Why is the AX86U considered better than the AX88U?

[L&LD]

Yes, I believe you may be correct with all your points above. With regards to theoretical aspects of WiFi. I don't deal in theory, myself and my customers want more tangible, and real-world applicable, results.

I simply do not care about theoretical testing after I have bought (or decided to buy) a product. And testing WAN-WLAN in a home environment will introduce so many variables in a 1 minute period that it negates any results you may gather at any particular time if you're trying to predict if router 'A' is better than router 'B' in a specific home environment (or not), overall.

My actual testing is to use the network to get my work completed, as I would be doing normally. This usage hasn't changed in a very long time. When I change any component within the network, I can (usually) tell in a few minutes or hours if it is an improvement or not.

And, to double-check me and the results I'm seeing, I do a full M&M Config as needed to see if anything changes substantially (for better or worse after a full M&M Config).

Basically what I'm saying is it's time to stop reading and start doing.


When I tested the RT-AX86U (for a customer) in my home so long ago, this is what I learned, confirmed I knew or changed my mind on.

• AiMesh via wireless backhaul mode is still a very poor Repeater mode with just one or two additional benefits (i.e. GN1 propagates to the nodes). Still very much 'AiMess' as I used to call it back then.
  • At no point in my testing back then did a wirelessly connected node improve mobile devices' performance vs. just using the main router in its optimal (central) location.
  • Using a wirelessly connected node also increased the overall system stability. From zero instances per week to more than a handful the week following. And this is with the same 2x RT-AX86Us.
• AiMesh via wired backhaul mode is not created equal between router models. The latest example to me is the horrible synergy the 2x GT-AX6000s exhibited in my home.
  • Only with 2x RT-AX86Us is the performance of the network as a whole doubled in my environment (as I would expect 'in theory'). I do realize since then that firmware may have brought other routers to RT-AX86U levels of coherence too, but when the RT-AX86U is consistently better, proven reliable, and cheaper (at least when on sale), there is a reason it is still my top recommended router in single/main or main/node use today.
• The higher throughput to the same client at the same (exact) location is proof to me that the latency is lower on the RT-AX86U. And, it stays consistently lower, day after day.
• Testing the limits of hardware is hardly satisfying and even less useful if that isn't how it is used day-to-day.
• Worse, the result of that type of testing is a poor indicator of how useful that hardware is above what you're using today in your environment.

While I love to read reviews as much as anyone, the only thing that needs to be 'proven' to me is; 'Is this better than what I'm using now?' If it is better, great! Less cash in my wallet. If it isn't, just another returned item.

 

[SAL9K]

The OP asked why is the ax86u typically recommended over the ax88u, I.e. why is it better? I wanted to know this myself as I have the ax86u, hence my diving into the excellent SNB testing (we're on SNB forums, so why not read their data). The data makes a convincing argument that the ax86u performs better than the ax88u (better than all other tested ax routers), except in the latency testing, where it scores dead last (out of 11 total ax routers tested). Dead last! This made me very curious, why is the ax86u ranking dead last in routing and wifi multi-band latency? I still can't explain that (maybe it had a buffer bloat issue with early f/w rev's?).

Frankly, "theoretical testing" is an oxymoron. SNB is using *real* WiFi components emitting RF, and real Ethernet packets. You are not testing the router as SNB does, but providing anecdotes, which can be very useful and interesting, but the stories alone can't be used to answer the question of "which is better".

 

[Tech9]

but the stories alone can't be used to answer the question

You got served with "customer" stories?
My SNB Forum is filtered, about 20.000 posts lighter.

 

[L&LD]

No, it isn't an oxymoron. Everyone's results are anecdotes (for some), but testing in a testing chamber is nowhere close to real-world tests. I'll take the anecdotes every time and then follow up with testing in my environment too.

Not that I don't value the theoretical testing. It is what I base my initial purchase decisions on, after all.

I've already provided a way to determine which is better. Test in your own environment.

And trying to reconcile the fact of why year-old (or older) firmware is giving different results than what is available from today's firmware is simple. It's called progress.

Or, unknown/unintended interactions from the testing setup.

Or, interference, or incorrect input/recording and/or calculating of the results, etc.

Or, it could be non-WiFi interference that the testing chamber doesn't attenuate or know to attenuate enough to not skew results.