've got your router and internal
cabling.

Most hardware is rated "upto" certain speeds which will be only possible
under ideal/lab conditions. I doubt you ever see anything close to 1 Gbps
in real life.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/1/11 14:13:20, Paul wrote:

On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that
speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been
told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking
of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)

In some cases, with new things, you don't find out until you get there.

Normally, 2Gbit/sec could support quite a few PCs doing web browsing.

And a ton of TV sets.

That's what I was thinking - how can he possibly be using that much
capacity! (I know in a few years' time that'll seem quaint, of course.)

And even when you pay for a 4K tier of video service, you
don't always get it. I don't know if there is enough 8K service
for that to be a thing yet.

But, indeed (and as you said in your other post), some have been
mis-sold by providers in the past. (Though in this case the OP said he'd
been told of the doubling but not charged any extra for it.)

But when you want that Microsoft Win10 installer DVD, it's
not going to take long on that sort of service. Get the URL,
fire up aria2c (to open multiple connections), and "test their server" :-)

True, such downloads are always nice to have fast. (Has _mostly_ not
been _that_ significant in my case, as I've generally not had _too_ big
a drive to put things on, so my downloading new OSs and things of that
size has _tended_ not to be something I did often.)

You no longer have to worry about your Zoom session being jerky.
For once, it's better than the doctors setup at the other end :-)

One of my doctors used to conference with some big-assed Mac
screen, while I was transmitting at 640x480 or so (due to my
upload limitations). I was concerned at first, that conference
services wouldn't be possible on my shitty upload, but
they worked. There was still a little headroom.

Paul

Never had a video session with a doctor yet - only audio (via
landline!). [Free at point of use, of course.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people
what they don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/1/11 14:13:20, Paul wrote:

On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that
speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been
told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking >>> of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)

In some cases, with new things, you don't find out until you get there.

Normally, 2Gbit/sec could support quite a few PCs doing web browsing.

And a ton of TV sets.

That's what I was thinking - how can he possibly be using that much
capacity! (I know in a few years' time that'll seem quaint, of course.)

I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds
and better latency.

Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may
require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people.


It's simply marketing.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/1/11 14:13:20, Paul wrote:

On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that >>> speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been >>> told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking >>> of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)

In some cases, with new things, you don't find out until you get there.

Normally, 2Gbit/sec could support quite a few PCs doing web browsing.

And a ton of TV sets.

That's what I was thinking - how can he possibly be using that much capacity! (I know in a few years' time that'll seem quaint, of course.)

I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds
and better latency.

Indeed. For my (cable) ISP, the *minimum* available speed was 50Mbps,
as long ago as 2019! (Now it's 250Mbps.)

'Even' for watching (Full HD) TV, 10Mbps is fine. I got that in April
2011, nearly 15 years ago.

I started as 'low' as 300*K*bps in 2003 and before that, in the late
90's, we did (technical support) work-from-home at 64Kbps, yes with full
GUIs.

High bit-rates are a bit *over* rated! :-)

Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may
require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people.

It's simply marketing.

One of my kids had to give up DVB-C TV in order to get lower
bandwidth/cost Internet. That lower bandwidth was of course fine to
watch IP-TV. Go figure!?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/1/11 18:31:54, Chris wrote:

[]

I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds
and better latency.

Well, I'm perfectly happy with my about 40, but there's only one of me,
I'm not a gamer, and if I do download video, there's no point in getting
more than 1080. Very occasionally if I download a _big_ piece of
software, or a full movie, it'd be nice to get them quicker, but that's
on average less than once a week.

Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may
require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people.

I can see that maybe also a household with two working parents and two
or three teenagers might need similar. Though only at peak times.

It's simply marketing.

It does seem that way. Though arguably it would also make economic sense
to fit maximum capacity for everyone, rather than messing about with
mixed technologies/capacities; but that would involve forward planning,
which neither the companies nor the authorities are much good at.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 1/11/2026 1:31 PM, Chris wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/1/11 14:13:20, Paul wrote:

On Sun, 1/11/2026 7:03 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Just out of curiosity - what are you actually _doing_ that _needs_ that >>>> speed - or, are you just trying to achieve it anyway, since you've been >>>> told you've been given the (free) upgrade? (It's not that you're talking >>>> of a multi-user household, as you're talking about one PC here.)

