Cisco Linksys E4200V2 Maximum Performance Dual-Band N N900 Router

Discussion in 'Wireless Article Discussions' started by RogerSC, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. RogerSC

    RogerSC Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,578
    There is now a "hardware version 2.0" listed at the Linksys E4200 support download site.

    Anyone know what the differences between the older E4200 (hardware version 1.0) and the new E4200 (hardware version 2.0) are? I looked around a little and haven't found specifics yet.
     
  2. Log in / Register to remove this ad

  3. taedan

    taedan Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    53
    According to a thread in the Cisco forum, Version 2 has 3 streams for 2.4, giving a total capacity of 450 Mbps. Thus, it's an N900.
     
  4. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,711
    Actually, it looks like Cisco has created a new SKU. So looks like it's a new product that I'll need to review.
     
  5. RogerSC

    RogerSC Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,578
    Interesting, now I see the E4200V2 selling for $199 from Cisco, as opposed to the original $179 for the version 1.0. The original E4200 is discounted at the Cisco store, which is predictable.

    It'll be good to see a review, and see how it stacks up against the WNDR4500.
     
  6. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,711
    Since the OP said it is Marvell-based (WNDR4500 uses Broadcom), wireless performance could be similar to the Gen 5 Airport Extreme. We'll see.
     
  7. Cypherdude

    Cypherdude New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Linksys Dual-Band N900 Router (E4200 v2) Review

    Amazon has the Linksys N900 Router (E4200 v2) for $200 now. I too would like to see a review on this one. I especially would like to know its ability to continue working/transmitting over the long term without burning out or losing range. I have read many reviews for numerous wireless routers and many users are complaining their routers burn out after 3 to 6 months.

    A few months ago I bought a Netgear N600 WNDR3700v2 but I never had the chance to install it. I'm in the process of installing it now. However, after reading many reviews, I have serious doubts about its quality over the long term.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2011
  8. Widmark

    Widmark New Around Here

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9
    Linksys e4200v2

    I just got v2 last night. I am not techy enough to run speed comparisons, but it does run about as hot as my v1 which surprised me. Not feeling a difference there.

    The updated firmware which is not downloadable from the website is also not available through the web interface as some have suggested. Disconcerting that after folks have spoken to Cisco engineers and remarked on forums that the firmware ins't working, that days or even a week later, no fix. Especially when one of the bigger gripes on Cisco is they don't update their firmware enough and keep a lid on bugs. There are known bugs in the current firmware for v2.
     
  9. eahm

    eahm Occasional Visitor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Marvell chipset, no Tomato. I won't even bother testing it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  10. ZeDestructor

    ZeDestructor New Around Here

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    It will be fine. There's only a few batches of the WNDR3700v1 during the 2nd quarter of its lifetime that have issues with burning out. It was ironed out well before the v2 refresh. I myself own an early production WNDR3700v1 and it hasn't burnt out, despite me dumping DD-WRT and OpenWRT on it (which are known to make bad units burn out earlier).

    In addition, I also own a WNDR4500 beta unit since over 6 months and its still working as good as ever. You can even pull the heatsinks off the chips and it will still work just fine, as one of my friends found out from a badly assembled unit D:.

    Besides, the DD-WRT port is being worked on, so there's that, which will most likely not come to the E4200v2 since the E4200v2 has a Marvell chipset/SoC instead of Broadcom/Atheros.
     
  11. StarTraveller

    StarTraveller New Around Here

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    I'll be looking forward to that review. Do you have any guess when it might be posted? :)

    At the moment I have an ASUS RT-N56U Black Diamond that's giving me really nice (19-20 MB/s at close distance) triple-stream performance in the 5GHz band, but only single-stream (7-10 MB/s) performance in the 2.4GHz band. It's also performing well wrt. wired LAN (maxing out above 100 MB/s on local transfers), but I would prefer a Cisco Linksys solution to the ASUS one if the new revision gives the E4200v2 an edge in terms of performance (IMO, it looks better too, hehe).
     
  12. Shikami

    Shikami Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  13. RogerSC

    RogerSC Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,578
    I'm seeing Marvell 88W8366/88W8063 chipset here and there.
     
