hi guys i was thinking of buying an ac2600 for mu-mimo or ac1900 router.. for now i have a slow internet connection nut was buying the router for only 1 good reason as the range is for very large homes. mine has much walls for a n300 to provide less range. i am mostly trying to avoid the range extenders and the accesspoint for now.
high speed router for a slow internet connection
- Thread starter Tomoki
- Start date
Solution
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
Unless you have the very top tier internet connection, most routers are going to be faster than your internet connection. Of course this is a good thing. As for MU-MIMO, the devices connected have to be MU-MIMO compliant for there to be any benefit.
As for range, sometimes more antennas can help extend range via signal bounce (part of MIMO), but large obstructions are going to diminish signal strength significantly. So walls, floors / ceilings, etc are going to have a big impact on signal strength regardless of the router. Another thing to consider when talking about signal obstruction is frequency. Lower frequencies penetrate obstructions better than higher frequencies. So you'll get a stronger signal from you 2.4GHz band than you will with the 5GHz band. So switching to the 2.4GHz band will help for those clients that are furthest away. Of course this will limit them to 802.11n because 802.11ac is only on the 5Ghz band.
As for range, sometimes more antennas can help extend range via signal bounce (part of MIMO), but large obstructions are going to diminish signal strength significantly. So walls, floors / ceilings, etc are going to have a big impact on signal strength regardless of the router. Another thing to consider when talking about signal obstruction is frequency. Lower frequencies penetrate obstructions better than higher frequencies. So you'll get a stronger signal from you 2.4GHz band than you will with the 5GHz band. So switching to the 2.4GHz band will help for those clients that are furthest away. Of course this will limit them to 802.11n because 802.11ac is only on the 5Ghz band.
so it wont matter much about the internet speed as i will go for high speed internet in near future. i know about the 2.4 and 5 ghz thing. mimo is just for some futureproofing. my n300 provides somewhat the range for my house but dies on some sides can you if possible tell me how much of range i will be getting over the n300's range.. if i switch to an ac1900 or ac2600.
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
Range is dependent on the actual router. Do you have specific routers in mind? It really depends on the antenna configuration. More antennas usually equals better range, but not always. Depending on which N300 router you have and what AC1900 / AC2600 router you go to, you might not see a significant improvement in range.
One thing to consider is if you are getting a new router, you could get a Home Plug pair (AV2 500 or greater) and use your N300 router as an extender in the parts of the house that have a weak signal. I've done this in my house and it works very well. I do suggest a good Home Plug pair though, otherwise it will bottleneck over the house wiring.
One thing to consider is if you are getting a new router, you could get a Home Plug pair (AV2 500 or greater) and use your N300 router as an extender in the parts of the house that have a weak signal. I've done this in my house and it works very well. I do suggest a good Home Plug pair though, otherwise it will bottleneck over the house wiring.
Are you devices all wireless AC? I had a few dead spots in my house that were totally eliminated by moving to Wireless AC. Even though the 5Ghz band is impacted more by walls, etc, I found that whatever they've done with AC more than made up the difference. Through a few walls in my house, I got significantly better range on 5Ghz AC compared with 2.4Ghz N, using similar grade TP-Link Wireless Routers.
I honestly wouldn't think the 1900 vs 2600 routers are going to make a difference. All they do is introduce extra channels to open up greater (potential) throughput. Receiving clients rarely have more than 2:2, and you don't care about throughput anyway - just range. Those extra antennas & channels aren't going to help.
Beamforming (through MU-MIMO) would definitely give you slightly better range, but both AP & client support is needed.
I honestly wouldn't think the 1900 vs 2600 routers are going to make a difference. All they do is introduce extra channels to open up greater (potential) throughput. Receiving clients rarely have more than 2:2, and you don't care about throughput anyway - just range. Those extra antennas & channels aren't going to help.
Beamforming (through MU-MIMO) would definitely give you slightly better range, but both AP & client support is needed.
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
The extra antennas can help with range. Beamforming was present in some 802.11n routers, so depending on which router he has and what router he gets, there may not be an improvement over what he has. That said, beamforming was better defined with 802.11ac than it was with 802.11n. However beamforming isn't a requirement of 802.11ac, so the OP needs to pick a router that supports beamforming as it's not a guaranteed feature.
