If you don't have speeds in access of 150Mbps whats the point of a AC router ?

[Subzero89]

So I'm a need of a new wireless router and I've been doing some research and from what I'm reading wireless N is good for up to about 150Mbps with a N900 compatible router. Right now I have a 25Mbps down and it's plenty for now. The max my cable company provides in my area is 50Mbps, which I don't need and wouldn't want to pay for anyway. Also from what I've read the range is the same with AC routers. Of coarse AC wireless does provide much faster file transfer speeds for NAS/HDD's but I don't use any of that stuff and most user don't use those extras neither. Is it just me or it seems like network companies just want to sell you something you something that most don't need ?

 

[Nullity]

I agree but... considering that my ~$100 RT-N66U can push ~200Mbit wirelessly, and the ~$160 RT-AC68U can push ~700Mbit, I only see more "bang for my buck" with these newer devices, if you shop smart.


Sure, nobody "needs" 1000Mbit or a 22 year old model girlfriend...


NAS stuff should be wired anyway.

 

[Subzero89]

That's don't make sense if you can't use the extra speed, what's the point of wasting $60 more then you have too ?

 

[Nullity]

That's don't make sense if you can't use the extra speed, what's the point of wasting $60 more then you have too ?

Can you ever really have too much speed?

With multi-terabyte drives becoming common-place, gigabit connection rates become more and more necessary. I recently moved ~300Gigabytes over a 100Mbit connection and it took the majority of an entire day to transfer.

 

[L&LD]

That's don't make sense if you can't use the extra speed, what's the point of wasting $60 more then you have too ?

Let's assume that the $60 or so is not a burden to spend today.

Let's also assume that you buy a router maybe twice a decade.

Let's further assume that you do not buy a new router and all new clients at the same time. Rather the opposite, the newer clients get added as the old ones get sold/die off.

Finally, a fair assumption for most people is that the network usage changes as time marches on.

If most of the above points are true for your situation, then saving $60 today will get you measurably less performance for (possibly) years (until you upgrade your router to match your future network loads and client's capabilities). Or, you may need (be forced) to upgrade much sooner than otherwise (making your total cash layout for network equipment higher overall for a given time period).

But for approximately $12 a year (in your case, assuming a five year term of ownership) you can be confident that the router not only will match and exceed your current needs, but also those for the whole term too.


What many of my customers remark is that a properly configured (and modern; RT-AC68U or higher) router makes even their 2.5/0.25 ISP connections seem upgraded vs. any N Class router they had previously (even the venerable RT-N66U too). How is this possible? Well, for me, the consistency of the connection is greatly improved (even on my 50/10 ISP plan) and makes reading the web feel like I'm reading locally saved pages on my hdd.

While you can easily go overboard in any 'field' and be well beyond 'bang for the buck', spending a few dollars more today on the best router you can afford is not an exercise in frustration. Regardless of your current network needs and expectations (with the above 'assumptions', of course).

 

[Subzero89]

Can you ever really have too much speed?

With multi-terabyte drives becoming common-place, gigabit connection rates become more and more necessary. I recently moved ~300Gigabytes over a 100Mbit connection and it took the majority of an entire day to transfer.

Like I said for xfers and heavy users that's fine, I'm talking about wireless if you ain't pushing past 150Mbps and most ain't what's the point. By the time 150Mbps and more becomes common place somethingnew will be out.

 

[L&LD]

What many of my customers remark is that a properly configured (and modern; RT-AC68U or higher) router makes even their 2.5/0.25 ISP connections seem upgraded vs. any N Class router they had previously (even the venerable RT-N66U too). How is this possible? Well, for me, the consistency of the connection is greatly improved (even on my 50/10 ISP plan) and makes reading the web feel like I'm reading locally saved pages on my hdd.

I'm talking about wireless if you ain't pushing past 150Mbps and most ain't what's the point.

I did remark on that point you bring up. Whether it is important to you depends on how sensitive you are to small improvements that over a long enough time (I can spend 20 hours on computers a day at times) make a big difference in how 'effortless' the network feels.

 

[Subzero89]

Let's assume that the $60 or so is not a burden to spend today.

Let's also assume that you buy a router maybe twice a decade.

Let's further assume that you do not buy a new router and all new clients at the same time. Rather the opposite, the newer clients get added as the old ones get sold/die off.

Finally, a fair assumption for most people is that the network usage changes as time marches on.

If most of the above points are true for your situation, then saving $60 today will get you measurably less performance for (possibly) years (until you upgrade your router to match your future network loads and client's capabilities). Or, you may need (be forced) to upgrade much sooner than otherwise (making your total cash layout for network equipment higher overall for a given time period).

But for approximately $12 a year (in your case, assuming a five year term of ownership) you can be confident that the router not only will match and exceed your current needs, but also those for the whole term too.


What many of my customers remark is that a properly configured (and modern; RT-AC68U or higher) router makes even their 2.5/0.25 ISP connections seem upgraded vs. any N Class router they had previously (even the venerable RT-N66U too). How is this possible? Well, for me, the consistency of the connection is greatly improved (even on my 50/10 ISP plan) and makes reading the web feel like I'm reading locally saved pages on my hdd.

While you can easily go overboard in any 'field' and be well beyond 'bang for the buck', spending a few dollars more today on the best router you can afford is not an exercise in frustration. Regardless of your current network needs and expectations (with the above 'assumptions', of course).

That's lots of assuming on your part.
LOL on the part of "makes it better read Web pages"

Let's just admit it for the average user they not even saturating the Wireless N.

 

[Subzero89]

I did remark on that point you bring up. Whether it is important to you depends on how sensitive you are to small improvements that over a long enough time (I can spend 20 hours on computers a day at times) make a big difference in how 'effortless' the network feels.

