Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
"Latency" here wouldn't matter (mostly) because content servers can be affected by congestion.
Closest ones (with low latency) could be stuffed and have worse performance.
Meanwhile some servers in another continent could be perfectly fine at that moment.
In a game. this is important. since that more or less mirrors the time between you pressing a key and seeing the resuklt on your screen..
Downloads don;t work like that. There's little to no back and forth. Just an inititiation and a steady treanm of asynchornous packets.
I'll tell you that I have better luck with downloads using servers on the other side of the world most of the time.
Lower ping just means a faster round trip taking the 'llong way' through fast lightly trafficked servers can yield a shorter ping than a single, or relatively fewer hops through congested servers.
Think of it this way. SOmetimes. It's faster to take the long empty road than the short road prone to gridlock.
Downloads have like nothing to do with latency. You could literally have 5 minute latency to a site that has 1 Petabyte/second of bandwidth
Latency and bandwidth are 2 entirely different things. And showing the 'ping' to a download server gives you ilterally no useful information
I would prefer a high latency high bandwidth server, vs a low latency low bandwidth server
Steam will just open plenty of ports and request as many packages as it can. How quickly a single package arrives is irrelevant.
I don't think it works like that. I don't think you can provide a quality resource that agrees with you. And I would be surprised if you came to this conclusion based on any research or reading that you've done. I'd be willing to bet money this idea is based on intuition and it sounds good to you so you believe it's probably got some merit however insignificant.
If ping had any value for the context you're on about I would think after 30 years most download services and managers would display ping to the user. At least the good ones would... right? But they don't. Why do you think that is? Malice? Ignorance? Indifference?
When gaming you want it as fast as possible. Downloading and streaming it doesn't really matter because once the stream/download starts it's streaming/downloading. That's what buffering is for.
If it takes 30ms to start the DL or 1,000ms to start the DL the DL has started. At which point the round trip no longer matters in terms of time. Provided connection is steady you should get the same sort of speed throughout the download.
So the latency only matters at the start. Even if you got a slightly lower latency you really won't notice a higher/lower latency once it start downloading. Delays can happen between the servers and a user just as easily on a low latency connection as it could on a high latency connection.