Deciding between 2 AC2600 routers, performance question

[hifiguy]

I am deciding which router to keep between 2 AC2600 MU-MIMO routers, the Linksys EA8500 and the Netgear X4S R7800. I updated to latest firmware in both and did some speed tests at different distances from the router to see which is faster.

The Linksys EA8500 gets faster download speeds consistently by around 20Mbps when testing with speedtest.net and Comcast’s speed test when I get to around 30 ft. from the router. But when I check the speed in Windows 10 WiFi Status and OS X link speed, the Netgear X4S does better, going up to 760Mbps, where the Linksys doesn’t get above 650 Mbps. It’s always changing but the Netgear consistently shows higher speeds than the Linksys router.

So my question is which test do you go by, the speedtest.net or the wifi/link speed?

 

[avtella]

Another test would be to do NAS transfers to a computer or computer to computer transfers of large files to get a better idea. The link speed in windows/mac is a theoretical max, in real world you will get maybe 50-60% of that. Go by real world performance rather than just the link speed you see in windows.

Both are pretty great devices, can't go wrong either way. I myself have the R7800 and its been rock stable since day 1.

 

[joegreat]

I am deciding which router to keep between 2 AC2600 MU-MIMO routers, the Linksys EA8500 and the Netgear X4S R7800. I updated to latest firmware in both and did some speed tests at different distances from the router to see which is faster.

Looking into WikiDevi the two devices are quite close related to the Atheros platform - where the Netgear R7800 looks a bit more actual (or updated).

I would suggest to search/compare also other platforms like Broadcom (e.g. Asus AC87U/AC88U).

Nevertheless today the platforms are very capable, but the software is the key to make it work: I would not go for Linksys or Netgear (based on bad experience with both on the firmware side - and DD-WRT is big mess as well). Currently I see only Asus who is really working hard to make a good firmware for their great routers!

 

[L&LD]

The indicated link speed is a good (enough) indication of the quality of the drivers (both in the router and the client's too) and the hardware (design) implementation.

The throughput is the actual real world final result we get after all the theoretical mumbo jumbo and our direct and indirect (neighbors') environment has on our WiFi experience. This is the only important one in the end.

(I also test for latency too. Not an actual measurement, but a feel for how webpages, local network devices (NAS, etc.) and general overall network responsiveness is when comparing between two options, be it routers or WiFi channels).

I would also agree avtella that to remove all variables (like your ISP and the variability of speedtest sites), test between a wired client with fast enough storage (3 drive RAID5 NAS, or an notebook or desktop computer with an ssd for example) and the best wireless client you have (AC class, most antennae, not handheld (i.e. phone) and/or not battery powered, during the test).

joegreat has good suggestions too which I agree with. May as well test a current Asus router with RMerlin firmware or the forks thereof (john9527 or hggomes) to make your comparison as wide as possible.

 

[sfx2000]

I think with the AC2600 class - they're all pretty new, and it's going to be incremental improvements across all vendors - what has happened before happens now, and will happen again...

Devil is in the details with MU-MIMO and the AC2600 class... and even the chipset vendors are working that, much less the Router/AP OEM's...

 

[avtella]

From the Qualcomm roadmap posted in the R7800 thread it seems the IPQ8065 manages to use all 4 streams for MU-MIMO vs 3 in the IPQ8064... I know from another article that both Broadcom and Qualcomm were working to get arount the n-1 streams issue, so I don't know how true it is.......

 

[sfx2000]

From the Qualcomm roadmap posted in the R7800 thread it seems the IPQ8065 manages to use all 4 streams for MU-MIMO vs 3 in the IPQ8064... I know from another article that both Broadcom and Qualcomm were working to get arount the n-1 streams issue, so I don't know how true it is.......

Nothing to say they can't - the N-1 limitation, IMHO, it is due to the complexity that is MU-MIMO, so maybe a compute restriction...

