1 Gbps Internet - Possible over WiFi?

[RoryH]

I now have 1 Gigabit symmetrical internet at home and looking to make the most of this over WiFi.

From my research, it seems like 400-500 Mbps seems to be the max achievable over WiFi, with like an Asus RT-AC68U.

But my question is, if I was to purchase a Tri-band router and install a Tri-band WiFi network card in my laptop, would this achieve 1 gigabit wireless speeds?

If not, is there a route to achieving gigabit wireless internet or is it not possible yet??

Thanks!

 

[System Error Message]

i've gotten faster before with the AC68U but with dual band wifi AC, though it was a synthetic test with many packet losses but it was close to 800Mb/s. Its possible over wifi but the conditions need to be good too such as close proximity, a clear channel and other factors.

With a triband network card you could achieve gigabit speeds synthetically but not practically.

I wished i had symmetrical gigabit internet in the UK. I have a router that supports 10Gb/s internet without any hardware acceleration.

 

[RoryH]

I'll be sitting relatively close to the router, roughly 5 meters.

So would I see a difference with Tri band router (with Tri band network card) vs dual band router? As in what's the boost in Mbps? Also, why synthetically and not via Internet?

Btw I'm in the UK too, London. And you mean 10Gb/s wired right?

 

[CaptainSTX]

I'll be sitting relatively close to the router, roughly 5 meters.

So would I see a difference with Tri band router (with Tri band network card) vs dual band router? As in what's the boost in Mbps? Also, why synthetically and not via Internet?

Btw I'm in the UK too, London. And you mean 10Gb/s wired right?

Is there some reason if you will only be 5 meters from the router and probably in the same room you can't use an Ethernet cable? Even with a cable only a newer PCs with a fast processor, enough RAM and a fast HD will be able to handle 1 gig symmetrical speeds.

 

[pete y testing]

So would I see a difference with Tri band router

hi , lets first understand the question

a tri band router just means it has a second 5 gig transmission and even with all 3 bands your wireless adapter can only connect to one of them at once , so forget tri band, that is unless you look at the asus rt-ac5300 or linksys ea9500 etc that have 2156M for each 5 gig band as well

now if you move up from the rt-ac68u which is 1300M on its 5 gig

to the asus rt-ac3100 which is 2156M on its 5 gig

and you also get an asus pce-ac88 to install on your comp that is also 2156M

your going to get as close to giga ethernet speeds as you possibly can , around 100MB/s read and 70 MB/s write

this is with the current technology

if and when we see the 60gig wifi take shape and if and when there are wifi adapters available for it and your in the same room you would certainly get faster speeds then , but thats not even on the radar yet pce adapter wise

you also need to look at the wan to lan throughput of any of the available routers as none that we know of in the domestic market can do 1 Gigabit symmetrical throughput anyway so even if the wifi could do it the wan to lan cant

hope that clear it up for you

pete

 

[RoryH]

Is there some reason if you will only be 5 meters from the router and probably in the same room you can't use an Ethernet cable? Even with a cable only a newer PCs with a fast processor, enough RAM and a fast HD will be able to handle 1 gig symmetrical speeds.

Router will be in corridor, and I will be using a laptop. So I prefer if I can have that speed wirelessly throughout the house for other devices as well. I can already get around 870/870 wired to my laptop so the hardware isn't an issue.

hi , lets first understand the question

a tri band router just means it has a second 5 gig transmission and even with all 3 bands your wireless adapter can only connect to one of them at once , so forget tri band, that is unless you look at the asus rt-ac5300 or linksys ea9500 etc that have 2156M for each 5 gig band as well

now if you move up from the rt-ac68u which is 1300M on its 5 gig

to the asus rt-ac3100 which is 2156M on its 5 gig

and you also get an asus pce-ac88 to install on your comp that is also 2156M

your going to get as close to giga ethernet speeds as you possibly can , around 100MB/s read and 70 MB/s write

this is with the current technology

if and when we see the 60gig wifi take shape and if and when there are wifi adapters available for it and your in the same room you would certainly get faster speeds then , but thats not even on the radar yet pce adapter wise

you also need to look at the wan to lan throughput of any of the available routers as none that we know of in the domestic market can do 1 Gigabit symmetrical throughput anyway so even if the wifi could do it the wan to lan cant

hope that clear it up for you

pete

Thanks for the lengthy explanation.