Mine is the tplink wr841n 300mbps. I have in mind the lynksys wrt1900ac, netgear nighthawk ac1900 n Asus ac1900 router, nighthawk x4s ac2600 n Linksys ea8500 ac2600 routers for now. Studied them on smallnetbuilder. N will do what u did.. That tplink will not go to waste. So will the range be about 2to3 times thinking I have placed it in same space juz for comparison. Also have 2to3 ac smartphones n will go for a lg 55inch TV hope its 5ghz band
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
Well the AC 1900 routers are older and have been around for awhile. They don't support MU-MIMO either. The WRT1900AC has excellent range from what I've read, so there is that. ASUS (love their motherboards) has recently gotten in trouble with the FCC over poor security. So they may have the best security now as the FCC is looking over their shoulder now. Performance wise it's close to the WRT1900AC.
As for the X4S AC 2600 (NightHawk), this includes a modem as well. So unless you plan on ditching your modem (assuming your not on fiber), I'd save your money as you don't need the modem.
The EA8500 looks compelling. It supports MU-MIMO and from what I've read has decent range. Though the WRT1900AC might have as good range and performance overall.
I think that any of these routers will outperform your present router in range and performance. I doubt that you'll see anything close to 2X the range, especially if not line of sight (LOS) to the client.
So if it were me, I'd go with the WRT1900AC or the EA8500. I'm a really big fan of third party firmware and the WRT1900AC supports OpenWRT or DD-WRT. The EA8500 has good performance, range and supports MU-MIMO.
As for the X4S AC 2600 (NightHawk), this includes a modem as well. So unless you plan on ditching your modem (assuming your not on fiber), I'd save your money as you don't need the modem.
The EA8500 looks compelling. It supports MU-MIMO and from what I've read has decent range. Though the WRT1900AC might have as good range and performance overall.
I think that any of these routers will outperform your present router in range and performance. I doubt that you'll see anything close to 2X the range, especially if not line of sight (LOS) to the client.
So if it were me, I'd go with the WRT1900AC or the EA8500. I'm a really big fan of third party firmware and the WRT1900AC supports OpenWRT or DD-WRT. The EA8500 has good performance, range and supports MU-MIMO.
i will go with the lynksys depending on the availability and price... i didnt understood your review about the nighthawk x4s... does it support both fibre cabel and adsl... or just adsl... plus in comparison to the ea8500 as in smallnetbuilder's site the x4s performs better.
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
I guess I should have asked which model you are looking at. The R7800 doesn't have a modem, the D7800 does. I think the D7800 is sold in Europe and the R7800 is sold in North America, though I could be wrong.
If you are looking at the D7800, it comes with an ADSL modem included. You likely have a ISP provided modem already. This would make the included modem in the X4S redundant and a feature you pay for that you don't need. When I mentioned fiber, on fiber you would need an ONT (fiber modem), so you wouldn't use the ADSL modem anyway.
If you are looking at the D7800, it comes with an ADSL modem included. You likely have a ISP provided modem already. This would make the included modem in the X4S redundant and a feature you pay for that you don't need. When I mentioned fiber, on fiber you would need an ONT (fiber modem), so you wouldn't use the ADSL modem anyway.
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
The 160MHz mode might be useful in the future. I don't know of any client adapter that support 160MHz yet. As I understand it, there are only two 160MHz channels available for use. This isn't likely to be a problem now as no one is using it yet. However if it becomes more popular and your neighbors are using it, then you could run into situations of interference. I'd assume that the firmware would drop down to a small bandwidth if it detected interference.
OK.. So its like futurproofing in a way.. In your opinion if possible chk the smallnetbuilder for the comparison between the two ac2600 which is better. Coz I wud go for mu-mimo as m getting a new router over a ac1900. My house is full concrete n with many walls so my first priority is range. Coz it matters most n don't want to end up in deadspots...
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
OK take this for what it's worth. As per SmallNetBuilder reviews, they've changed their format a little between the time that the WRT1900AC and R7800 were reviewed. However overall, the throughput numbers show that the Netgear R7800 is faster. Unfortunately that doesn't tell the whole story. Since they seem to use averaged throughput for all locations (physical) tested, it's obvious that the faster router is going to have faster average results, but this doesn't highlight what happens as range increases.
If you look at the test chamber results, things are a bit mixed as far as throughput. First by attenuation then by frequency. I'll try to explain and hopefully I can do it in a way that's not confusing.
