Staring 2nd week with the new i5 11th Gen NUC. Its 2.5Gbe while connecting at 2.5gb, throughput is about the same as 1 gb. I’ve plugged in a 2.5gb USB adapter and the network is back up to the higher throughput one would expect with 2.5gb.
Did some searching on the issue.
A bit disheartening….
Another one of those “Really Intel?” things.
The fastest throughput comes with removing Intel’s driver set and letting Windows 11 install Microsoft’s.
Why would I have to plug in a 2.5Gbe USB adapter to maintain throughput when this thing has a 2.5Gbe port?
I’ve done all the tweaks recommended, disabled what is supposed to be disabled. No real improvement.
Is Intel addressing their drivers to fix this? Something in the NUC’s firmware?
I have 3 Intel 2.5gb NIC’s in PC’s. They work GREAT.
Thank you for posting on the Intel
- Model of the NUC.
- Was it working before?
- Driver version tested.
Also, please download and install the Intel
Open the application and select "Everything" click on "Scan" to see the system and device information. By default, Intel
Click on "Next", save the report and attach it to your response.
Intel Customer Support Technician
Thanks for getting back to me.
Will get that report and upload it.
There was never a working before. The 8th Gen was 1gb. I used a ASUSTOR Gen 3.2 USB to 2.5gb adapter plugged into one of the 8th Gen's USB C ports. Was smoking fast. I've not had an Intel NUC with a 2.5gbe port to have tested before.
There really isn't a driver per se. At least not yet. While previous Intel LAN's had their own wired driver set, like the wireless driver set, there's no such thing at this time for the 2.5gb 11th Gen NUC's. There's a file that includes an *.inf file and you install in manually. I tried the default Microsoft one and Intel's *.inf installed one. As noted the Microsoft's performed better.
The NUC is Intel® NUC 11 Performance kit - NUC11PAHi5.
I am running from the Intel 225 in the NUC directly to another Intel 225 NIC PCIe card. I have a PFSense PC based router, an older Dell 390, and have 3 Intel 225's in it. Currently the only 2.5gbe cards supported by PFSense are the Intel's. I have a 2.5gbe switch coming today and will put it in between the NUC and the PFSense router. Some times having the switch changes how devices communicate. PFSense uses BSDfree and its drivers for the Intel 2.5gb NIC. Those cards work fantastic.
I did of course search on-line and found issues with the embedded 2.5gbe chip in Asus, MSI, some other motherboards. Intel apparently revised the chip as well as updated the "old" one's firmware with an NVM process. That of course is irrelevant for the NUC's beyond maybe need to address similar issue with the embedded chip in the NUC.
Will get that report posted.
Thank you for the information provided
I will proceed to check the issue internally and post back soon with more details.
Intel Customer Support Technician
1. 2.5gbe switch had no impact.
2. I have one more thing to check tomorrow. I'm getting my 2.5gb USB adapter back and will be able to do an A to B comparison.
Will post results.
Before I post these screen shots I want to make it clear I know there are more accurate and objectifiable ways to measure network performance. Again I get it. I'm posting these screen captures because my only goal here is to demonstrate something isn't right with the 2.5gbe chip/firmware/drivers.
The first screen capture is with the NUC's 2.5gbe ethernet port.
This is with the Asustor USB 3.2 Gen 2 to 2.5gbe USB-C adapter. SAME cables, SAME router, etc. I unplugged the Cat6 cable from back of the NUC, plugged it in the USB adapter.
I've run multiple tests, different internet speed test sites, all the same stark contrast in performance. My internet speed hangs around 1.2gbs. 1.3gbs nice......
When the first Realtek based USB to 2.5gbe adapters came out they too had a problem with unacceptable throughput. For those the problem was they used, and I know sounds crazy but its true, was not the latest USB standard in their internal architecture. Search if you wish, lots of folks tested and found the thing which is why I am aware of it, hit Amazon for reviews from folks who had the first round of those Realtek based adapters.
And of course the Intel is a horse of a different color. But......
2.5gbe speed is useless if the throughput is unacceptably impaired.
The other thing is as mentioned I have 3-2.5gbe Intel PCIe NIC's. They are the backbone of my home/work from home PFSense firewall/router. The 1.3gbs result is through those Intel 2.5gbe NIC's.
Means something is different between the NUC's embedded 2.5gbe chip and the PCIe NIC chip.
YES additional more objective testing and investigation is necessary. My goal here is not to cross every "t", dot every "i". My goal is to demonstrate something isn't right. I've demonstrated something is not up to snuff.
IF these 11th Gen 2.5gbe NUC's ethernet are locked at a throttled throughput, NOT going to sit well with folks. Some of the more technical testing sites will be merciless. "Intel did it again...shot themselves in the foot...."
I hope it can be fixed. I have 3 more weeks in my return window. If I'm stuck at throughput that is essentially 1gbe, the NUC is going back for a refund.
Before you decide to inform me that these results are just Fast.com and on the internet. What I need to do is run real tests, setup an iperf client and server, take a moment and really read what I've posted.
In an odd sorta way it is interesting to find these kinds of issues and then follow the fix. I'd rather not return the thing. I'm seeing the NUC's with T3/T4 ports availability for sometime in March 2022. IF I have to return this 11th Gen would probably wait till March 2022 to replace it.
I wanted to both thank you for your interest as well as let you know I'm returning this NUC. Had my weekly touch base meeting with office manager for our work at home jobs. She told me to return it. Not going to deal with an unknown. We have to be stable and reliable. I'm back to the 8th Gen NUC with the Asustor 2.5gb USB adapter.
Going to wait a couple of months and let Intel and chip shortage sort each other out.
I do think this needs to be investigated.
I am really sorry to hear that you decided to return the product but I understand your concerns.
I'll investigate this issue further and will report back to the community.