@lethalsniper, @gp-se, and others, the CODA-4582 is capable of running a 32 channels down, 8 channels up for Docsis 3.0, 2 Channels down, 2 Channels up for Docsis 3.1. The CGNM-3552 is capable of running 32 channels down, 8 channels up for Docsis 3.0. The CGN3ACSMR is probably capable of running 24 channels down, 8 channels up for Docsis 3.0 as well.
In any discussion of latency thru the modem you have to remember where Rogers internet clients are coming from, and that is a Puma 6MG modem, with its inherent latency due to the firmware design. A read thru the following post should be a starting point as a refresher and for anyone who is new to Rogers modems.
The top image in that post represents the latency of all CGN3xxxx and CGNM series modems for all protocols with the following exceptions:
1. Any CGN3xxxx and CGNM series modem running with firmware version 184.108.40.206. In this particular case, Version 220.127.116.11 brings the IPV4 ICMP (ping) latency down to more respectable levels, as is seen in the bottom two images. If you look closely at those images, which are from a 24 hour ping test to the CMTS, the average is down around 12 ms, instead of 20 ms with spikes ranging up into the mid to high 200 ms. At this moment, the cable ISP world is waiting for Intel and Arris to get on with modifying the firmware to do the same to everything else: IPV6 ICMP, IPV4 & IPV6 TCP/IP and UDP. UDP is important for gaming and DNS lookups for web page loading and navigation over the internet. At the present time, all of those protocols, in application and in a ping test will look like the top image in that post.
While the cable world has been waiting for Intel and Arris, SuperDave and Co have released Intel's next generation Puma 7 modem, essentially beating Intel and their solution for the Puma 6MG modems. So, whats the difference. For IPV4 the CODA-3482 ICMP appears to be on par with the CGNM-3552 plots at the bottom of my referenced post, if not slightly worse. There are no repetitive high ping spikes. For IPV4 TCP/IP the performance is relatively the same, no repetitive high ping spikes. UDP, the jury is still out. This requires a co-operative server that is set to return a UDP ping which I don't have access to.
At the end of the day the question is, is there an improvement and which one should I choose? Without a doubt there is substantial improvement from the Puma 6MG CGN3xxx and CGNM series modems to the Puma 7 CODA-4582. Remember that this is basic performance and throughput. There are still some issues that Dave has indicated including some strange results with Pingplotter and WinMTR, but that is really cosmetic and will be resolved. This also occurred in test versions for the CGN3ACSMR, so, its not a huge issue but it does cause confusion.
The one interesting issue is UDP packet loss with the CODA-4582. From my testing there appears to be a limit of 6.995 Mb/s beyond which a UDP transfer starts to fail, loosing up to 50 % at higher transfer rates above 10 Mb/s. Those rates are pretty low, but, consider this: running GRC's DNS benchmark which is UDP driven, the loss with a CGNM-3552 would be up to approx 12%. Running the same test with the CODA-4582, that loss drops to 0%. So, the real question is how much of a loss is seen ingame. If you're not seeing any loss beyond say a 12% range with a 4582, then your probably on par with a CGN3xxx or CGNM series modem. The major difference is that you shouldn't see the same ping spikes as would be seen with a Puma 6MG modem. That however remains to be confirmed with an actual test plot. I won't believe it until I see the actual results.
So, at the present time I have a backlog of number crunching that I have to do in order to plot the ping data and present the comparisons. Given the MDD Timeout failure that I had today, I have another day of ping data to collect with V18.104.22.168. Once that is complete I'll post the results.
Hope this helps.
Normally, the higher the channel count, the better, in terms of channel bonding and the ability to deliver higher data rates. In terms of node issues, I can't help as I don't have access to the system and therefore don't know what the load situation is on the CMTS. Same for any specific issues that might be affecting the CMTS performance. Those are questions that @RogersDave would have to address.
Moving forward, if you want the best gaming experience, you should be using a CODA-4582. There is no doubt about this. It will give you the best performance in terms of latency and the best throughput, especially when we deploy DOCSIS 3.1 in your area.
Now that being said, there are still some issues being addressed. Based on daily conversations with Hitron, I'm pretty confident that I'll have a firmware that addresses all critical issues in the next 4 weeks. I will also likely get interim firmwares with some of the fixes before that.
Participants of the firmware trial program (like you) will be getting these fixes right away. For non-participants, it will take an additional 2-3 weeks for us to complete testing and validation.
So my suggestion, unless your Internet is completely broken and unusable (which I don't think it is, although not giving you the best performance) is to keep your current modem for until we have a firmware addressing the UDP and slowly degrading speed issues. Then you can swap your modem for a CODA-4582.
I will post all the details in this forum as soon as I have it and I'm sure there will be feedback as well from the community to help you decide.
If you do decide to change modem right away and don't want a CODA-4582, you won't have the luxury to pick the model. We are moving to DOCSIS 3.1 and the CODA-4582 is what most stores have in stock. They will likely have either CGNM-3552 or CGN3ACSMR but probably not both. In both cases, I can put firmware .27 on them. On the CGNM-3552, your uplink speed will likely be limited to around 15 Mbps with that firmware.
Hope this helps with your decision.
Well, I'm running a CODA-4582 by choice, in Bridge mode with an RT-AC68U behind it. I'm not a gamer, but from the family gamer, I've heard no complaints. I think that running the modem in Bridge mode with your own router is the way to go. I'm making an assumption at this point in time that the UDP performance is similar in nature to the ICMP and TCP/IP, but as I've said earlier, I'll believe that when I can see it for myself. There is an issue with the max transfer rates for UDP packets, but I don't believe that you would be worse off than running a CGN3ACSMR with .27 loaded. That version can be loaded on a CGNM-3552 by request, but then you would be capped at ~20 Mb/s instead of 50 Mb/s that the modem can do.