First off at lower attenuation, on both bands, the R7800 is faster. On the 2.4GHz band, the R7800 performs better at all attenuation values. Since this is the band that will penetrate physical barriers the best, this is the one that will give you the best overall range.
However at 5GHz things are different. Again since the R7800 is a faster router, up to -15dB the R7800 is faster. However from -18dB onward, the WRT1900AC is faster and can maintain a connection up to -45dB where the R7800 can only maintain a connection up to -39dB. These results are for download.
Now the 5GHz upload is similar. The R7800 is faster up to -15dB. From -18dB onwards, the WRT1900AC is faster and it can maintain a link up to -45dB where again the R7800 only maintains a link to -39dB.
Now attenuation doesn't always translate into greater range. Since the method of attenuation is artificial (not real world), you need to take it with a grain of salt. However I believe you can loosely equate attenuation in these tests to simulated distance / obstructions.
So to sum it up, the R7800 looks like it will overall provide better coverage on the 2.4GHz band. It also provided the best throughput on the 2.4GHz band at all "ranges". The 5GHz band is a mixed bag though. At "close" range the R7800 is going to outperform the WRT1900AC (by quite a bit at very close range), but once you start to get "further" away from the router, the WRT1900AC will have better throughput and maintain a link beyond where the R7800 can. Since coverage is your primary interest, the R7800 will provide the best coverage overall due to it's 2.4GHz band, but this will be at 802.11n as 802.11ac is only on the 5GHz band. If you want a mix of coverage and throughput, then you need to look to the 5GHz band. In this situation the WRT1900AC is going to likely have better coverage and will have better throughput past a certain "range".
If you look at the test chamber results, things are a bit mixed as far as throughput. First by attenuation then by frequency. I'll try to explain and hopefully I can do it in a way that's not confusing.
First off at lower attenuation, on both bands, the R7800 is faster. On the 2.4GHz band, the R7800 performs better at all attenuation values. Since this is the band that will penetrate physical barriers the best, this is the one that will give you the best overall range.
However at 5GHz things are different. Again since the R7800 is a faster router, up to -15dB the R7800 is faster. However from -18dB onward, the WRT1900AC is faster and can maintain a connection up to -45dB where the R7800 can only maintain a connection up to -39dB. These results are for download.
Now the 5GHz upload is similar. The R7800 is faster up to -15dB. From -18dB onwards, the WRT1900AC is faster and it can maintain a link up to -45dB where again the R7800 only maintains a link to -39dB.
Now attenuation doesn't always translate into greater range. Since the method of attenuation is artificial (not real world), you need to take it with a grain of salt. However I believe you can loosely equate attenuation in these tests to simulated distance / obstructions.
So to sum it up, the R7800 looks like it will overall provide better coverage on the 2.4GHz band. It also provided the best throughput on the 2.4GHz band at all "ranges". The 5GHz band is a mixed bag though. At "close" range the R7800 is going to outperform the WRT1900AC (by quite a bit at very close range), but once you start to get "further" away from the router, the WRT1900AC will have better throughput and maintain a link beyond where the R7800 can. Since coverage is your primary interest, the R7800 will provide the best coverage overall due to it's 2.4GHz band, but this will be at 802.11n as 802.11ac is only on the 5GHz band. If you want a mix of coverage and throughput, then you need to look to the 5GHz band. In this situation the WRT1900AC is going to likely have better coverage and will have better throughput past a certain "range".
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
Overall the range is best on the Nighthawk R7800 because of the 2.4GHz band since the 2.4GHz band will penetrate obstructions better than the 5GHz band. However the 5GHz band is better on the WRT1900AC. The R7800 will outperform the WRT1900AC at close range on the 5GHz band, but once the attenuation gets past a certain point the WRT1900AC will perform better and maintain a link with a client at further range.
So if range is your primary consideration, then the Nighthawk will be the best. However if you want a connection on the 5GHZ band at "long" range then the WRT1900AC is going to be the better choice. So it comes down to what your priority is.
So if range is your primary consideration, then the Nighthawk will be the best. However if you want a connection on the 5GHZ band at "long" range then the WRT1900AC is going to be the better choice. So it comes down to what your priority is.
techgeek
Splendid
- Apr 11, 2004
- 5,296
- 9
- 29,965
Good luck.
