How to use test results to find router that will penetrate recesses of my old house

[thecave]

I apologize for the vagueness of the questions that follow, but would appreciate some input on how to interpret the test results pages to compare routers range.

The rankings are, understandably, focused on overall throughput, but I'm less concerned with overall throughput than getting decent throughput in locations other than the room that router is in.

[I live in an old (1900s) house that doesn't seem to be very wireless friendly. Reception in the bedroom, which is only one room away from router location, is horrible. (Admittedly using a horrible router right now -- the one in the comcast modem.)]

I realize there is no substitute for getting a router in my home and seeing how it actually works, but would like to make an intelligent choice about which one to try first, and was hoping to use results here to make that choice.

The results that seem most relevant seem to be limited to four routers at a time. Specifically,

• "performance vs attenuation" (after selecting one of the "Download Profile" tests)
• "throughput vs. location" (after selecting one of the Downlink or Uplink tests )

(Nice feature I just discovered: once you are looking at one of these results, you can switch between different tests for the four selected routers without going back to the larger list of routers.)

As a longtime reader of this site, I understand both sets of test results, but am not quite sure of the real world implication: should I focus on performance in location "F"? for example.

Location test sometimes suggests a different relative ranking to attenuation test. Take for example, Linksys E8350 vs. Asus RT87U. The former looks significantly better in location F (49.4 vs. 17.5) even though throughput is lower for virtually every level of attenuation .(See here: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tool...rtac87u/1786-linksys-e8350/1920-asus-rtac3200 and http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tool...rtac87u/1786-linksys-e8350/1920-asus-rtac3200)

Also, I believe that results from different test versions can't be meaningfully compared? is this correct?

Any suggestions for a methodology would be most appreciated. Or, if you just want to chime in with what you believe would be the best choice for $150 or less, feel free.

Thanks

 

[thiggins]

Let's take an example from the Router Ranker
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/rankers/router/result/1234-netgear-r7000-nighthawk

Average wireless throughput rankings are based on the 2.4 and 5 GHz up and downlink average benchmarks

Maximum wireless throughput rank uses the same benchmark, but with the Maximum option selected (next to the benchmark). This is usually the same as Location A, which is the same as the 0 dB profile measurement.

Range rankings use the F location measurement for 2.4 GHz and D location for 5 GHz. These equate to the 60 dB measurement for 2.4 GHz and 39 dB measurement for 5 GHz.

Generally, the Range ranking or benchmark is a good indication of routers that will provide wider coverage.

But looking at the rankings and benchmarks you will notice that no router is best for both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, up and downlink. It's just the nature of the beast.

I need to look into having the Ranker show a sub-rank for wired and wireless performance. That could ease the selection process....

 

[thecave]

Thats very helpful. Thanks.