Comparison: Internal vs. External 10GbE

[DRDR]

I compared the internal 10 Gbit/s network adapter of my base model Mac Studio (Max) with an external Thunderbolt 3 10 Gbit/s network adapter from Sonnet.

Internal:

External:

The difference seems to be a more conservative power ramp up (take a look at the beginning and the end of the graph) of the internal network adapter, which results in slightly less average speed compared to the external adapter, which is more aggressive using power and does indeed use more power:

 

[BanditoB]

Have you tried running your test with the power-saving feature of the built-in network adapter disabled? That might make a difference.

 

[DRDR]

Have you tried running your test with the power-saving feature of the built-in network adapter disabled? That might make a difference.

No, both adapters have been used with standard settings. I do not even know how to configure these settings for the internal one.

 

[kfscoll]

No, both adapters have been used with standard settings. I do not even know how to configure these settings for the internal one.

Right here:

 

[Chancha]

I actually don't think iStat Menus would include the wattage used by the bus-power device, in your case the 10GbE NIC, therefore the real consumption is even higher and the end of your graph only shows what was consumed by the CPU and internal (Thunderbolt) circuitry while using that external NIC.

I seem to recall seeing similar comparison in the Intel mini or the iMac Pro, with the AQC107 running too hot for the internal cooling to handle. The Sonnet while passively cooled it has a rather large surface area, and it was designed to be performant as a dedicated NIC so your result does not surprise me. I myself am using CalDigit 10G Connect, which has an even more massive passive heatsink, the surface constantly reaches 45 degree C or so but it never drops my speed.

 

[Pressure]

There are many factors that can skew the numbers.

However the average speed tells us this is within margin of error ~3% (8888Mbps versus 8609Mbps).