[SOLVED] Wifi 6 AX200 has 30mb/s cap ?

bowzef

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2010
539
0
19,010
14
Wifi 6 AX200 30mb/s cap

So its simple question, what's going on? when ever i connect to my Wi-Fi my downloads are slowed down to 30mb/s or so including NAS file transfers, but moment i connect to ethernet it jumps 80% in performance. I can download about 81mb/s on a gigabit connection and on the WiFI the distance makes no difference, neither does the device, i tried my desktop AX WIFI 6 that came with my mobo , a Gigabyte B550 Auros Pro AX or something like that. I also have a gaming laptop with inbuilt Wifi 6 that i bought last year, same issue, all 3 computers i have tried all cap the speed, no matter then distance to the router. it even caps my download rate to 30 or below.
I do know the wifi is slower then wired, but 80% performance reduction doesn't seem be right, would think it be 60mnb/s download speed at its worst.

Router is : ROG Rapture GT-AX11000
using intel WIFI 6 AX200

PS, all connections and speedtest say 1gbps connection. even from speedtest.net
 
Do you mean 30m BYTE or 30m BIT.

30mbyte would be about 240mbit. Although some people can get more it is fairly common for wifi6 to not perform any better than 802.11ac (ie wifi5). This is partially because it needs to use 160mhz radio channels. Your equipment at least supports that.
The problem is there are all kinds of rules related to using these bands. The big one is stuff like weather radar avoidance. If anything else is using these restricted radio bands the wifi6 equipment must stop using it. This is why a lot of equipment just does not support 160mhz bands and only run 80 just like 802.11ac.
The second issue to get very high speed wifi6 tries to use qam1024. This pretty much only work very close to the router, you might as well use a ethernet cable.

Also attempting to use such large radio bands also pretty much guarantee you will get interference from neighbors wifi signals.

Since it is multiple devices it is not likely any driver or software setting.

Unfortunately it seem the marketing guys told lots of lies again about wifi6. It seems to be very common to not see wifi6 be getting greatly improved speed over older technology.

We will see if wifi6e is more lies or it really fixes this issue. It should in theory be much better. There is a massive amount of new bandwidth on the 6ghz radio band. There is no more worry about the weather radar stuff and there is enough bandwidth that multiple neighbors can run 160mhz bands and not overlap each other.
 
Reactions: bowzef
Do you mean 30m BYTE or 30m BIT.

30mbyte would be about 240mbit. Although some people can get more it is fairly common for wifi6 to not perform any better than 802.11ac (ie wifi5). This is partially because it needs to use 160mhz radio channels. Your equipment at least supports that.
The problem is there are all kinds of rules related to using these bands. The big one is stuff like weather radar avoidance. If anything else is using these restricted radio bands the wifi6 equipment must stop using it. This is why a lot of equipment just does not support 160mhz bands and only run 80 just like 802.11ac.
The second issue to get very high speed wifi6 tries to use qam1024. This pretty much only work very close to the router, you might as well use a ethernet cable.

Also attempting to use such large radio bands also pretty much guarantee you will get interference from neighbors wifi signals.

Since it is multiple devices it is not likely any driver or software setting.

Unfortunately it seem the marketing guys told lots of lies again about wifi6. It seems to be very common to not see wifi6 be getting greatly improved speed over older technology.

We will see if wifi6e is more lies or it really fixes this issue. It should in theory be much better. There is a massive amount of new bandwidth on the 6ghz radio band. There is no more worry about the weather radar stuff and there is enough bandwidth that multiple neighbors can run 160mhz bands and not overlap each other.
 
Reactions: bowzef

bowzef

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2010
539
0
19,010
14
Do you mean 30m BYTE or 30m BIT.

30mbyte would be about 240mbit. Although some people can get more it is fairly common for wifi6 to not perform any better than 802.11ac (ie wifi5). This is partially because it needs to use 160mhz radio channels. Your equipment at least supports that.
The problem is there are all kinds of rules related to using these bands. The big one is stuff like weather radar avoidance. If anything else is using these restricted radio bands the wifi6 equipment must stop using it. This is why a lot of equipment just does not support 160mhz bands and only run 80 just like 802.11ac.
The second issue to get very high speed wifi6 tries to use qam1024. This pretty much only work very close to the router, you might as well use a ethernet cable.

Also attempting to use such large radio bands also pretty much guarantee you will get interference from neighbors wifi signals.

Since it is multiple devices it is not likely any driver or software setting.

Unfortunately it seem the marketing guys told lots of lies again about wifi6. It seems to be very common to not see wifi6 be getting greatly improved speed over older technology.

We will see if wifi6e is more lies or it really fixes this issue. It should in theory be much better. There is a massive amount of new bandwidth on the 6ghz radio band. There is no more worry about the weather radar stuff and there is enough bandwidth that multiple neighbors can run 160mhz bands and not overlap each other.
Yeah 30mbytes a second, so i guess the whole 2.4gps crap they sprout is legit nonsense ? and yeah i set my 5ghz band to accept 160mhz, it went from 30 to 32mbytes a second lmao. i was like hell even 60mbytes a second would be enough not to have a fit about, but no its legit same speed as AC.