I was currently looking to upgrade my laptop wifi card (if possible) to achieve closer to the 1 gig speeds, but it seems that the 4x4 tech is only available as desktop pce cards right now.

Since that's out of the question, what would be the next best thing for my 3x3 tri stream ac laptop card? The RT-AC68U seems to be ranked up well for download speeds, or is there anything else you recommend?

Also, when you say non of the domestic market router can do 1 gigabit symmetrical throughput, are you saying downloading and uploading at the same time? Because I meant that my internet speed is capable of 1 gig down 1 gig up (not that I would ever be doing this at the same time), and my wired connection achieves around 870/870 now.

 

[pete y testing]

I meant that my internet speed is capable of 1 gig down 1 gig up (not that I would ever be doing this at the same time), and my wired connection achieves around 870/870 now.

nether , domestic routers just wont do 1 gig speeds in ether direction

 

[System Error Message]

actually consumer routers do 1Gb/s + internet if there is no overhead (ethernet + DHCP, no PPPOE, vlans, etc). And i do mean 10Gb/s wired, my router has 2 Gb/s ports, 36 cores and ram can be upgraded, will handle 10Gb/s. PPPOE isnt an issue for my router even for multi gigabit internet.

Upgrading to 3 channel rather than dual channel as you have now will get you closer to gigabit speeds in practice but you wont see near the 1300Mb/s rated performance. With a 4 channel MU-MIMO wifi router with 4 channel MU-MIMO adapter you could get gigabit speeds practically.

my suggest is just get triple channel adapter and go with it. Get a good adapter if you want to get decent speeds. I used asus dual channel usb3 wifi adapter in my synthetic torture test.

 

[pege63]

You said that you have a router that supports 10Gb/s internet without any hardware acceleration.
Let us know which router it is?

 

[System Error Message]

You said that you have a router that supports 10Gb/s internet without any hardware acceleration.
Let us know which router it is?

CCR1036. The CCR1009 supports 5gb/s internet without acceleration, the CCR1036 has 4 times the core count so that means 10Gb/s symmetrical.

 

[RoryH]

nether , domestic routers just wont do 1 gig speeds in ether direction

This is my current speed when I connect via LAN to the first port on my router.

So I don't understand when you say domestic routers don't achieve 1 gbps. Do you mean they don't hit the exact 1024mbps? It's fine I'm not aiming for the exact max.

actually consumer routers do 1Gb/s + internet if there is no overhead (ethernet + DHCP, no PPPOE, vlans, etc). And i do mean 10Gb/s wired, my router has 2 Gb/s ports, 36 cores and ram can be upgraded, will handle 10Gb/s. PPPOE isnt an issue for my router even for multi gigabit internet.

Upgrading to 3 channel rather than dual channel as you have now will get you closer to gigabit speeds in practice but you wont see near the 1300Mb/s rated performance. With a 4 channel MU-MIMO wifi router with 4 channel MU-MIMO adapter you could get gigabit speeds practically.

my suggest is just get triple channel adapter and go with it. Get a good adapter if you want to get decent speeds. I used asus dual channel usb3 wifi adapter in my synthetic torture test.

When you say 3 channel and 2 channel is that different than tri band and dual band?

I understood that tri band is a router with 1x 2.4ghz and 2x 5ghz, but a device can only connect to one of the routers 5ghz antenna, meaning if I get a dual band router with 1x 5hz antenna or a tri band router with 2x 5hz antennas it's the same thing.

