802.11ac PCI-E vs USB Wireless Adapter (Asus PCE-AC66 or Netgear A6200)

[DaveLessnau]

Most of the focus here seems to be on the router end of things. But, what about the wireless adapter side? Specifically, I'm trying to decide if I should get USB or PCI-E wireless adapter cards (even more specifically, the Asus PCE-AC66 PCI-E card or the Netgear A6200 USB 2.0 device).

Both are 802.11ac adapters. My understanding is that this standard allows 1300 mbps (162.5 MB/s) speed. Yet, USB 2.0 (what the A6200 uses) is limited to 480 mbps (60 MB/s). So, right off the bat, a USB 2.0 interface seems, to put it mildly, silly. Also, my experience with USB 2.0 tells me that the best speed I'll REALLY see from the interface is about 30 - 35 MB/s. So, that seems to knock out the A6200 (even though I have Netgear's R6300 802.11ac router).

For the PCE-AC66, I can't find anything that specifies which version of PCI-E it uses (or even how many lanes). From some of the comments on Newegg and from a picture of the card, I'd guess it's a PCI-E 3.0 (x1) card. If I'm guessing right and Googling correctly, that interface should support something like 7.88 Gbit/s (984.6 MB/s). So, the interface should not be a bottleneck. Yet, looking at those Newegg reviews, I see that even the reviewers who love the thing say it only gets 30 - 40 MB/s moving things around on their internal networks. That's in the same range as what I'd expect to see from a USB 2.0 interface version.

So, I'm in a quandry. Do I spend twice as much for a PCI-E card in the hopes of higher speed? Or, do I spend half as much for the USB 2.0 version? Are there actual benchmarks out there somewhere that my Google-fu can't find?

EDIT -- I'm adding some links to help find these things:

Silly Devices (802.11ac Devices with a USB 2.0 Interface):

• NETGEAR A6200
• D-Link DWA-182

802.11a/b/g/n Devices with a PCI-E Interface (just as fast as above):

• Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205
• Intel 2200BNHMWDTX

802.11ac Devices with a USB 3.0 Interface:

• Amped Wireless ACA 1 (not yet available)
• Trendnet's TEW-805UB (not yet available)

802.11ac Devices with a PCI-E Interface (currently, about the same speed as all of the above):

• Asus PCE-AC66

 

[stevech]

Problem with PCI bus WiFi cards is that often, the antennas stick out of the back of a PC tower and that puts them in a low and RF-obstructed location.

Better is simply a USB extension cord and a USB WiFi adapter (large may be better).

Best is a WiFi to ethernet client bridge. Place it high and clear. Connect it to PC via short cat5 cable.

 

[DaveLessnau]

One of the neat things about the Asus PCE-AC66 is that the antenna is remote. From the product page:

"The three detachable antennas of the PCE-AC66 can be placed remotely via bundled extension cables. A magnetized stand also comes in the box, which can easily attach to various surfaces for more placement options."

So, hopefully, the antenna positioning won't be a problem (I can't find any information about the length of those extension cables).

The problem with a bridge is that I need to connect just two separate computers (different rooms) to the network. The wireless router will be at one end of the house, one computer in the middle of the house, and the other computer at the other end of the house. So, I'd need two bridges for just two devices. That would be too expensive (buying two of the PCI-E cards already hurts, price-wise).

If Netgear had used a USB 3.0 interface on their A6200, there wouldn't be an issue: I'd buy the USB device and, as you noted, use a USB extension for better placement.

Does ANYONE produce (i.e., it's actually buyable) a USB 3.0 802.11ac wireless adapter? I saw that Trendnet had ANNOUNCED one at CES, but it's not buyable anywhere.

 

[stevech]

extension cables ... so long as they're not lossy at 2.4GHz. More than a foot or two, you need big, fat awkward low-loss coax.

So, go with a bridge that does WiFi to Ethernet.

 

[remixedcat]

Wait for the Amped Wireless ACA 1 .ac wifi adapter. They use USB 3.0 so you get full util. of the .ac speeds.

 

[DaveLessnau]

That Amped Wireless ACA 1 sure looks interesting:

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34439_1-57563041/amped-wireless-intros-802.11ac-range-extender-usb-3.0-adapter/

But, like Trendnet's TEW-805UB:

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34439_1-57562249/trendnet-intros-first-usb-3.0-802.11ac-adapter/

there's not even an entry on their own web pages. So, it could be a long time until they're released. I've got a couple of weeks until I'll need the adapters. So, I'll keep an eye out for these.