So if there is nothing that can be done about it, question is 2.5gbe unmanage switch and route cables in my roof? cat6, my router only has one 2.5gbe port

So WAN in for internet, 2,5gbe Router into Switch, and Switch into my NAS and PC would be correct? il buy 2.5gbe network adapter for my NAS since its a PC. let me know if i am wrong.
 
You really need to think about what you are going to do with a fast network after you spend the time and money to get one.

How much data every day do you actually transfer between the pc and the NAS. Even if your speed were to double does the time saving justify the costs. Be careful to not get caught in the trap of wanting big numbers just to get big numbers, you need to actually be able to use it for some purpose.

The other issue is you need to look at your disk systems both on the pc and the nas. Many times if you are using magnetic disks the disk will be the bottleneck. The very common drives uses in pc or cheap nas units can not even exceed 1gbit data rates on a sustained basis. Most times you need to have raid networks or SSD to get higher speeds.

You do not need 2.5g port on your router. You really just need them on the switch. Traffic will go between the pc and nas just through the switch and not go to the router. If you are in one of the areas that try to sell internet above 1gbit be very careful. Even though you might get speedtest numbers to the ISP speedtest server you will in general not be able to really use the faster speeds. The issue is many of the servers on the internet will not even give you 1gbit speeds. This is either because of technical limitation or in some cases because they place artificial limits to prevent people with high speed internet from in effect blocking people with lower speed.
It tends to be a way for a ISP to charge you money for bragging rights on your internet speed than something actually useful.
 

bowzef

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2010
539
0
19,010
14
You really need to think about what you are going to do with a fast network after you spend the time and money to get one.

How much data every day do you actually transfer between the pc and the NAS. Even if your speed were to double does the time saving justify the costs. Be careful to not get caught in the trap of wanting big numbers just to get big numbers, you need to actually be able to use it for some purpose.

The other issue is you need to look at your disk systems both on the pc and the nas. Many times if you are using magnetic disks the disk will be the bottleneck. The very common drives uses in pc or cheap nas units can not even exceed 1gbit data rates on a sustained basis. Most times you need to have raid networks or SSD to get higher speeds.

You do not need 2.5g port on your router. You really just need them on the switch. Traffic will go between the pc and nas just through the switch and not go to the router. If you are in one of the areas that try to sell internet above 1gbit be very careful. Even though you might get speedtest numbers to the ISP speedtest server you will in general not be able to really use the faster speeds. The issue is many of the servers on the internet will not even give you 1gbit speeds. This is either because of technical limitation or in some cases because they place artificial limits to prevent people with high speed internet from in effect blocking people with lower speed.
It tends to be a way for a ISP to charge you money for bragging rights on your internet speed than something actually useful.
I'm using my NAS for media and game storage about 40TB of storage, not a fan of redownloading games, i like to be able move games back on my gaming PC fast, faster then my internet, whole point is faster then download rate of steam, it be 3.5 WD RED PRO nas drives about 265MB/s transfer speeds at the moment I'm running SSDs for speed testing limits so far is 110MB/s on 1Gbps so about 15MB/s overhead, so about 30% faster then my internet speed when downloading from steam, if i can get 140MB/s that would be 60% to copy my game back to my PC faster then my internet. Whole point is archive all 4k HDR content, Anime and Video games and be able get my games fast, because i am a data hoarder, my PC can't fit more space, and since its in a home theater room next to SVS PB4000 Subwoofer, i rather not put 3.5 mechanical HDD in same room. So in my case, i feel like i should go 2.5gbe setup, since 1 PC already had 2.5gpe port, all i need is 5 port GPE switch and PCIE 2.5gbe for the NAS and it all work.

Maybe i don't need it, but only way i can justifier having a nas is to beat my internet connection.
 
As long as you understand the limitations the disk systems put on your expected rates then you can make a informed decision on if upgrading the network is worth it.

The concept of data storage networks is very complex and you have people who make their carriers designing these, especially now that everything lives in these cloud data centers.

One thing you will find is game in particular can copy very slowly even on the best systems. They tend to like to have subdirectories with many thousands of tiny files where the storing the names of the files takes as much room as the contents of the file. You really only get good copy speeds when you copy large single files the overhead in small files is huge.

In any case the price of nics and switches that can exceed 1gbit has come down so much it is not as hard a call as a few years back you would pay $500 for a 5 port switch that could run 2.5/5g ports.
 

gggplaya

Distinguished
Hardwired is best, so if you can run CAT6 through the attic, I'd say go for it to get 2.5gbe.

Another alternative is to use another Asus router in "Media Bridge Mode" and connect to it via the lan switch on the back. Get one with at least a 4x4 radio built in(not to be confused with 4 physical antenna). All 4x4 wifi lanes will communicate with the main router, giving much better bandwidth than what you're using now. The router will have much better radio circuitry than a pcie-card. This will give you the most available bandwidth via WIFI 6.

A CAT6 is still much better though.

For just your games, an external hard drive via USB is all you need. There's no reason to store that on a NAS because if the drive dies, who cares. You can just download your game again via the slower internet method. You're not actually losing anything. Unless you're trying to share the game files with other computers for quicker deployment. I really don't see the point of going through this hassle for a single computer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS