In general, in electronics, I personally don't advice any consumer to infer and rely solely on a chipset data and feature set because how the chipset is implemented in practice however frequently varies device to device, with consequent differences in performance and features.
Then that is bad advice, and contradictory of even this and other hardware web sites. Are you saying that you should not know if that processor supports instructions that can be necessary for for an application, or how logic can offload a processor to make the system faster, capable, complaint? It is all about the hardware, and will always be.
Shikami, I wish you luck in choosing a router.
It is easy for me. Although, the RT-N56U was a bit of an experiment due to the aging DGL-4500 I had, and also because the RT3662F processor fascinated me.
I think I have understood now what you mean by the E4200v1 is "draft N". You mean it uses a radio chipset developed prior to September 2009. This does not make it "draft N" however.
Inform Broadcom that they do not understand their BCM4718 processor and 2.4GHz radio then; and yes it draft because THEY INFORM THE CONSUMERS THAT IT IS DRAFT (It combines a
Draft 802.11n CPU/MAC/baseband/radio router solution with a powerful 533 MHz MIPS32® 74KTM core and an enhanced CPU memory subsystem to increase system performance). Has nothing to do with the time of fabrication; you are also not comprehending my speculation if the information was not made public about the logic used.
According to my research for to be more knowledgeable of this difference, the difference between 2.0 and ratified can be supposedly implemented in software. There is no elaboration, nor any affect on performance mentioned of such features if implemented within software compared integrated logic, or if it matters. However, the vendor has to implement the features, to equal what is naturally supported within a ratified core logic.
A good example of what I could mean is: Many if not all of the RISC processors used for routers have no integrated FPU. When calculations of checksums have to be made it is done by many more cycles of the processor core via software rather than possible integrated hardware. Now, there are lesser cost integration into the SoC that can offload checksums, and even offload the aggregation of packets making the router faster when comparing to lesser integrated logics.
These capabilities are clearly laid out and listed in the certificate, you can see what they are if you consult it.
Your refusal to see it from the logical level is the issue. I looked at the certs, and I looked at the basic knowledge provided from Broadcom (which is very basica, BTW). I learned nothing more; they were nothing but the same to me. Think of it this way if it helps you any. I look at hardware as in a manner of lower level of coding. You view it in the higher levels. If that does not makes sense to you then my rebuttal will never be recognized/comprehended.
This thread was about tomato firmware, I will let it get back to that
I agree let the 3rd party firmware talk commence. However, it is obvious if you want the support-especially now-v1 is your choice-any OS advocate would know this. Support for the v2 could be a time of wait that never justifies itself, or may never actually come.