 

[Shikami]

How about this for antennae issues, and which to use? Personally, I prefer Intel network devices too, and never would prefer to have a USB bridged Ethernet or wireless device unless I have to. Note, these are not 802.11ac devices, but good enough I would think to consider, at least.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106136

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106135

 

[DaveLessnau]

As you noted, those two devices aren't 802.11ac, but at their prices (essentially half the USB 2.0 802.11ac device costs or a third or fourth the cost of the PCE-AC66), they're certainly possibilities. Looking through the reviews on Newegg, they appear to get around 20 - 40 MB/s which is the same as the USB 2.0 802.11ac devices. If I run out of time and have to make a purchase, I guess I can go the 802.11a/b/g/n PCI-E route as a temporary measure.

 

[thiggins]

It is doubtful that you will ever see AC1300 USB adapters, i.e. 3x3. All the USB AC adapters introduced at CES are 2x2, i.e. AC1200 as per popular naming convention.

The only 3x3 AC1300 adapter is the ASUS.

 

[sfx2000]

802.11ac - my only recommendation here would be at present is a host-adapter via GIGe....

Second would be PCIe - but only if enough lanes were present - 8x/16x yep...

over USB2/3 - I wouldn't waste the time/effort - too much overhead...

Should also note that 802.11ac is 5GHz only - so plan accordingly - not much further range right now than 802.11a/n.

 

[remixedcat]

The Amped Wireless ones have extra amplifiers on them though.

 

[stevech]

The Amped Wireless ones have extra amplifiers on them though.

They'd need low noise amplifiers (LNA) on the receiving side as well, to match the transmitting amplifier. Problem: truly low noise LNAs cost too much for consumer products. A cheap LNA adds so much noise to the received signal that it doesn't help. So with the transmitting amps, you wind up with an unbalanced range distance comparing from-WiFi router to the to-WiFi router, especially with low power client devices.

 

[DaveLessnau]

I'm getting closer to the point where I have to choose which adapter to buy. Unfortunately, I haven't found any new information. Is there somewhere on the web that reviews and benchmarks wireless adapters? SmallNetBuilder's last adapter review was this 802.11n Adapter Roundup:

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/31089-80211n-adapter-roundup

way back on 04 March 2010. Everything here focuses on the router side.

 

[DaveLessnau]

Just to put a nail in this, I'll post what I finally ended up doing.

I was really leaning towards the Asus PCE-AC66. But, I just wasn't happy with the little information I could find out there on it. So, in the hope of maximizing my speed and compatibility with my current network (at the expense of a lot more money), I decided to put Netgear R6300s in each of the rooms and configure them in Bridge Mode (leaving my old R6300 as a regular Access Point). My internet access speeds are great. But, my internal networking speeds aren't that good:

Internet: Ping = 57 ms, Download speed = 32.63 Mbps, Upload speed = 15.16 Mbps. Considering that I'm signed up for Cox's Preferred service (which is supposed to give me 25 Mbps) and I'm now getting better than spec, I'm happy.

Internal network: I'm transferring from an SSD in the computer (Windows 8) on one Bridge to the SSD in the computer (Windows 7) on the other Bridge. A single 2.69 GB file transferred at 14.2 MB/s (114 Mbps). 1,223 items totaling 2.93 GB transferred at just about the same speed (13.2 MB/s or 106 Mbps). That's about half the real-world speed I'd expect transferring to a slow USB 2.0 drive. Considering that all of these R6300s are 802.11ac devices, I'd have expected at least two or three times that speed.

Oh well. For my real-world use, this is actually perfectly fine (mostly internet with an occasional internal file transfer). But, I'd really liked to have seen those "Gigabit Wireless" speeds they advertise for 802.11ac. Maybe future driver updates will improve things.

 

[tipstir]

How are you connected to COX. Are you using those Digital Phone through the Cable Modem setup? Do you have a complex inter-workings with bunch of DVR an etc. What's your rated download speed your suppose to get from them?

 

[DaveLessnau]

My connection with Cox is nothing special. I've got their Preferred internet service (which means I'm supposed to get 25 Mbps). From the cable jack, I've got a two-way splitter. One branch feeds my TiVo its audio/video and the other goes to my Motorola SB6120 SURFboard eXtreme Cable Modem. That goes to the Netgear R6300 WiFi Router which is set as the access point. My Roku, Xbox, and the TiVo all connect physically to that R6300 for internet access. That's it. The other two R6300s bridge our computers (wirelessly) to that first R6300.

I really don't understand why I consistently get well above my rated 25 Mbps for internet access. In our previous house (just a mile away), using Cat 6 cables hooked to that first SB6120, we usually got about 22 Mbps (in line with what we were rated for). But, I'm not complaining. That's our primary use of the network.

BTW: I re-ran speedtest.net on all three R6300s this morning and got the following (ping | download | upload):

Access Point: 14 ms, 30 Mbps, 17 Mbps
Bridge 1: 10 ms, 33 Mbps, 18 Mbps
Bridge 2: 15 ms, 33 Mbps, 20 Mbps

The minor variations, I assume, are just normal fluctuations over time.