In some cases, with new things, you don't find out until you get there.

Normally, 2Gbit/sec could support quite a few PCs doing web browsing.

And a ton of TV sets.

That's what I was thinking - how can he possibly be using that much
capacity! (I know in a few years' time that'll seem quaint, of course.)

I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds
and better latency.

Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may
require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people.

It's simply marketing.

You could do a Macrium backup to OneDrive, at wire speed.

Think how that would annoy Microsoft.

Paul

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sun, 1/11/2026 10:19 AM, Chris wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

After a supposed upgrade from 1 Gpbs to 2 Gpbs for Internet speed, I am
still getting downstream and upstream speeds that I had before. No
increase in speed. I got the upgrade for free, but I'd still like to
effect the upgrade.

Everything from source to endpoint needs to capable of running at 2 Gbps under load and with other traffic being managed.

This is not going to happen except for things that are extremely close to your "edge" to the internet. Then you've got your router and internal cabling.

Most hardware is rated "upto" certain speeds which will be only possible under ideal/lab conditions. I doubt you ever see anything close to 1 Gbps
in real life.

You're not trying hard enough.

Look at the transfer rates they run at on Internet2 for inspiration.

And having PCIe Rev5 in consumer computers, helps blow the top
off "limitations". As long as you have networking hardware with
interrupt consolidation, you can run hella fast. Normally you would
not expect to be able to use Jumbo Frames, so that is just a
marketing thing in a lot of situations. For example, if you do
ICS (Internet Connection Sharing), I don't think that will pass
a Jumbo Frame from one side to the other, so you have to turn that off.

It's much better to just have some acceleration features in the NIC
or equivalent.

The hardware in the datacenter, the "wiring" they use, puts our
home wiring to shame. The servers are plenty capable of running
faster, and the fastness makes it all the way to the edge of the
building.

You have wire speed DPI boxes on the outside edges of the Internet.
You can filter whatever you want. Thus, when setting up a server,
you can afford to be more imaginative, because you have a layered
protection model. (Cloudflare, ISP DPI). If you want to allow
a customer to run at 2Gbit/sec, you can do it. You have load balancers
and whizzy schemes to distribute loads, the wiring on the server
is plenty fast, and so on.

The connect time will be short, so you can still statistically multiplex
with the short/fast connections. Van won't be running 2Gbit/sec continuously. The super-high-speed connection will only last for 30 seconds.

I'm just amazed, that the box at my corner, can mix high
speed customers, and me on my puny connection, with (almost)
no side effects.

It's just a lack of imagination, that gives the old/conservative results.
Some of our servers are set up like it is the year 2000 (one Microsoft
server was serving at 300KB/sec...).

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Sat, 1/10/2026 11:23 PM, Paul wrote:

OK, Project Overkill is underway... 2 NIC ports :-)

https://www.startech.com/en-us/networking-io/st10gspexndp2

And you won't need Jumbo Frame Support, as that is unlikely to
mesh nicely with your BB end of things.

But at least the card does not cost $500 like some of them used to.

There is a bit more on the history of the chip here, including
it being offered as a single port card.

https://www.servethehome.com/cheap-nicgiga-10gbase-t-adapter-mini-review-marvell-aqc113c/

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/1/11 18:31:54, Chris wrote:

[]

I've said for a long time that 99% of domestic users don't actually need
anything more that 50Mbps. What they do need is reliable symmetric speeds
and better latency.

Well, I'm perfectly happy with my about 40, but there's only one of me,
I'm not a gamer, and if I do download video, there's no point in getting
more than 1080. Very occasionally if I download a _big_ piece of
software, or a full movie, it'd be nice to get them quicker, but that's
on average less than once a week.

Some media or technical people who work remotely from the office may
require a 200-300Mbps connection, but that's a very small number of people. >>

I can see that maybe also a household with two working parents and two
or three teenagers might need similar. Though only at peak times.