 

[avtella]

Netgear engineering confirmed via NETGEAR Guy that unlike the IPQ8064 chipset based R7500v2 (Similar to the E8500) which can only use 3 streams in MU-MIMO mode, the R7800 with its IPQ8065 chipset indeed supports 4 streams in MU-MIMO mode.

 

[thiggins]

Netgear engineering confirmed via NETGEAR Guy that unlike the IPQ8064 chipset based R7500v2 (Similar to the E8500) which can only use 3 streams in MU-MIMO mode, the R7800 with its IPQ8065 chipset indeed supports 4 streams in MU-MIMO mode.

What do you mean by "streams"? Do you mean simultaneous MU-MIMO STAs?
4x4 MU-MIMO does not stop working at 3 or even 4 simultaneous STAs. Current 4x4 designs provide peak simultaneous throughput at 3 MU STAS. After that, more MU STAs need to swap in and out. See http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32898-is-mu-mimo-ready-for-prime-time

 

[avtella]

What do you mean by "streams"? Do you mean simultaneous MU-MIMO STAs?
4x4 MU-MIMO does not stop working at 3 or even 4 simultaneous STAs. Current 4x4 designs provide peak simultaneous throughput at 3 MU STAS. After that, more MU STAs need to swap in and out. See http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/32898-is-mu-mimo-ready-for-prime-time

My apologies, seems like I got the terminology wrong.

Thiggins correct me if I am wrong but any current 4x4 ac router usually supports 3 1x1 clients for peak simultaneous throughput as we know as mentioned in the article and a previous article of yours as well, my interpretation of the Qualcomm roadmap is that the IPQ8065 somehow supports 4 1x1 MU-MIMO clients for peak simultaneous throughput and that is what I asked Netgear about.

Here is the roadmap posted by Mediatrek, in the R7800 thread:
http://www.snbforums.com/threads/the-ipq-heart-of-the-netgear-nighthawk-x4s-r7800-ac2600.29687/

Also just found this, so I assume I made the current assumption, if not, correct me.

 

[thiggins]

Aargh! I see how Qualcomm is using "streams". Very confusing.

The 802.11ac standard supports four MU receivers in a single transmit frame. Each receiver is a transmit/receive chain.

Note that the diagram doesn't show four 1x1 ("1S") devices. The cases that use the #4 SS slot both use a 2x2 device.

At any rate, the difference is due to the QCA9984 radio, not the IPQ8065 SoC.

 

[avtella]

Thanks for the clarification Thiggins, definitely was confusing.

 

[System Error Message]

You can always get both.

 

[thiggins]

QCA confirms 3 simultaneous devices.

I asked:

Can you confirm that products using the QCA9984 will support four 1x1 MU STAs in a single transmit time slot?

QCA reply:

It still supports 3 simultaneous devices, but up to 4 streams (so one of those devices can be a 2x2).

 

[avtella]

Thanks for the info, still better than before right? I see most new devices coming with 2x2 antennas anyway so two 2x2 devices seem like a more probable scenario.

 

[thiggins]

Thanks for the info, still better than before right? I see most new devices coming with 2x2 antennas anyway so two 2x2 devices seem like a more probable scenario.

What 2x2 MU-MIMO devices are you seeing?

My initial Veriware scaling tests using 2x2 MU-MIMO STAs produced very odd results. I'll be coming back to this in a few weeks. Maybe newer firmware will be better.

 

[avtella]

I meant most new phones and laptops come with 2x2 antennas anyway so as MU-MIMO becomes more mainstream it will likely be with dual antenna clients.

Page 16 of the following PDF makes mention of currently available MU-MIMO client devices:
https://www.qualcomm.com/media/docu...u-mimo-the-next-mainstream-wi-fi-standard.pdf

Also this from Qualcomm, the devices listed are 2x2 MU-MIMO if I am not mistaken:
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/snapd...-microsoft-htc-are-first-us-support-triple-wi

By the way here is one article mentioning the negatives of MU-MIMO, that you might find interesting.
http://www.wlanpros.com/multi-user-mimo-marketing-hype-vs-reality-3/