在一些应用程序中，TCP比UDP更快(更好的吞吐量)。

当执行大量相对于MTU大小的小写操作时，就会出现这种情况。例如，我读到一个实验，在这个实验中，一个300字节的数据包流通过以太网发送(1500字节MTU)， TCP比UDP快50%。

这是因为TCP将尝试缓冲数据并填充整个网段，从而更有效地利用可用带宽。

另一方面，UDP将数据包立即放到网络上，从而使大量的小包阻塞网络。

你可能不应该使用UDP，除非你有非常具体的原因这样做。特别是因为你可以通过禁用Nagle算法来让TCP和UDP具有相同的延迟(例如，如果你正在传输实时传感器数据，而你不担心网络被大量的小包阻塞)。

I will just make things clear. TCP/UDP are two cars are that being driven on the road. suppose that traffic signs & obstacles are Errors TCP cares for traffic signs, respects everything around. Slow driving because something may happen to the car. While UDP just drives off, full speed no respect to street signs. Nothing, a mad driver. UDP doesn't have error recovery, If there's an obstacle, it will just collide with it then continue. While TCP makes sure that all packets are sent & received perfectly, No errors , so , the car just passes obstacles without colliding. I hope this is a good example for you to understand, Why UDP is preferred in gaming. Gaming needs speed. TCP is preffered in downloads, or downloaded files may be corrupted.

在一些应用程序中，TCP比UDP更快(更好的吞吐量)。

当执行大量相对于MTU大小的小写操作时，就会出现这种情况。例如，我读到一个实验，在这个实验中，一个300字节的数据包流通过以太网发送(1500字节MTU)， TCP比UDP快50%。

这是因为TCP将尝试缓冲数据并填充整个网段，从而更有效地利用可用带宽。

另一方面，UDP将数据包立即放到网络上，从而使大量的小包阻塞网络。

你可能不应该使用UDP，除非你有非常具体的原因这样做。特别是因为你可以通过禁用Nagle算法来让TCP和UDP具有相同的延迟(例如，如果你正在传输实时传感器数据，而你不担心网络被大量的小包阻塞)。

根据我的经验，UDP稍微快一点，但也快不了多少。选择不应该基于性能，而应该基于消息内容和压缩技术。

如果它是一种带有消息交换的协议，我建议使用TCP所带来的轻微性能损失是值得的。你得到了两个端点之间的连接它能提供你所需要的一切。不要尝试在UDP之上创建自己可靠的双向协议，除非你对自己的工作非常非常有信心。

请记住，TCP通常在网络上保存多条消息。如果你想在UDP中实现这一点，如果你想可靠地做到这一点，你将有相当多的工作。你的解决方案要么不太可靠，要么速度较慢，要么工作量巨大。有有效的UDP应用程序，但如果你问这个问题，你的可能不是。

Which protocol performs better (in terms of throughput) - UDP or TCP - really depends on the network characteristics and the network traffic. Robert S. Barnes, for example, points out a scenario where TCP performs better (small-sized writes). Now, consider a scenario in which the network is congested and has both TCP and UDP traffic. Senders in the network that are using TCP, will sense the 'congestion' and cut down on their sending rates. However, UDP doesn't have any congestion avoidance or congestion control mechanisms, and senders using UDP would continue to pump in data at the same rate. Gradually, TCP senders would reduce their sending rates to bare minimum and if UDP senders have enough data to be sent over the network, they would hog up the majority of bandwidth available. So, in such a case, UDP senders will have greater throughput, as they get the bigger pie of the network bandwidth. In fact, this is an active research topic - How to improve TCP throughput in presence of UDP traffic. One way, that I know of, using which TCP applications can improve throughput is by opening multiple TCP connections. That way, even though, each TCP connection's throughput might be limited, the sum total of the throughput of all TCP connections may be greater than the throughput for an application using UDP.