During COVID we had three adults working in the house, plus a teenager
doing school work. On a 35Mbps line. Lots of netflix, youtube, snapchat etc being used. Not one issue.

4K streaming is also fine.

The one thing a gamer would benefit from is when new games are released.
Those things are huge. Other than that gaming doesn't need high bandwidth,
it needs low latency.

It's simply marketing.

It does seem that way. Though arguably it would also make economic sense
to fit maximum capacity for everyone, rather than messing about with
mixed technologies/capacities; but that would involve forward planning,
which neither the companies nor the authorities are much good at.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 1/12/2026 12:01 AM, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 1/10/2026 11:23 PM, Paul wrote:

OK, Project Overkill is underway... 2 NIC ports :-)

https://www.startech.com/en-us/networking-io/st10gspexndp2

And you won't need Jumbo Frame Support, as that is unlikely to
mesh nicely with your BB end of things.

But at least the card does not cost $500 like some of them used to.

There is a bit more on the history of the chip here, including
it being offered as a single port card.

https://www.servethehome.com/cheap-nicgiga-10gbase-t-adapter-mini-review-marvell-aqc113c/

The QNAP version of a dual port card, is done properly. You can see in the PNG, that there is a PCIe switch chip (2812), that takes PCIe Rev3 x4 edgecard and splits it into
(2) PCIe Rev3 x2. This allows the card to work in any PCIe Rev3.

https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/products/50132-qnap-qxg-10g2t/ https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/images/products/214/50132/50132-img2.png

Whereas the danger signs on the Startech dual port, are:

1) The chip part numbers are missing from the Tech Spec section.
2) Absolutely *nobody* shows rear pictures of the card. We want to
look at the back, for signs there is a PCIe switch chip hiding under there. 3) This means the Startech offering is only likely to work in some kind of
Server chipset situation.

It was the same with some cheap NVMe carriers. You could have a blank card for $20
with NVMe connectors, four x4 basically, and these would be direct wired to a x16 slot.
This would only work, if the x16 had a mode where it supported (4) x4 operation,
which is not a given (and I would guess you'd need a phase locked clock buffer on there too).
To put a PCI Express switch chip on the x16 card, so the NVMe carrier would work
in *any* motherboard could cost $150. There is a strong incentive to try to cheat
the customer by shipping a (hopeless) $20 carrier with very little
quantity of electronic components at all on it.

There are very few reviewer comments for the Startech dual port card.

Apparently the AQC113 can be flash upgraded with some sort of firmware.
And the "best driver", comes from the Marvell site itself, rather
than TPLink (TX401) or the like. The TPLink claimed to have a TX401 V2
version, which I cannot find at retail, and the V2 may be referring
to a V2 firmware and an Atlantic V2 driver written with it. Apparently
the AQC113 had some power save stuff shut off, and this can be restored
via screwing with firmware. (The chip uses about 4W of power, and the
CSP version stands for Chip Scale Packaging where at one time, the packaging was virtually the same size as the silicon die, and maybe you did glob-top
over top of one. Marvell seems to have made a plastic package with the CSP on top.)
The QNAP card shows a variant of the Marvell, with an aluminum heat
spreader on top of the CSP, and the decorative heatsink would seat on that
with thermal tape.

You also need the right kind of Ethernet cable to work with that.
While the box contents on some product offerings include a
short piece of cable, it may be a little too short (1.5meters) for typical computer room usage. The port has MDIX so it does not matter whether
the cable is straight-thru or not. You don't have to worry about some "connector hood colors" or the like. But the cable has to be built
to the correct standard. The cables you've got in the room right now,
would limit performance to one of the sub-rates of the hardware you buy.
At least one of the Intel offerings, is only 1/10, while some others
offer 1/2/5/10, and the wrong cable caused operation at 5. When you buy
gear like this, you want to get the value from the money spent.

I doubt I could go all the way out to the kitchen with 10GbE as
easily as I do with a long 1GbE connection. And I really only need
that speed, to connect the two machines that have gobs of RAM.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2