Or is it true that you can have a 5ghz router antenna that is dual channel meaning it only does 2 streams 2x2 from its 5ghz antenna therefore not making use of my 3x3 network adapter? And that I should find a 3x3 three stream 5ghz router? Or does this not make sense.

Sorry still trying to wrap my head around this!

 

[System Error Message]

This is my current speed when I connect via LAN to the first port on my router.

So I don't understand when you say domestic routers don't achieve 1 gbps. Do you mean they don't hit the exact 1024mbps? It's fine I'm not aiming for the exact max.



When you say 3 channel and 2 channel is that different than tri band and dual band?

I understood that tri band is a router with 1x 2.4ghz and 2x 5ghz, but a device can only connect to one of the routers 5ghz antenna, meaning if I get a dual band router with 1x 5hz antenna or a tri band router with 2x 5hz antennas it's the same thing.

Or is it true that you can have a 5ghz router antenna that is dual channel meaning it only does 2 streams 2x2 from its 5ghz antenna therefore not making use of my 3x3 network adapter? And that I should find a 3x3 three stream 5ghz router? Or does this not make sense.

Sorry still trying to wrap my head around this!

triband means 3 bands. 3 channels means 3 channels. Triband means it has 3 radios, 3 channel means the radio uses 3 channels. The ac68U which is what i actually did my test with is capable of close to its theoratical rating (1300Mb/s on wifi AC) on synthetic torture tests but not practically. Each channel requires its own frequency space and provides bandwidth. Single channel wifi N gives 150Mb/s. Single channel wifi AC gives 433Mb/s. dual channel wifi N gives 300Mb/s. This has nothing to do with triband, its to do with the radio on the router itself. The more channels the bigger the frequency space needed (dual channel wifi N already uses most of the available 2.4Ghz spectrum which is crowded). 3 channel wifi AC uses 80Mhz of space in the 5Ghz band so its important that you find unused channels.

 

[L&LD]

Just have to clarify the terms being used above.

A Tri Band router would have 2.4GHz, 5GHz and an additional Band...

The router you all seem to be talking about is a better called a Tri Radio router with a single 2.4GHz radio and two 5GHz radios.

This distinction makes a difference.

If the OP is satisfied with the 870/870 U/D speeds his router can give him today, then going with both a router and any clients with 4 antennae or more will give him more of that maximum possible for each of his clients.

Getting it close to GbE speeds though (except as a non-important 'connection rate') is not going to happen for most/all of his wireless clients (mostly because 3 or 4 antennae capable WiFi adaptor cards can't be installed or upgraded in most devices).

To have a real crack at getting those speeds (even over WiFi) means that the main router be upgraded.

The BRT-AC828/M.2 is what would be required first, imo (when it is available to buy). Then upgrading the clients as possible.

Even at that point, GbE wireless performance may still not be achievable (depending on the limitations of the devices themselves, regardless of the WiFi card and antennae installed).

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/ne...-dual-wan-vpn-router.32839/page-2#post-265829


The RT-AC3100, RT-AC88U and the RT-AC5300 (all 4x4:4 routers) will offer the best throughput possible today.

The RT-AC68U has long passed it's day in the sun.

 

[System Error Message]

the ac68U actually is still good to use as long as you didnt upgrade the firmware you can still unlock all the 5Ghz channels on it. Useful as now ISPs are giving out crappy AC1900 routers. For example virgin media's crappy hub. Although bt's homehub 5A is better than dlink (i would rate it about the same as tp-link, basic features in firmware, stable hardware but not the fastest).

I have my AC88U on that 1 channel that none of the ISP given routers have on choosing it. The problem is to do with auto that sometimes likes to switch to the same channels you use even though there are many other channels available. When i saw this happening last time the mac address identified to a router (linksys i think) which i didnt have and was using a hidden SSID.

 

[L&LD]

SEM, please stop missing the point of the thread(s).

If you don't upgrade the firmware, you are exposing your network to increasingly more attacks from the rest of the world.

There is no commercial router available today that can achieve symmetrical GbE routing speeds. The three year old RT-AC68U is hardly going to challenge that. No matter what channels are available on it.

 

[RoryH]

triband means 3 bands. 3 channels means 3 channels. Triband means it has 3 radios, 3 channel means the radio uses 3 channels. The ac68U which is what i actually did my test with is capable of close to its theoratical rating (1300Mb/s on wifi AC) on synthetic torture tests but not practically. Each channel requires its own frequency space and provides bandwidth. Single channel wifi N gives 150Mb/s. Single channel wifi AC gives 433Mb/s. dual channel wifi N gives 300Mb/s. This has nothing to do with triband, its to do with the radio on the router itself. The more channels the bigger the frequency space needed (dual channel wifi N already uses most of the available 2.4Ghz spectrum which is crowded). 3 channel wifi AC uses 80Mhz of space in the 5Ghz band so its important that you find unused channels.

Thanks for clearing it up, that is what I suspected.

Just have to clarify the terms being used above.

A Tri Band router would have 2.4GHz, 5GHz and an additional Band...

The router you all seem to be talking about is a better called a Tri Radio router with a single 2.4GHz radio and two 5GHz radios.

This distinction makes a difference.

If the OP is satisfied with the 870/870 U/D speeds his router can give him today, then going with both a router and any clients with 4 antennae or more will give him more of that maximum possible for each of his clients.

Getting it close to GbE speeds though (except as a non-important 'connection rate') is not going to happen for most/all of his wireless clients (mostly because 3 or 4 antennae capable WiFi adaptor cards can't be installed or upgraded in most devices).

To have a real crack at getting those speeds (even over WiFi) means that the main router be upgraded.

The BRT-AC828/M.2 is what would be required first, imo (when it is available to buy). Then upgrading the clients as possible.

Even at that point, GbE wireless performance may still not be achievable (depending on the limitations of the devices themselves, regardless of the WiFi card and antennae installed).

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/ne...-dual-wan-vpn-router.32839/page-2#post-265829


The RT-AC3100, RT-AC88U and the RT-AC5300 (all 4x4:4 routers) will offer the best throughput possible today.

The RT-AC68U has long passed it's day in the sun.

Thanks for the recommended routers. I'm pretty sure I currently have a 3x3 broadcom wifi adapter in my laptop as I used to connect at 1300 mbps to my BT Homehub 5 prior to switching apartments and ISPs.

I don't have a desktop so I'm probably not going to be making use of a 4 channel router yet, but I think it would be worth investing in in case for future.

The Cat5e socket that the ISP installed is near the front door which is why I'm looking into wireless, otherwise I have to run an annoying long cable over door frames to the living room.

I was basing my choice for the 68U from this review (http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...k-of-wireless-router-retests?showall=&start=1), it fairs pretty well. Do you think I would see any performance boost going for the RT-AC3100 over the 68U given my 3x3 wifi adapter limitation?

the ac68U actually is still good to use as long as you didnt upgrade the firmware you can still unlock all the 5Ghz channels on it. Useful as now ISPs are giving out crappy AC1900 routers. For example virgin media's crappy hub. Although bt's homehub 5A is better than dlink (i would rate it about the same as tp-link, basic features in firmware, stable hardware but not the fastest).

I have my AC88U on that 1 channel that none of the ISP given routers have on choosing it. The problem is to do with auto that sometimes likes to switch to the same channels you use even though there are many other channels available. When i saw this happening last time the mac address identified to a router (linksys i think) which i didnt have and was using a hidden SSID.

Are you saying that if I get the 68U and update firmware (or if it comes with updated firmware), that you can't manually select the best channels? Is it also the case for the 88U or AC3100?

So channel 1 is the best for AC UK?

 

[L&LD]

No single channel is 'best' over any other. It depends on the actual network environment of the case in question.

I have seen many times where channel 11 (2.4GHz) was the most used channel (according to the inssider utility) and was recommended to not use it. Yet, in the real world testing phase, channel 11 was the channel that offered the highest throughput, lowest latency and greatest range. The moral of the story is that each channel should be tested for properly and from multiple locations within the required coverage area before it is chosen as the 'one'.