Well your not the average user I guess, that's cool.

 

[Nullity]

Well your not the average user I guess, that's cool.

I will be honest... I thought exactly as you did until I tried the faster devices. I scoffed at wireless, thinking it was a gimmick. I barely had any need for 100Mbit wired LAN speeds so why would I have any interest in wireless?

Then... I got my first Asus router (I think my previous WiFi maxed at ~3Mbyte/sec, compared to ~23Mbyte with the Asus). My first proper, well-researched WiFi device. It introduced me to NAS, HTPC, QoS, and re-invigorated my interest in general computer networking. I spent much of the past year obsessively researching traffic-shaping/QoS, I set up my own Plex server, I set up a NFS server, and I finally learned that double-NAT was something I could avoid.

So, yeah... that whole educational journey was sparked by the numerous capabilities of my RT-N66U. How can you judge something you've never actually experienced? Nobody needs luxury...

 

[Subzero89]

Well my situation I currently have a Linksys E1000 N300 router which is a low end wireless router. So I'm thinking of getting a RT-N66U N900 cause my current router has crap range and heard that the RT-N66U is really great and one of Amazons biggest sellers.

The only thing I'm concerned about is I read some people say comments like the RT-N66U gets hot. Some even say too hot that that can't keep your hand on it. If it's true that it gets that hot I won't want to keep it probably. I know it comes with a stand for more ventilation but I think it looks ugly with the stand. Did it get hot for you ? and how did you have it situated ?

 

[Nullity]

My RT-N66U is overclocked to the max and mounted vertically on the wall with zero problems.

It's currecntly 127°F & 124°F.

 

[Subzero89]

Wow it's that much higher than normal because of the overclock ? What would be the temperature without the overclock do you think approximately ?


So I guess I got nothing to worry about if I decide to get it then ?

 

[Sethr]

To the OP. My cell phone does AC. There's a reason. Plus, my next (soon) TV will likely have AC also. I don't want to buy ANOTHER router in 6 months.
The rt-AC68W was only $129 last month.

 

[Sethr]

The only thing I'm concerned about is I read some people say comments like the RT-N66U gets hot. Some even say too hot that that can't keep your hand on it. If it's true that it gets that hot I won't want to keep it probably. I know it comes with a stand for more ventilation but I think it looks ugly with the stand. Did it get hot for you ? and how did you have it situated ?

68W gets hotter. Mine was running about 127°F on the radios and 159 °F CPU!! The CPU is a GHz dual core though. A 92mm Arctic case fan mounted to the back using a 300mA wall wart dropped it all. 2.4 is 109, 5 is 111, and CPU now runs at 113. It makes almost zero noise.

 

[Subzero89]

68W gets hotter. Mine was running about 127°F on the radios and 159 °F CPU!! The CPU is a GHz dual core though. A 92mm Arctic case fan mounted to the back using a 300mA wall wart dropped it all. 2.4 is 109, 5 is 111, and CPU now runs at 113. It makes almost zero noise.

Make a lot heat because you overclock too ?

 

[Subzero89]

To the OP. My cell phone does AC. There's a reason. Plus, my next (soon) TV will likely have AC also. I don't want to buy ANOTHER router in 6 months.
The rt-AC68W was only $129 last month.

My phone is a AC capable too, but who cares I'm not push any speed close to or past 150Mbps and won't anytime soon. So it comes back to my orginal topic question. Like I said before wireless N is plenty fine for the majority of people out there now and years to come.

Look I understand this site caters to enthusiasts and not to the masses, so I know a lot of people here wont want to agree with me but it is true though.

I genuinely need to upgrade my current router it is complete trash I can barely stream Netflix right now without it interrupting. I could get RT-N66U for $100 but could get the TP-Archer C9 for $20 more but I know I'll never utilize AC spec.

 

[Nullity]

My phone is a AC capable too, but who cares I'm not push any speed close to or past 150Mbps and won't anytime soon. So it comes back to my orginal topic question. Like I said before wireless N is plenty fine for the majority of people out there.

If you want distance, get RT-N66U.

The RT-AC56U is probably the best deal out there, but the internal antennas limit the distance some, but it has a dual-core ARM CPU that can be overclocked over 1Ghz.

The RT-N66U has a single-core 600Mhz MIPS CPU overclockable to 662

 

[Subzero89]

If I get the RT-N66U should I put little blocks under the feet so there more air flow underneath ? Cuz I'm don't want to use the stand that comes with it and I'm not propping it on the wall.

 

[stevech]

So I'm a need of a new wireless router and I've been doing some research and from what I'm reading wireless N is good for up to about 150Mbps with a N900 compatible router. Right now I have a 25Mbps down and it's plenty for now. The max my cable company provides in my area is 50Mbps, which I don't need and wouldn't want to pay for anyway. Also from what I've read the range is the same with AC routers. Of coarse AC wireless does provide much faster file transfer speeds for NAS/HDD's but I don't use any of that stuff and most user don't use those extras neither. Is it just me or it seems like network companies just want to sell you something you something that most don't need ?

The WiFi "speed" such as 150Mbps is the raw bit rate of data frames on the air. The net yield after all WiFi and TCP/IP overhead is usually 60% or so of the raw air link rate.

But I agree with the premise. For 11n/11a handhelds, and for desktops that use WiFi (why not wired?), and do not often or ever transfer big files from a local server, then 11n speeds with good signal strength are fine. Some contend that some 11n client devices get a small speed improvement from an 11ac router. Arguably a poor return on investment given the price premium of a name brand 11ac router.

My humble Samsung S6 phone gets 110Mbps down and 10Mbps up, one room away, using speedtest.net. My desktop PC with gigE wired does no better. The router is a low cost ASUS RTN56U http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320062