Question Should I upgrade from Wifi 4 to Wif 5/6?

So last year i bought a new router with no research since my old router died all of a sudden and bought the one which had more antennas and fits in my budget. Only to know later that it's a Wifi 4 router. I have 30mbps connection and at max 6 devices are connected (none of them are wired). My router is placed in the living room and i have noticed that my speed does drop in my bedroom. Id like to know if I should upgrade to a wifi 6 router, what advantaged it will have and is it sensible for me to get one.
 
The difference between the wifi versions is how they encode the data...ie how much data they attempt to pack into the transmission. The distance the signal goes is a function of transmit power. The maximum power level is restricted by the government and is the same no matter what type of data encoding you use.

The part that makes this really messy is when you start to include the concept of speed into the mix. There is not standard set to test this. You can easily measure how many DB the signal has but how do you measure at what distance it can say run 100mbps. There are so many variable involved it is impossible to make a statement unless you put 20 pages of technical explanations on how you test. This is why all router manufacture try to claim they have better coverage than everyone else because they manipulate the testing condition to favor what they say.

The next problem is a router is only half the connection. The end device is just as important. It can be that the router signal can get to the remote location but the end device can not transmit it back. This is also why any router comparisons are not really valid because there can be very different results with different end devices.

What this means is there is no way to predict if replacing the router will make any difference.

You have to be careful about wifi6. It does you no good if you do not have wifi6 end devices. It also is not "future proof" since it is already been made obsolete by wifi6e. So if you are thinking about buying something for the future maybe consider wifi6e. Buying anything for more than say a year a head is a big risk technology changes way to fast.

I would first try to use the 2.4 radio band. It has better ability to go through walls.

Now maybe you get lucky and a new router might help but it is gamble there is no way to predict this. I would buy a inexpensive wifi5 device. The theory is say you are currently using a 150mbps data encoding rate and getting only 10% maybe using a router that can use a 433 date encoding rate and getting 10% might be faster. What makes this impossible to predict is more complex data encoding methods are more affected by weak data signals than simpler encoding methods. This is part of the horrible mess when you try to combine the concept of transfer rates in discussions of coverage.
 
Reactions: General Kenobi
The difference between the wifi versions is how they encode the data...ie how much data they attempt to pack into the transmission. The distance the signal goes is a function of transmit power. The maximum power level is restricted by the government and is the same no matter what type of data encoding you use.

The part that makes this really messy is when you start to include the concept of speed into the mix. There is not standard set to test this. You can easily measure how many DB the signal has but how do you measure at what distance it can say run 100mbps. There are so many variable involved it is impossible to make a statement unless you put 20 pages of technical explanations on how you test. This is why all router manufacture try to claim they have better coverage than everyone else because they manipulate the testing condition to favor what they say.

The next problem is a router is only half the connection. The end device is just as important. It can be that the router signal can get to the remote location but the end device can not transmit it back. This is also why any router comparisons are not really valid because there can be very different results with different end devices.

What this means is there is no way to predict if replacing the router will make any difference.

You have to be careful about wifi6. It does you no good if you do not have wifi6 end devices. It also is not "future proof" since it is already been made obsolete by wifi6e. So if you are thinking about buying something for the future maybe consider wifi6e. Buying anything for more than say a year a head is a big risk technology changes way to fast.

I would first try to use the 2.4 radio band. It has better ability to go through walls.

Now maybe you get lucky and a new router might help but it is gamble there is no way to predict this. I would buy a inexpensive wifi5 device. The theory is say you are currently using a 150mbps data encoding rate and getting only 10% maybe using a router that can use a 433 date encoding rate and getting 10% might be faster. What makes this impossible to predict is more complex data encoding methods are more affected by weak data signals than simpler encoding methods. This is part of the horrible mess when you try to combine the concept of transfer rates in discussions of coverage.
Thanks for the details, I might stick to my current router and set it to a better location.
 
The difference between the wifi versions is how they encode the data...ie how much data they attempt to pack into the transmission. The distance the signal goes is a function of transmit power. The maximum power level is restricted by the government and is the same no matter what type of data encoding you use.

The part that makes this really messy is when you start to include the concept of speed into the mix. There is not standard set to test this. You can easily measure how many DB the signal has but how do you measure at what distance it can say run 100mbps. There are so many variable involved it is impossible to make a statement unless you put 20 pages of technical explanations on how you test. This is why all router manufacture try to claim they have better coverage than everyone else because they manipulate the testing condition to favor what they say.

The next problem is a router is only half the connection. The end device is just as important. It can be that the router signal can get to the remote location but the end device can not transmit it back. This is also why any router comparisons are not really valid because there can be very different results with different end devices.

What this means is there is no way to predict if replacing the router will make any difference.

You have to be careful about wifi6. It does you no good if you do not have wifi6 end devices. It also is not "future proof" since it is already been made obsolete by wifi6e. So if you are thinking about buying something for the future maybe consider wifi6e. Buying anything for more than say a year a head is a big risk technology changes way to fast.

I would first try to use the 2.4 radio band. It has better ability to go through walls.

Now maybe you get lucky and a new router might help but it is gamble there is no way to predict this. I would buy a inexpensive wifi5 device. The theory is say you are currently using a 150mbps data encoding rate and getting only 10% maybe using a router that can use a 433 date encoding rate and getting 10% might be faster. What makes this impossible to predict is more complex data encoding methods are more affected by weak data signals than simpler encoding methods. This is part of the horrible mess when you try to combine the concept of transfer rates in discussions of coverage.
As I stated in my previous reply I'm considering to place my router on a better location but I come across many rj45 Ethernet cable; cat 5,6,7&8 which one should I get?
 
First priority is to not get fake ones. It seems you find more fake ones than real.

Ethernet cables must be pure copper (no CCA) and have wire size 22-24 (no flat or thin cables). The cost of copper metal has gotten outrageous and most fake cables are doing things to reduce the amount of metal but it also makes the cable not function properly.

In general you want to buy cat5E cable. It is rated to 1gbit at 100 meters. If you had 10gbit ports on your equipment you want to run cat6a. You might consider cat6 over cat5e if it is cheaper but it does not run any faster or better.
 
Reactions: General Kenobi

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS