Should the SNB standard test client support 256 QAM in 2.4 GHz?

[thiggins]

I'll ask a different question then. Do you think the SNB standard test STA should support 256-QAM in 2.4 GHz?

 

[L&LD]

I'll ask a different question then. Do you think the SNB standard test STA should support 256-QAM in 2.4 GHz?

Considering that the 2.4GHz band is quickly being depreciated, I think you may be wasting your time by doing those tests?

Too much congestion and too few channels will only make this a 'number' that will have little relevance to the user in actual use. I vote to concentrate on testing that actually makes a difference to most.

 

[thiggins]

Considering that the 2.4GHz band is quickly being depreciated, I think you may be wasting your time by doing those tests?

Too much congestion and too few channels will only make this a 'number' that will have little relevance to the user in actual use. I vote to concentrate on testing that actually makes a difference to most.

Yeah, 2.4 GHz will be gone tomorrow. Seriously....
Anyone else?

 

[L&LD]

Yeah, 2.4 GHz will be gone tomorrow. Seriously....
Anyone else?

That is not what I said.

All my customers that have moved to AC class routers in the past couple of years or so are relying more on the 5GHz band than the 2.4GHz band. For throughput, range and reliability of the wireless signal.

The 2.4GHz band has been relegated to devices that they don't care about too much anymore (except to connect at all).

The above facts are why I think testing 256-QAM on the 2.4GHz network band is just a way to produce numbers, not give users a way to actually evaluate one router vs. another.

 

[sfx2000]

I'll ask a different question then. Do you think the SNB standard test STA should support 256-QAM in 2.4 GHz?

I've always felt that tests should stay as close to the 802.11 spec as possible - VHT support in 2.4GHz is a real mess across the different chip vendors - they all do it a bit differently, so there's not really a defacto implementation..

 

[thiggins]

The above facts are why I think testing 256-QAM on the 2.4GHz network band is just a way to produce numbers, not give users a way to actually evaluate one router vs. another.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[thiggins]

I've always felt that tests should stay as close to the 802.11 spec as possible - VHT support in 2.4GHz is a real mess across the different chip vendors - they all do it a bit differently, so there's not really a defacto implementation..

Wait until 802.11ax adds MU-MIMO in 2.4 GHz...

 

[sfx2000]

Wait until 802.11ax adds MU-MIMO in 2.4 GHz...

As long as it's standards based - should be fine, as legacy support will be handled in a very specific way - 11ac does a good job of this with A/N legacy support in 5GHz..

- at the moment, VHT20/40 modes in 2.4GHz have some serious interop issues as Turbo/Nitro is non-standard - depends on the client STA vendor.. some might work, some will go into a dark place, some fall back to legacy, and some flat out won't connect..

 

[RMerlin]

Yeah, 2.4 GHz will be gone tomorrow. Seriously....
Anyone else?

My suggestion is to make a separate review at some point to determine if 256QAM and 1024QAM is actually helpful or just snake oil intended to provide higher numbers for marketing purposes. If in the end your review of the technology shows that it provides very little improvement, then I'd say it's fairly safe to not bother testing it anymore.

That review of the Turbo/NitroQAM technology could also be extended to 5 GHz, which supports up to MCS11 (QAM1024) with the BCM4366, as used by the Asus RT-AC88U/RT-AC5300U.

 

[thiggins]

Of course it's snake oil!

For this version of the process, I am interested in having rate vs. range (throughput vs. attenuation) plots more realistically show what typical users see.

If many / most clients support 256 QAM in 2.4 GHz, then I'd want to have the standard test client do that.

Unfortunately there is no way of accurately knowing that.

 

[sfx2000]

Once we get out of the standard 2.4GHz B/G/N - in some of the early AC1900 class reviews, a basic connectivity test - can devices associate and function can be useful info...

Part of the challenge with 256QAM (Turbo) and 1024QAM (Nitro) is that they're very dependent on a low noise floor, so in most urban/suburban locations, either the client STA's or the AP will fall back to 64QAM, negating any benefit...

 

[sfx2000]

My suggestion is to make a separate review at some point to determine if 256QAM and 1024QAM is actually helpful or just snake oil intended to provide higher numbers for marketing purposes. If in the end your review of the technology shows that it provides very little improvement, then I'd say it's fairly safe to not bother testing it anymore.

That review of the Turbo/NitroQAM technology could also be extended to 5 GHz, which supports up to MCS11 (QAM1024) with the BCM4366, as used by the Asus RT-AC88U/RT-AC5300U.

There are only 9 MCS values allocated in 802.11AC, and QAM1024 is non-standard...

I really resent what Broadcom is doing here, as this can cause issues not only on the local BSS/ESS, but it can adversely affect adjacent WLAN's, esp. if not Broadcom based...

 

[RMerlin]

There are only 9 MCS values allocated in 802.11AC, and QAM1024 is non-standard...

Yet here we are, manufacturers trying to push the boundaries beyond established standards. The webui lists QAM1024 as being MCS 11 (I assume QAM256 is MCS 10 in their book).

 

[sfx2000]

Yet here we are, manufacturers trying to push the boundaries beyond established standards. The webui lists QAM1024 as being MCS 11 (I assume QAM256 is MCS 10 in their book).

As a recovering IEEE standards guy - I do find their behavior a bit on the arrogant side

 

[thiggins]

Yet here we are, manufacturers trying to push the boundaries beyond established standards. The webui lists QAM1024 as being MCS 11 (I assume QAM256 is MCS 10 in their book).

256 QAM is MCS9. I'd think MCS10 would be 512 QAM

 

[sfx2000]

256 QAM is MCS9. I'd think MCS10 would be 512 QAM

No such thing as MCS10 (or MCS11) for that matter

 

[sfx2000]

Yet here we are, manufacturers trying to push the boundaries beyond established standards. The webui lists QAM1024 as being MCS 11 (I assume QAM256 is MCS 10 in their book).

256QAM is MCS9

 

[thiggins]

No such thing as MCS10 (or MCS11) for that matter

True. I'm saying IF there were, it would be logical for 512 QAM to be MCS10 since it's between 256 and 1024.

 

[sfx2000]

True. I'm saying IF there were, it would be logical for 512 QAM to be MCS10 since it's between 256 and 1024.

I think they've skipped QAM512 - I'd have to dig into reasons why, but I believe it might come down to orthogonality issues with QAM512 that one doesn't see with QAM1024

 

[sfx2000]

QAM usually works best in mixed environments with orders of 4 - 16, 64, 256, 1024 - it's the I +/- and the Q +/- in the constellation diagram (eyeball chart)..