Dual-band N client/adaptor

[twwen2]

Great site, love the in-depth reviews. It's refreshing to see some real networking reviews where the plastics are cracked open and innards revealed!

I'm the market for an 802.11n client/adaptor to use with my soon-to-arrive Airport Extreme. I'll be running an 802.11g network from my Netgear DG834Gv4 to the household laptops, and an 802.11n network to a few desktop PCs from the Airport Extreme (as an Access Point - in 5GHz mode).

If my understanding is correct i can configure the setup so that the DG834G will handle all the routing/firewall and 802.11g duties, leaving the Airport Extreme to concentrate on the N network.

So far i've been unable to find a PCI-based dual-band adaptor, the only options are these USB dongles:

DLink DWA-160: http://www.dlink.com.au/Products.aspx?Sec=1&Sub1=11&Sub2=19&PID=377

Netgear WNDA3100: http://netgear.com.au/Products/Adap...NAdapters/WNDA3100.aspx?detail=Specifications

Linksys WUSB600N: http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...525540&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper

As the Airport Extreme uses the Atheros dual-band xSPAN chipset i presume the DWA-160 or WNDA3100 would suit the job; as both use Atheros chipsets and radios. Is one preffered over the other, and how does the linksys differ? Are there any PCI-based adaptors around and would they offer increased performance (3T3R for instance)?

Any advice is very much appreciated.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[thiggins]

Hi Tom,

Looks like you have done your homework. Of the adapters you mention, I would go with the NETGEAR WNDA3100, since I have had problems with the earlier DWA-160.

I think the WUSB600N uses a Broadcom chipset.

There are no PCI dual-band adapters, probably because PCI as a bus standard is fading. USB adapters have the advantage of more flexible placement vs. PCI because you can stick them on the end of a USB cable.

 

[RamGuy]

How come there is no PCI-Express versions then?
I thought the entire "NIC on USB" is somewhat unstable because of the entire usb-interface having some really unstable speeds itself?

Also the board of the NIC along with the antennas are rather small inside of that tiny stick? Have always heard that the range and stability of PCI / PCI-Express network cards has always been better than the USB versions?

 

[thiggins]

There are few Express Card (which is based on PCIe) Draft 11n adapters, because of slow rate of adoption by notebook manufacturers. Most notebooks have built-in wireless adapters, which now tend to be mini-PCIe cards.

Intel's 4965AGN, 5100 and 5300 are popular draft 11n PCIe adapters, but mount internally.

USB 2.0 has plenty of bandwidth to support draft 11n speeds. There is more limited space for antennas and generally only two antennas are used. But many notebooks also have two antennas.

Go look at the Throughput vs. Location or Throughput vs. Path Loss charts in the Wireless Charts. I have gotten good range with both USB and CardBus adapters. Generally, however, 5GHz range is shorter than 2.4GHz.

 

[geo]

I don't know that I'd say USB 2.0 has "plenty" of bandwidth for 802.11n. I read it as just barely enuf if you're not simultaneously stressing your USB chipset with some other task at the same time. The problem is USB 2.0 has much the same issue as the wireless router specs. . . the "real world" speed of actual chipset implementations is but a fraction of the spec speed. It's pretty typical to really get about 100Mb/s transfer speeds over USB 2.0. Is that enough for all current 802.11n nics? Yes, but not with so much to spare as to make me feel all warm 'n fuzzy about it.

At any rate, I'll be happier about USB nic's when USB 3.0 hits the street.

Edit: Recent USB 2.0 desktop chipsets seem to have improved significantly since the last time I looked at this. Recent ones seem to be doing roughly 200-250mb/s, which would indeed be a comfortable margin. Not sure about laptops.

 

[twwen2]

Hi Tom,

Looks like you have done your homework. Of the adapters you mention, I would go with the NETGEAR WNDA3100, since I have had problems with the earlier DWA-160.

Well most of what i know is from reading this site.

I know you had driver issues with the DLink, were those the problems you mention? Do you think they would have been fixed since then? I ask because the DLink is $10 cheaper here in Oz.

 

[Q-BZ]

Hi Tom,

Looks like you have done your homework. Of the adapters you mention, I would go with the NETGEAR WNDA3100, since I have had problems with the earlier DWA-160.

I'd be interested to know what Revision B DWA 160 has over Revision A DWA 160 if you ever get a crack at it.

 

[twwen2]

I'd be interested to know what Revision B DWA 160 has over Revision A DWA 160 if you ever get a crack at it.

There's a revision B? Interesting...

Thanks thiggins for your help btw.

 

[Q-BZ]

There's a revision B? Interesting...

http://www.dlink.com/products/support.asp?pid=656&sec=1#drivers

Yup.

For me, if I go the Dlink route, it's either going to be a 655 or a 4500 and either that DWA 160 or these:

http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=549 +
http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=545

 

[twwen2]

That DWA-556 looks good with the three antenae. Unfortunately it's not dual-band.

 

[Q-BZ]

That DWA-556 looks good with the three antenae. Unfortunately it's not dual-band.

I know if I went that way I'd simply be abandoning the idea of dual band for now and I can live with that since it appears that all the manufacterers have gimped the 5GHz performance power wise anyways and that's why we keep seeing Tim and others complain about the reduced range of 5GHz.

Ideally, I'd love to go 5GHz N all the way through, but it just doesn't seem viable right now.

If I go for the DWA 556/Antenna setup, then obviously I wouldn't bother with the DGL 4500 or DIR 825 and I'd simply go for the DIR 655 and call it a day.

I guess if I understand it right, somewhere down the road I could always add 5GHz later on whether it would be via a DAP 1522 or whatever its successor may be down the road or some other simillar device. I just don't see the point at present if it's so underpowered anyways. I need great performance and I need great range.

^^ Did I get that right?

 

[twwen2]

<snip>
^^ Did I get that right?

I think so.
My understanding was that the 5GHz signal has reduced range due to the fact that the higher frequency experiences increased attenuation through obstacles. Is that correct Tim?

 

[thiggins]

My understanding was that the 5GHz signal has reduced range due to the fact that the higher frequency experiences increased attenuation through obstacles. Is that correct Tim?

Yes. I'm also told that lower-quality power amplifiers may play a part in the reduced 5GHz range, too.

 

[twwen2]

Yes. I'm also told that lower-quality power amplifiers may play a part in the reduced 5GHz range, too.

Hmm, that's a concern. Oh well, mine only has to travel ~12 feet or so with one wall+closet to get through, so hopefully i'll be ok. I need the 5GHz band to work because there's up to 4 other wireless-g networks in the vicinity.

 

[twwen2]

Well i bit the bullet today and have ordered the Netgear WNDA3100. Shops here just hiked prices (it goes for $120AUD all round), so i jumped on ebay and scored a refurbished one for $50AUD shipped. Gotta love eBay!

When i get it and set everything up i'll report back with my results.

Cheers

 

[osx86ed]

Netgear WNDA3100 USB Wireless N Dualband 2.4/5GHz adapter not compatible with Mac OS

Regarding the Netgear WNDA3100 (AKA WNDA3100-100NAR) USB WiFi Adapter:

This adapter is using the Marvell TopDog chipset and until Marvel or someone with a lot of time on their hands writes a Mac OS X driver, this device will never work.

The NETGEAR WNDA3100 is a IEEE 802.11a/b/g, IEEE802.11n Draft USB 2.0 RangeMax Dual Band Wireless-N Adapter supporting Up to 300Mbps Data Rates

For more info see:
http://www.marvell.com/products/wireless/topdog.jsp
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Adapters/RangeMaxWirelessNAdapters/WNDA3100.aspx

 

[twwen2]

Interesting. I use it with Vista.

I'm running it with the Airport Extreme N, and it's going great.
Haven't actually tested the throughput, but the connection is pretty good.