Just like not having any AC clients didn't mean that AC routers weren't 'required' for highest performance, the latest (4x4:4) routers are also required for the highest level of network performance, even from less than 4x4:4 capable clients.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/sh...-go-with-the-rt-ac1900p-v3.34748/#post-281391

This is tech. Newer, is always* better.

*('Always' is defined as 'almost always' for the purposes of not getting my #$#$# sued).

 

[RoryH]

No single channel is 'best' over any other. It depends on the actual network environment of the case in question.

I have seen many times where channel 11 (2.4GHz) was the most used channel (according to the inssider utility) and was recommended to not use it. Yet, in the real world testing phase, channel 11 was the channel that offered the highest throughput, lowest latency and greatest range. The moral of the story is that each channel should be tested for properly and from multiple locations within the required coverage area before it is chosen as the 'one'.

Just like not having any AC clients didn't mean that AC routers weren't 'required' for highest performance, the latest (4x4:4) routers are also required for the highest level of network performance, even from less than 4x4:4 capable clients.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/sh...-go-with-the-rt-ac1900p-v3.34748/#post-281391

This is tech. Newer, is always* better.

*('Always' is defined as 'almost always' for the purposes of not getting my #$#$# sued).

Definitely sounds like a greater device. Thanks for the post. I wont be having the issue of range though, as its a relatively small flat.

Given that the difference in price between the 68U and AC3100 is 140, do you really think I would see that much of a boost between the two sitting at 5-7 meters away on the 5Ghz band to justify the price? I know you might probably not have the answer to that cause of the varying factors. I guess I will have to evaluate my budget.

 

[sfx2000]

If this helps - on WiFi, 802.11ac will do about 250 Mbit/Sec per spatial stream...

This is on my network, not going across the router...

iPerf3 server - Ubuntu 16.04LTS on a dell i3050 with gigabit connectivity into the same managed switch that the AP is on

AP - Airport Exteme AC (AC1900 class)
Client - MacBook Air 2014 (2 stream AC867 connection)
Distance - 1 meter

Upstream to the test host

$ iperf3 -c 192.168.1.20 -i1
Connecting to host 192.168.1.20, port 5201
[  4] local 192.168.1.115 port 52399 connected to 192.168.1.20 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  55.4 MBytes   463 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  68.0 MBytes   572 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  63.7 MBytes   535 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  57.0 MBytes   478 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  57.9 MBytes   485 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  58.7 MBytes   492 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  58.5 MBytes   491 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  59.2 MBytes   497 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  59.2 MBytes   496 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  59.3 MBytes   498 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   597 MBytes   501 Mbits/sec                  sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   596 MBytes   500 Mbits/sec                  receiver

Downstream from the test host

[code]
$ iperf3 -c 192.168.1.20 -i1 -R
Connecting to host 192.168.1.20, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.20 is sending
[  4] local 192.168.1.115 port 52401 connected to 192.168.1.20 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  50.6 MBytes   425 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  60.4 MBytes   507 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  68.4 MBytes   574 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  68.2 MBytes   572 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  68.7 MBytes   576 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  65.4 MBytes   548 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  58.6 MBytes   491 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  63.7 MBytes   534 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  68.6 MBytes   575 Mbits/sec                  
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  60.1 MBytes   505 Mbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   635 MBytes   532 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec   634 MBytes   532 Mbits/sec                  receiver

 

[System Error Message]

no you unlock the channels first than upgrade the firmware.

What channels you can unlock is basically every other 2 channels in the 5Ghz band and the upper channels that you only get on triband routers. Infact if in the UK triband routers can be considered as their upper channels arent included by many many wifi routers.

I do hope linksys can improve their wifi routers, their firmwares recently hasnt been great and that just make's samir's confidence with the cisco rv questionable. The auto of some wifi routers not working properly causes problems for others.