• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Pi Cast Episode 3 streams live on Tuesday, August 4th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Catch Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 6th at 2:00 pm ET (7:00 PM BST). Click here!

[SOLVED] A mid-range router option

Jan 12, 2020
10
0
10
0
Hi guys,

Does any one of you use a mid-range router, that you would also recommend? I was thinking of upgrading (in a price range of $100) and would like to hear some of your opinions. When it comes to mid-rangers, there isn't much info about them on the internet, rather then "it performs well for a router in it's class" or something similar.

I was personally going for TP-Link's Archer A9, but got concerned when I saw that it has a single core CPU. I have a few neighbors that occasionally connect to our wifi and I'm afraid that A9 won't be up to the task when it comes to ~10 connected devices. I also have 2 block walls in my 33m² (335 ft²) apartment that separate my room from the living room, where the current router is situated, so I also need it to penetrate that hell of a barrier.

I'm probably asking for too much with too little to offer, but I'm wondering if some of you had managed to strike a balance between money and performance, like I'm seeking to.
 
This is almost a worthless question. Getting votes from people say "works good for me" is as worthless as reading the reviews on amazon. They are actually voting for their house and not their router.

The number of cpu cores have nothing to do with the number of wifi connections. The wifi function is totally contained in the radio chipsets. The speed of the cpu would more be a function of how much total traffic the router can handle. Even then the CPU is being bypassed for most traffic. The NAT function is being done by a hardware assist feature and even inexpensive routers can run gigabit. The cpu would more be used if you were running vpn or maybe firewall content filters.

The reason you see very little comparison of routers anymore is the 802.11ac devices have been on the market so long that the vendors have stolen all the tricks that used to make a difference. Besides there are only 2 or 3 companies that make the internal chips no matter whose name is on the plastic box.

The coverage is a function of output power and that is regulated by the government. Most routers put out very close to the legal maximum allowed power so the distance the signals go is about the same.

The much more common problem is that the end devices, especially portable devices have low power transmitters and small antenna. So many of the wifi issues are the end device and not the router.

There really is no magic solution to very dense wall materials. Your best option is to run ethernet or other technology like powerline networks that let you carry the signal though the walls and then put a second radio source on the far side by using a router as a AP.

In general the tplink router you mention will work as well as any other. If you have unusual requirements faster cpu might help but in general it makes no difference to the number of clients you can connect or the speed rate it can pass traffic
 
This is almost a worthless question. Getting votes from people say "works good for me" is as worthless as reading the reviews on amazon. They are actually voting for their house and not their router.

The number of cpu cores have nothing to do with the number of wifi connections. The wifi function is totally contained in the radio chipsets. The speed of the cpu would more be a function of how much total traffic the router can handle. Even then the CPU is being bypassed for most traffic. The NAT function is being done by a hardware assist feature and even inexpensive routers can run gigabit. The cpu would more be used if you were running vpn or maybe firewall content filters.

The reason you see very little comparison of routers anymore is the 802.11ac devices have been on the market so long that the vendors have stolen all the tricks that used to make a difference. Besides there are only 2 or 3 companies that make the internal chips no matter whose name is on the plastic box.

The coverage is a function of output power and that is regulated by the government. Most routers put out very close to the legal maximum allowed power so the distance the signals go is about the same.

The much more common problem is that the end devices, especially portable devices have low power transmitters and small antenna. So many of the wifi issues are the end device and not the router.

There really is no magic solution to very dense wall materials. Your best option is to run ethernet or other technology like powerline networks that let you carry the signal though the walls and then put a second radio source on the far side by using a router as a AP.

In general the tplink router you mention will work as well as any other. If you have unusual requirements faster cpu might help but in general it makes no difference to the number of clients you can connect or the speed rate it can pass traffic
 

DeauteratedDog

Honorable
Dec 11, 2013
643
71
11,240
93
The A9 looks like a pretty standard 801.11ac wave 2 router - 3 streams, mu-mimo, gigabit Ethernet ports, etc.
There just isn't much performance difference between similar routers - there are only a handful of chipsets being used across all the brands. The differences are more about features - VPN related features, QoS beyond 802.11e, neat parental or access control features and so forth.

10 users is basically nothing for any router as long as you only want it to do basic NAT functions.
 

blazerboy

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
145
6
18,695
1
Get an access point, and in time add another into problematic areas if you can get wiring to them. A good place to start for easy learning and usage are ubiquiti ac lr access points.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS