[REVIEW] Intermatic vs ACT/Home Pro

Squintz

Senior Member
This review was sparked by THIS other cocoontech conversation. I got my hands on 3 intermatic z-wave dimmer switches. I removed 3 ACT switches from my network and replaced them with the Intermatic devices.

The first thing I did was run a response time test using a tool that Chris walker provided me. During this test I noticed that my Z-wave network thought it had a device that really did not exist. I am not sure how it got there but I can tell you that because of the ThinkEssential and Zwave SDK tools I was able to troubleshoot the network and find this ghost device. It was the main reason why my polling times where so bad during my previous test.

Attached to this post are those response times.

Also here is a link to a little video demo I did to visuall demonstrate the two devices performance. You will notice that when I start clicking between devices my lack of sleep takes over and I start to screw up the sequence. Just note that it is me screwing up and not z-wave :D

http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd4/69684/...atic%20Demo.wmv
 

Attachments

  • IntermaticActRun.txt
    1.7 KB · Views: 27
Here are the results of the same test but here i try to access that same switch 5 times in a loop as fast as possible.

Some things to consider with these results is that I have mostly ACT devices so the three intermatic devices may be routing through ACT devices.

Code:
[1] Device #2 level: 0 | 141ms avg.
[2] Device #2 level: 0 | 109ms avg.
[3] Device #2 level: 0 | 151ms avg.
[4] Device #2 level: 0 | 176ms avg.
[5] Device #2 level: 0 | 188ms avg.
[1] Device #3 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #3 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[3] Device #3 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[4] Device #3 level: 0 | 301ms avg.
[5] Device #3 level: 0 | 338ms avg.
[1] Device #6 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #6 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[3] Device #6 level: 0 | 240ms avg.
[4] Device #6 level: 0 | 238ms avg.
[5] Device #6 level: 0 | 238ms avg.
[1] Device #8 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #8 level: 0 | 242ms avg.
[3] Device #8 level: 0 | 240ms avg.
[4] Device #8 level: 0 | 238ms avg.
[5] Device #8 level: 0 | 238ms avg.
[1] Device #9 level: 255 | 578ms avg.
[2] Device #9 level: 255 | 570ms avg.
[3] Device #9 level: 255 | 568ms avg.
[4] Device #9 level: 255 | 570ms avg.
[5] Device #9 level: 255 | 653ms avg.
[1] Device #12 level: 0 | 484ms avg.
[2] Device #12 level: 0 | 359ms avg.
[3] Device #12 level: 0 | 323ms avg.
[4] Device #12 level: 0 | 301ms avg.
[5] Device #12 level: 0 | 288ms avg.
[1] Device #13 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #13 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[3] Device #13 level: 0 | 240ms avg.
[4] Device #13 level: 0 | 238ms avg.
[5] Device #13 level: 0 | 238ms avg.
[1] Device #14 level: 0 | 391ms avg.
[2] Device #14 level: 0 | 242ms avg.
[3] Device #14 level: 0 | 198ms avg.
[4] Device #14 level: 0 | 172ms avg.
[5] Device #14 level: 0 | 156ms avg.
[1] Device #15 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[2] Device #15 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[3] Device #15 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[4] Device #15 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[5] Device #15 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[1] Device #17 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[2] Device #17 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[3] Device #17 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[4] Device #17 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[5] Device #17 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[1] Device #21 level: 0 | 109ms avg.
[2] Device #21 level: 0 | 102ms avg.
[3] Device #21 level: 0 | 99ms avg.
[4] Device #21 level: 0 | 98ms avg.
[5] Device #21 level: 0 | 97ms avg.
[1] Device #22 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[2] Device #22 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[3] Device #22 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[4] Device #22 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[5] Device #22 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[1] Device #23 level: 0 | 94ms avg.
[2] Device #23 level: 0 | 188ms avg.
[3] Device #23 level: 0 | 156ms avg.
[4] Device #23 level: 0 | 141ms avg.
[5] Device #23 level: 0 | 131ms avg.
[1] Device #24 level: 0 | 1125ms avg.
[2] Device #24 level: 0 | 844ms avg.
[3] Device #24 level: 0 | 839ms avg.
[4] Device #24 level: 0 | 770ms avg.
[5] Device #24 level: 0 | 731ms avg.
[1] Device #25 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #25 level: 0 | 234ms avg.
[3] Device #25 level: 0 | 323ms avg.
[4] Device #25 level: 0 | 301ms avg.
[5] Device #25 level: 0 | 288ms avg.
[1] Device #26 level: 99 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #26 level: 99 | 234ms avg.
[3] Device #26 level: 99 | 240ms avg.
[4] Device #26 level: 99 | 238ms avg.
[5] Device #26 level: 99 | 238ms avg.
[1] Device #27 level: 99 | 234ms avg.
[2] Device #27 level: 99 | 234ms avg.
[3] Device #27 level: 99 | 240ms avg.
[4] Device #27 level: 99 | 238ms avg.
[5] Device #27 level: 99 | 238ms avg.
---
Success: 85; Failure: 0
Time: 21.703125s {0.255330882352941s each}
 
BTW, Tech-home.com has open box intermatic dimmers going very very cheap right now. I am told they are band new and never even installed. The boxes just happend to be open.
 
