Wi-Fi & connectivity

[Micheal_J]

Why did you not go to one Gig for a wired solution that everyone should use if they have wiring in place.  

Apple TV 4K units are 10/100/1000 so the technology exists to put that kind of Ethernet port on your devices. Maybe not for the low end devices but for sure it should be available for the new Ultra devices

Can it be added via a firmware update?

Thank You 

. 

[atc98092]

Roku has never offered a Gigabit network connection on their players with an Ethernet jack. If you consider their primary use that they were designed for, Gigabit is unnecessary because nothing that streams from the Internet comes close to even Fast Ethernet (100 Mbps). No, they cannot be upgraded with a software update. 

There are rumors of a new top end Roku coming this fall, but there's no guarantees that a) one is actually coming and b) no idea if it will finally offer Gigabit Ethernet. 

You can use WiFi and get about 220 Mbps, but that's the limit of what the Roku hardware can handle anyway, so why install (more expensive) Gigabit when the hardware can't come close to using that level of bandwidth. 

[Micheal_J]

Wonder why Apple is putting gigabit Ethernet connectivity on their 4k streaming device? Sony Bravia Core movies runs close to 100mbps on the Pure Stream technology movies now. 100mbps will likely be surpassed before a new Roku that is purchased now would need to be replaced. I have the Apple device but hate it’s remote and I like the Roku but without gigabit Ethernet capability I’m not sure about purchasing a new Ultra device now. 

[Strega2]

Apple likes to sell high-end stuff.  For example, you can go onto their website and spec out a Mac pro to over $12K.  Roku really seems to be more about the advertisements and subscriptions, so even their “high end” device tends to be pretty “main stream”. 

Even for a consumer who likes the best new stuff, the question of: buy the highest end thing now, vs buy something cheap now and get something even better in the future, possibly for less total money, is never a simple question.

It's a funny thing browsing old/use stuff for sale and thinking: Wow, that piece of junk used to be the highest end product of its day,

[trentv11182]

My house was built in 2006. Has a Cat5e Ethernet Port from the kitchen to the master bedroom. Never used it.

Even so, I'm paying $100 for 500Mpbs from COX. Even when wired, I've never come close to using all 500Mbps.

https://www.speedtest.net/

https://fast.com/

https://fiber.google.com/speedtest/

[atc98092]

My house was built in 1990, and computer networking really didn't exist at the home level at that time. I've added Ethernet throughout much of my home over the years, as well as adding several wireless access points throughout the house. I do use my Gigabit network for many devices, but WiFi suffices for the others. My Ultra 4800 reports about 225 Mbps, and that's a hardware limitation of the device. Adding a Gigabit adapter won't permit the 4800 to stream any faster, as it simply can't handle that high of a bitstream. I have test videos with a fixed bitrate, and playing them over USB (so no network involved) shows a practical limit around 180 Mbps before the video encounters buffering. A 250 Mbps video is unwatchable because it constantly buffers. 

[JesseWV]

Gigabit ethernet came out in 1998. Let that sink in. It's been standard on PC motherboards for almost that long. You can get a RTL8367 (Gigabit ethernet on a chip) for less than $1 USD. I'm sure it's closer to half that wholesale.  Being forced to add a high bandwidth device to my wireless network because it's faster than the wired port is stupid. There is really no excuse except laziness. Was hoping this would replace the Shield for home cinema but I guess not. Bluetooth works good though.

[atc98092]

It really doesn't matter it's lacking Gigabit. The CPU that Roku uses is only capable of about 200 Mbps video, so Gigabit is drastic overkill. The existing WiFi on all recent devices is capable of about the same speed as the CPU, so they are pretty well matched. I still use my Shield for my local media, not because of the Gigabit connection but because the Shield will display image based captions, as well as bitstreaming my lossless audio from my rips. 

[CrashDavis88]

Sorry to bump an old post but I have mostly moved on from Roku because of this. I rip my 4K UHD discs to Plex lossless and unfortunately Roku's can't handle several of them at 100mb. Nvidia Shield does great with them at 1G, so I upgraded where needed. I would be fine with adding back Roku's with 1G if's if it ever happens. Love the platform otherwise. 

[atc98092]

I too play ripped UHD movies, although I usually don't normally use Plex. I agree that the Shield is the better player for local ripped media, mostly because it supports bitstreaming the lossless audio to an AVR and supports image based captions (Roku does neither). But I can still play my UHD movies on my Roku (with the lossless audio transcoded to AC3) using WiFi instead of Ethernet.

I have tested my Ultra 4800 on both Ethernet and WiFi for max speed, as well as playing directly from the USB port to eliminate the network from the equation. What I have found is the Ultra will max out at roughly 220 Mbps on an 802.11ac access point that is less than three feet away from the Roku. Playing some fixed bitrate test videos, on Ethernet it starts having issues at 90 Mbps (completely expected on a Fast Ethernet connection) and can play reliably over WiFi up to about 200 Mbps (which matches the reported speed in the network test). But I also found that even using USB the Ultra can't go faster than 200 Mbps, so that's pretty much the hardware limit of the 480x Ultra. I have a 4850 coming, and I will be repeating these tests to see if the latest hardware is any faster.

My ripped UHD movies have a 60-70 Mbps average bitrate, but they all have peaks that can exceed 150 Mbps, so Fast Ethernet will never suffice for that content. But the Roku is perfectly capable of it with a good WiFi connection.