E4200 vs. WNDR4000 - Tim's tests for wireless E4200 better overall at long distance

[njweb]

Re. WNDR4000 vs. E4200 tests by Smallnetbuilder.com'sTim Higgins:

I am personally glad I held off with returning my E4200 (on the last day of the return period when I noticed Staples showed the WNDR4000 as 'available' in store) and trying the WNDR4000.
They did not have the WNDR4000 in stock after all at the two Staples locations I tried last week when my return period was expiring.
I therefore held off since I did not want to deal with an online return of the WNDR4000 in case I preferred the E4200 (which I have been extremely happy with overall in terms of reliability and wireless performance, still using initial firmware for now).

Now Tim has made the decision easier for me at least, given the comparative 2.4 GHz performance in location E where the E4200 trounced the WNDR4000 - 26.1 Mbps vs. 0.7 Mbps on 20 MHz bandwidth (similar results on 40 MHz bandwidth).


Detailed Results from Tim's charts:
Location
A B C D E F
Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200) 69.1 64.0 62.8 61.7 26.1 23.6
Test Notes for Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200):
- Intel Wi-Fi Link 5300 AGN. 2.4GHz set to Chan 1, 5GHz set to Chan 36
NETGEAR N750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router (WNDR4000) 64.6 61.4 63.0 60.7 0.7 18.6


The very poor location E performance of the WNDR4000 is repeated on the 40 MHz bandwidth. This time location F performance is also much worse on the WNDR4000:

Product Location
A B C D E F
Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200) 84.0 76.3 78.6 67.7 31.1 20.2
Test Notes for Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200):
- Intel Wi-Fi Link 5300 AGN. 2.4GHz set to Chan 1, 5GHz set to Chan 36
NETGEAR N750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router (WNDR4000) 73.9 70.5 68.3 62.9 0.0 1.7



The E4200 also has the edge in 5.0 GHz overall (all but one location) and again location D where it matters most it was 25.2 vs 16.4 for the WNDR4000 on 20 MHz bandwidth):

Location
A B C D E F
Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200) 67.5 62.3 43.4 25.2 0.0 0.0
Test Notes for Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200):
- Intel Wi-Fi Link 5300 AGN. 2.4GHz set to Chan 1, 5GHz set to Chan 36
NETGEAR N750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router (WNDR4000) 58.6 58.4 57.9 16.4 0.0 0.0
Test Notes for NETGEAR N750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router (WNDR4000):
Test client: Intel Wi-Fi Link 5300 AGN, Win 7 13.4.0.9 driver


To be thorough and unbiased, the WNDR4000 DID do better on 5 GHz 40 MHz bandwidth in location D :

A B C D E F
Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200) 78.7 70.1 46.2 22.5 0.0 0.0
Test Notes for Cisco Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router (Linksys E4200):
- Intel Wi-Fi Link 5300 AGN. 2.4GHz set to Chan 1, 5GHz set to Chan 36
NETGEAR N750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router (WNDR4000) 79.5 69.8 60.2 28.7 0.0 0.0
Test Notes for NETGEAR N750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router (WNDR4000):
Test client: Intel Wi-Fi Link 5300 AGN, Win 7 13.4.0.9 driver


So for 3 of the 4 tests above, the E4200 did far better in the difficult locations (D, E and F for 2.4 GHz and location D only for 5 GHz - Locations E and F are essentially unreachable / 0 Mbps throughput at 5 GHZ for any router to date, it seems).
The above just discusses wireless performance and that is most important to me in my wireless router based on my needs.
(I did also notice in a post on one of the Netgear forums that Tim's tests from WAN to LAN throughput on the E4200 came out with much higher numbers than the WNDR4000).

I'll read the full WNDR400 review tonight, but I am happy that the E4200 did so well in the tough locations in the majority of the wireless downstream tests.
I was fully prepared to sell it and get the WNDR4000 if the latter had done better - I honestly have no brand allegiance and want the best product for the money, although I do like the E4200's looks much more.
I paid $149.99 on sale for my E4200 (not full $179.99 retail) so the price is the same as the WNDR4000.

Thanks Tim for these in depth reviews! The mainstream sites are far less detailed and don't do nearly as much in terms of useful real world multiple location tests (6 in your case per band per bandwidth).

Tim summarized in in his review summary:
Cons • 2.4 GHz low-signal performance.

That is one of the biggest things I look for in a router.

 

[Oakind]

I posted this in in another tread, but it dovetails with this post too.

I just returned my WNDR 4000 today to Staples. I got it for $118 and was stoked about the great deal.

Uptime was solid, but the wireless signal strength wasn't there. My 4 yr old Westell from ATT has a stronger signal throughout the house. And that Is why I upgraded - or thought I was.

THe NAS worked perfectly (I really Liked this feature). As did the guest network. Setup was real easy. The 4000 runs fairly hot.

The 5ghz band is pretty useless unless your within 20 feet or in the same room, and the 2.4 ghz performance was very disapointing. Enough so, that I would switch back to the Westell for wireless signal strength.

I was hoping for some decent signal strength in my BR which is only 30 feet away, but 4000 couldnt push it's signal that well.