I left Virgin just over two years ago now, not for me but mainly for my two boys who are both quite serious gamers. The reason was constant lag for them in games mainly in peak times at week ends, when we changed to BT we were told we would get in excess of 56 m/b download and 5/7 upload, well the upload part was accurate but the download never goes above 44m/b. Even though we have low download speeds they don't get that much lag only now and again. The thing is our road was upgraded sometime last year and we can now get the vivid 200 in our street. My next door neibour.is getting 156m/b on the 150 package. Both their ps4s are connected via Ethernet cables, so would I be wise to change back (keeping getting virgin offers through the door) or will they still have problems at peak times. Are their still a lot of people out there with problems gaming. The extra speed is rather tempting although I believe upload is more important to gamers ?
As VM will not advise of overutilisation ahead of connection, its difficult to make an informed choice. I don't envy you. As a dad in a household of gamers myself its not the sort of thing you want to get wrong.
If your neighbour is receiving those sort of speeds (check they are consistent throughout the day) it looks like your area is fine. But that's a guess.
I suppose what you are looking for is personal experience. My 150 MBps connection performs well. Even with a fairly complicated set up LAN side, pings are low and its rare I get a complaint about latency from the kids. Download is top notch. So we are happy.
On balance though, BT probably has the edge for gaming at the minute. Lower inherent latency in the infrastructure means they regularly outperform VM. We are talking milliseconds of a difference but when the kids decide to pingtest, those milliseconds are bragging rights.. They are also more generous with their upstream provision (again down to their infrastructure) so Twitch streaming and the like is more straightforward with BT.
It basically comes down to- what is more important. A few less milliseconds latency (stay where you are) or download speed (on the strength of your neighbours connection, a switch to VM may well be better for you)
Either way you have 28 days to change your mind if you do switch. Make sure you use those 28 days to confirm your connection is performing to your satisfaction.
If you have your own router LAN side it will make things a whole lot better for PS4 so it would be a good idea to take that into account.
Umm that was the reason I switched in the first place, the pings we get with BT are between 35/45 , that's with my laptop tested wirelessly, bearing in mind their ps4s are wired. I just thought that maybe the virgin service had improved ??, The sales team keep telling me that they don't slow you down of an evening any more. Not sure this is true after going through a few posts on here.
Nope, ping is SLIGHTLY worse with VM generally if there is no overutilisation in the area. You are talking about milliseconds of a difference. It would not be noticeable in say Minecraft, it MAY be noticeable in FPS's
As evidenced on here people get really uptight about milliseconds, never made a difference to me, but then maybe its because im older and my reaction times aren't what they used to be.
My own personal experience is I have VM's 150 service in an uncongested area. I have a fairly complicated LAN side set up including two switches, several devices permanently connected, about 20 others on and off the Wi-Fi when the kids are online , and my eldest can still game without complaint. I have been around the forums years and people complain constantly about elevated ping causing in game issues. That is not my experience. But a fair bit of planning went into LAN side. Gaming devices are wired. Superhub has had static Ip's allocated to all devices. So its perfectly possible , even with the inherent latency of the network being slightly higher and more recently SuperHub 3 having an effect, to get things working smoothly.
That ALL depends on having an area WITHOUT overutilisation. In that case pings WILL noticeably suffer, when it gets REALLY bad you will see latency in browsers, never mind games...
i have a bt connection and a virgin media connection.
one thing i can tell you is that bt is deffo better for consistent latency, for speed virgin is much better.
our bt line is synced at 71/20 11ms ping (uk servers), it used to be at 80/20 but something has happened and now im getting told i could never get 80 due to distance from the cab which is a load of crap considering i had 80 for months. i got 208/12 on my virgin line but the ping is about 5ms higher, and for me im a bit fussy when it comes to ping so im not the most impressed but im not unimpressed considering ive never had an issue with lag on my connection "yet".
bt lie about estimated speeds to drag customers to them, if they didnt use crappy none twisted copper it would be ok.
honestly in my opinion, sky fibre is the best for latency out of all the companies, they use bts lines but have their own backhaul network which routes traffic much better. speed wise, no company except hyperoptic beat virgin, but can you get hyperoptic, i very much doubt it.
if your ping is that high mike it will mean that your line has been struck by dlm, which increases latency and drops speed to make your line more stable, it happened to me, but now my bt line has g.inp which basically reduces line errors by a lot and disables dlm so my ping is always low on bt now.