  14. Shikami

    Shikami Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  15. adisor19

    adisor19 New Around Here

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Count me in as one interested for a review.. I'm still waiting for something solid to spend my hard earned $$ on.. The WNDR4500 doesn't cut it for me.

    Adi
     
  16. ZeDestructor

    ZeDestructor New Around Here

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2011
    Messages:
    3
  17. Shikami

    Shikami Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    If you had a any form of formal education for networking or any background in the field you would realize how much it is not lightweight. IP processing can be quite taxing on a processor of no offloading is included and that is not including the checksum (FPU or offloaded) and the interrupt. One little packet causes an interrupt, and that itself can create a load to a system if not modern enough to manage, and and coalesce what is used for one clock. Almost forgot, I have not include NAT, SPI, ACL's, and whatever else you may want to include into the processing cycle. Note, that you are observing your relative "light weight routing" though a modern router. Which means also that your observance does not included offloading, in any, to the processing percentage datum at time interval to the 10% processor usage at same interval.

    I find it interesting that there is a push, because some homes can tax routers. This is such as my friends. His father, mother, father-in-law, wife, 2 childern, and himself with sometimes guest have their iPhones, 4 STB's, 2 streaming Jadoo's (like an Asian Roku), multiple laptops going; and it can be felt. Besides if there was not a need, then there would not be an increase in capable silicon for the typical end user.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  18. rhombus

    rhombus Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    You're right - you can hammer even a basic home-grade router with tens of clients doing network-intensive tasks and not max out the processor.*

    The E4200 however is also designed for additional Server and Storage functions, where processor speed might easily give a conceivable and practical advantage in real applications.

    (*Although a router, especially a wireless router, can struggle in such setups - it's rarely the processor speed to blame, and more often than not is RAM dependent. If someone has real-world endpoint testing correlating network performance to clock speed, then I would be interested to see it)
     
  19. njweb

    njweb Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    295

    Seems like they may have have rushed it to market then.
    I, personally, am not going to bother since I already have a decision to make between my E4200 v1 paired with RE1000 range extender and my Amped Wireless R10000 long range router.

    Otherwise I might have tried. Although it seems the V2's long range 2.4 GHz wireless performance was worse than the V1 on CNet (not sure whether the tests are controlled though).
     
  20. rhombus

    rhombus Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    CNET How we test: Access points and wireless routers

    • The biggest variable of all, router positioning, is not addressed or optimised - but then this goes for a lot of review sites. Half an inch can make all the difference, let alone which perpendicular alignment was chosen. Especially with a single distant test location this really could skew results.
    • The office environment can't be controlled (doors open/closed, obstructions, changing furniture, movement).
    • And numbers in a lot of their written reviews don't match the entries on the charts.

    All information is useful information though! When are we gonna see your Amped vs E4200 results? :)
     
  21. njweb

    njweb Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    295

    PS CNet's review points out that long range performance of the V2, on both bands (2.4 and 5 Ghz) with 300 Mbps clients, is worse than the V1, although they seem to completely ignore this when rating it editor's choice (NAS performance is just about the best out there and a big improvement).

    In fact, on 2.4 Ghz, even with a 450 Mbps client connecting to the V2, the long range wireless throughput of the V2 is less than the V1 throughput using a 300 Mbps client.
    Additionally with a 300 Mbps client, the V2 is worse in short range throughput too!

    The 450 Mbps number on 5 Ghz are impressive for the V2, but they did not test the V1 with a 450 Mbps client.

    I think I will stick with my E4200 V1 for now (or my Amped R1000 if I decide to keep that instead of my E4200 and RE1000 extender combo).


    Perhaps a firmware upgrade for the V2 could help

    (Anandtech actually says the new unit's amplifier and antenna are supposed to have been optimized for better, on paper at least, wireless performance).
    QUOTE: "There's [sic] also been some optimizations to the antenna and amplifier configuration that should improve range and reduce dead spots."

    The CNet review seems to indicate otherwise, at least with respect to 2.4 Ghz (with either type of client, 300 or 450, neither of which could beat the 300 Mbps-only long range performance of the V1) and with respect to 5 Ghz V2 performance with 300 Mbps clients.

    I would love to see what Tim's tests show (maybe they will contrast with CNet's).
     

Share This Page