Squintz said:
BTW, Tech-home.com has open box intermatic dimmers going very very cheap right now. I am told they are band new and never even installed. The boxes just happend to be open.
$29.99 for an open box 300 watt Z-wave switch http://tech-home.com/product_info.php?cPat...products_id=875 when I can buy the same 300 watt brand new insteon switches http://www.smarthome.com/2876db.html for $19.99. :)

Doesn't sound "very very cheap" to me. I used to think Z-wave was the way to go until recently. :D
 
Squnitz,
Great video showing Zwave products off. But shouldn't it be Intermatic vs. ACT/Home Pro?

gunther52,
The same switch cost $44.99 at SmartHome. http://www.smarthome.com/1185.HTML
To each there own but I'm sticking with a protocol that has a lot of support and with so many products about to be released. I don't want to mix around with X10 and Insteon. Don't forget those unsightly repeaters and filters when figuring the cost.
 
About insteon being $10 cheaper. It is all a matter of preference. One thing that would keep me from buying insteon is that people are complaining of extreem heat issues from the devices and SmartHome reps are saying that extreem temps are ok

http://www.accessha.com/forums/showthread....switchlinc+heat

Plus, my personal preference is to use Digital RF. I have not had any RF related issues with z-wave and I am running 20+ devices. So I would not rant that Z-Wave switches are too expensive because I personally think most of them are reasonably priced. You have two totally different technologies here and RF requires more design and components thand powerline (I THINK). Plus Z-wave has some history now and the bugs are starting to get worked out.
 
Squintz said:
About insteon being $10 cheaper. It is all a matter of preference. One thing that would keep me from buying insteon is that people are complaining of extreem heat issues from the devices and SmartHome reps are saying that extreem temps are ok

http://www.accessha.com/forums/showthread....switchlinc+heat

Plus, my personal preference is to use Digital RF. I have not had any RF related issues with z-wave and I am running 20+ devices. So I would not rant that Z-Wave switches are too expensive because I personally think most of them are reasonably priced. You have two totally different technologies here and RF requires more design and components thand powerline (I THINK). Plus Z-wave has some history now and the bugs are starting to get worked out.
Hmm, I have installed three or four in a single gang installation and have another 5 coming. I have not noticed them even being warm (I did not take them out after being installed) at the paddle. I'll have to check this out myself. I hadn't heard about heat issues. In fact I ordered a starter kit and some switches to test it out before ordering more and everything seemed fine.

Now granted, the loads I am controlling are much, much lower than anything in that example. They are all 120 watt I believe. The most on a single switch that I plan on using is around 260 (4 65 watt cans) so perhaps that is a situation worth looking at further (I have SwitchLinc V1's there now, and haven't noticed anything, but different product).

Might be that excuse to buy that IR thermometor :D
 
When I was still on the fence and testing Insteon, I had an Insteon 600W hooked up to a string of 6 recessed cans @ 75W = 450W. The Insteon dimmer got very warm, warmer than any other switch I tested. FWIW...
 
I now have 9 Insteon switches and none of them even get warm so it sounds like they have been pushed past the limits of their load ratings. If this happens all switches get hot. The fact that the Insteon switches are 2-way is pulling me away from buying any more Z-Wave switches. In addition most all of my switches are 3 way installs and Z-Wave has made these installs cost prohibited in my book. With the addition of the new $20 slaves for Insteon it's hard not to compare costs. I still like my Z-Wave switches it's just a pain to add new devices not to mention scary wondering if that new one is the one to muck up your network.
 
The fact that the Insteon switches are 2-way is pulling me away from buying any more Z-Wave switches.

I will have to look into this more but I think that the limitation of z-waves ability to send commands to the controller (2way) has been worked out and if it has not been implemented it will be soon. The patent issue is no longer an issue. Maybe the expert Chris can step in here and let us know.
 
Squintz:

"Live status" is a feature that manufacturers can implement in their products. ACT has chosen to do this with their thermostat and PIR. From the press releases I've been reading, it looks like a number of new devices coming to market will support this as well. It's really up to the manufacturers on what they want to do.

Chris
 
ChrisWalker said:
"Live status" is a feature that manufacturers can implement in their products.
Are there any 2-way z-wave switches currently shipping?

Chris, is "Live status" z-waves version of 2-way? Any reason not to say 2-way? Now I am really confused. :unsure:
 
Back
Top