Keep in mind my suggestion of using a pair of Home Plug adapters to expand your wireless coverage using your old router.
First go into the admin page of your old router and set an IP address that is in the same IP range of your new router but not the same as the IP of the new router (obviously). So for instance if your new router's admin page is 192.168.1.1, set the old router to 192.168.1.2. Make sure not to use an IP address in the range that your new router is going to assign to your other devices. So if your new router is set up to give out IP addresses from 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.149, make sure not to set the old routers IP in this range. Once you've done this, you should be able to get to both admin pages after you are done setting everything up. After doing this set up your SSID or SSIDs (if its a dual band router) and passwords. Use different SSID(s) than you are using on your main router. Next shut off the DHCP server on the old router. You want your main router responsible for assigning IP addresses and this way you can avoid a double NAT situation on you local network.
The next bit details how to physically connect them. Connect a LAN port from your main router (the new one you're buying) to one Homeplug device this is near your main router. Then plug a LAN port (not the WAN port / Internet Port) on the secondary router into the second Homeplug device where you want it set up. The location of the second router should obviously be where your primary routers signals are the weakest.
If everything is set up correctly you should be able to see all the available SSID's on your network from a central location in your home. All the devices connected to your network (regardless of which SSID) will have it's IP address assigned to it by the main router. All the devices should be visible in the main router (assuming there is a page in the routers web admin page) and they should all be visible via Networks in Windows.
Keep in mind that depending on your homes wiring and the Home Plug adapters you purchased, the bandwidth on the second router will be bottlenecked by the Home Plug connection. For instance my home wiring and the PLEK500 kit that I have gets 81 / 64 Mbps. This is faster than my internet connection, but much slower than say a 1 Gbps wired connection. So it doesn't limit any devices connected to it when using the internet, but local data throughput may not be as fast as a highspeed wireless connection and definitely slower than an Ethernet connection. I'm sure if I played around with the location of the Home Plug adapters or purchased faster ones, I could probably improve this. However since the primary use is internet use and not local traffic, it would be more of an academic pursuit rather than a practical one.
Keep in mind my suggestion of using a pair of Home Plug adapters to expand your wireless coverage using your old router.
First go into the admin page of your old router and set an IP address that is in the same IP range of your new router but not the same as the IP of the new router (obviously). So for instance if your new router's admin page is 192.168.1.1, set the old router to 192.168.1.2. Make sure not to use an IP address in the range that your new router is going to assign to your other devices. So if your new router is set up to give out IP addresses from 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.149, make sure not to set the old routers IP in this range. Once you've done this, you should be able to get to both admin pages after you are done setting everything up. After doing this set up your SSID or SSIDs (if its a dual band router) and passwords. Use different SSID(s) than you are using on your main router. Next shut off the DHCP server on the old router. You want your main router responsible for assigning IP addresses and this way you can avoid a double NAT situation on you local network.
The next bit details how to physically connect them. Connect a LAN port from your main router (the new one you're buying) to one Homeplug device this is near your main router. Then plug a LAN port (not the WAN port / Internet Port) on the secondary router into the second Homeplug device where you want it set up. The location of the second router should obviously be where your primary routers signals are the weakest.
If everything is set up correctly you should be able to see all the available SSID's on your network from a central location in your home. All the devices connected to your network (regardless of which SSID) will have it's IP address assigned to it by the main router. All the devices should be visible in the main router (assuming there is a page in the routers web admin page) and they should all be visible via Networks in Windows.
Keep in mind that depending on your homes wiring and the Home Plug adapters you purchased, the bandwidth on the second router will be bottlenecked by the Home Plug connection. For instance my home wiring and the PLEK500 kit that I have gets 81 / 64 Mbps. This is faster than my internet connection, but much slower than say a 1 Gbps wired connection. So it doesn't limit any devices connected to it when using the internet, but local data throughput may not be as fast as a highspeed wireless connection and definitely slower than an Ethernet connection. I'm sure if I played around with the location of the Home Plug adapters or purchased faster ones, I could probably improve this. However since the primary use is internet use and not local traffic, it would be more of an academic pursuit rather than a practical one.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
Question M.2 SSD is not being correctly recognised after reinstalling Windows 11 ?
- Started by Gaz936
- Replies: 3
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram