Consider how latency and bandwidth works with hard-copies carried by foot.
Say you have a boxful of hard copies—about as much as you can carry without being significantly slowed down by the weight, and two places you might want to bring it, one 50 m away and one .5 km away.
Let's say you walk at about 5km/h. It would take you 1.2 minutes to bring the box to the first place and return, and 12 minutes to bring the box to the second place and return.
Now lets say you have to bring 100 boxes. You'd have to make 100 trips, so your total time carrying would be 2hours and 200hours respectively.
Now, let's make these things better.
Let's say you enlist 99 helpers. You can now have more bandwidth. You can now bring the 100 boxes in 1.2 and 12 minutes respectively.
Let's say you enlist 2000 helpers. You now have even more bandwidth. You can now bring the 10 boxes in 1.2 and 12 minutes respectively. The extra bandwidth hasn't helped because you've maxed it out, and the latency is the same.
Let's say you get rid of the 99 helpers, but buy a bicycle, and you can do a healthy 40km/h on it. You can now do the one-box trips in 9 seconds and 1.5 minutes respectively. You now have less latency. The 100-box trips will take 150 minutes and 25hours though.
Now, obviously the bicycle (lower latency, some extra bandwidth) is better at bringing one box of papers quickly, while the massive team of helpers (same latency, much more bandwidht) is better at bringing lots of boxes.
Network connections compare with each other in ways similar to how these different means of transporting hard copies compare.
Downloading a very large file is akin to the task of transporting lots of boxes, and so the more bandwidth, the better.
Playing a game tends to involve lots of small messages, so it's like the task of carrying one box over and over (we can't bulk-transport all the boxes, as the next box isn't ready yet). The lower the latency, the better.
But in our analogy, there's no reason why we can't have a massive team of helpers who all have bicycles.
And extend the analogy, different network connections will differ not only in latency (foot vs bicycle) and bandwidth (how many helpers) but also in having different short-cuts available, and different points they have to go through, so one may be lower latency for one trip and higher for another.
But where the analogy is accurate is that while we can have two connections where one is better by one metric and worse by another, we can also have two connections where one is better than the other by both measures.
13Neither upload speed nor download speed significantly impact ping. Ping is a measure of latency. You could have a 100 Mb/sec connection with 100 ms of ping and a 1 Mb/sec connection with 10 ms of ping. – ChrisInEdmonton – 2015-04-14T18:35:40.223
The latency of ping depends on your provider and the method (firewall) which they're using to limit your connection. – kenorb – 2015-04-14T18:48:42.940
4Distance is a great contributor to ping time. Playing an online game from Europe on servers in the US will cost you perhaps 150ms, which you can do really nothing about except move to the States. – Tetsujin – 2015-04-14T19:02:54.240
5Ping and bandwidth are independent, however if your bandwidth is saturated you'll start getting higher latency than normal as well as packet loss, so it may be a good idea to cap bandwidth-hungry programs (torrent clients, etc) to a speed a bit lower than your max bandwidth. – None – 2015-04-14T20:50:46.473
8Imagine a lorry load of blue-rays arrive every hour, you unload them, plug them into a massive stack of drives, load up the new (upload) disks into the lorry, and send it off. This would be a massive upload and download speed, but the latency would be very poor (average at best 1.5 hours, could be worse depending how far the lorries have to travel). If you start filling up the lorries, a packet may have to wait for a 2nd lorry after it is ready, so increasing latency more. – ctrl-alt-delor – 2015-04-14T22:11:54.947
100% saturation of either upload or download channel can kill your ping, but otherwise a stable 90% usage of a low bandwidth channel will have the same ping as a similar but much larger channel that's only 10% utilized. – Peteris – 2015-04-15T00:53:37.613
1I like to imagine it as a water pipe. The ping gives you an idea how long the pipe is and the bandwidth tells you how fat it is. A short (i.e. direct) pipe means the water gets there quickly. A fat pipe means lots of water gets there. Swap water for data and I think it all makes sense. If you need to transport a lot of water then you want as fat a pipe as possible i.e. large bandwidth. Games don't like to be kept waiting so a low ping time (short pipe) is usually most important. Well-designed games try to minimise the amount of data sent so as not to use up too much bandwidth. – Caltor – 2015-04-15T12:30:44.137
Outside of saturating your pipe, ping (latency) is typically governed by factors not under your control: the medium of the connection (copper, fiber, etc) as well as type of cable/connection (25 pair, single mode/multimode, wavelength, there are really lots of variations in this category), speed of network equipment you're attached to (DSLAM, CMTS, ATMs, etc), distance between you and this equipment (aka "first mile"), quality of cable within IW (cat5/cat3/cat6), as well as quality of all of this on the end of whatever you're pinging and everything in between. – MaQleod – 2015-04-15T17:00:43.233