NETGEAR R6250 reviewed

[Fraoch]

In the review, it's stated:

Since the R6250's 5 GHz radio is the same AC1300 class radio in AC1750 class routers, I pulled the top-ranking ASUS RT-AC66U into the 5 GHz comparisons. The downlink profile below shows the R6250 besting the other two routers with 361 Mbps at 0 dB attenuation, our "Location A" equivalent point. As signal levels drop, the NETGEAR generally tracks above the Linksys.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...gear-r6250-smart-wifi-router-reviewed?start=3

(the "5 GHz Downlink Throughput vs. Attenuation" chart)

Yet the chart below that text does not show the RT-AC66U results, only the NETGEAR and the Linksys EA6300.

Just an error? It would be interesting to see if the RT-AC66U is better over longer distances...I expect it would be.

 

[thiggins]

Caching problem. Fixed now. Clicking on the image would have given you a slightly larger correct version. Thanks for pointing out the error.

 

[Fraoch]

No problem Tim - I see it now.

 

[konikofi]

Consolidated Benchmark Summary

Hey Tim, nice review...the R6250 looks promising...one question:
Why does the consolidated benchmark summary for 5GHz downlink show 184.8Mbps yet the Throughput vs Attenuation for 5GHz downlink shows a max of 361Mbps at 0dB. I thought the summary result was the "highest throughput benchmark" as stated in the consolidated charts explanation...did I miss something?

Also, another metric that may be useful for your tests is max usable wireless clients supported by the AP. Although most small net users will probably use just a dozen or two clients, I've seen in my testing that the number of clients an AP can reliably handle varies significantly by manufacturer, frequency, attenuation, security and traffic mix among other factors.

 

[thiggins]

I know this is a bit confusing. From the paragraph above the graphic.

The retest Benchmark Summary below from the new Consolidated benchmark process shows the average of throughput measurements made in all test locations.

To see the maximum throughput, choose the benchmark chart, then use the view selector next to the benchmark. Here's 5 GHz downlink Maximum. There you see the 360.6 that is rounded to 361 Mbps in the plot

I agree it would be nice to test the maximum clients routers support. But I have no practical way to do this. There is also a difference between what a product physically supports and what is reasonable for good user experience. As you note, this depends on a lot of factors.

 

[rickk]

Simultaneous Storage + WiFi performance

Thanks for the detailed review. It seems there was not a test
to check the storage performance over WiFi, i.e NTFS/FAT read/write
performance when used as a NAS over 2.4/5 Ghz WiFi. Please
let me know if these results are indeed present but I missed them.
Two reasons such tests would be of interest are:

(1) USB 3.0 interference into 2.4 Ghz operation that you noted.
I am sure many of your readers are curious how good a job each
of the router vendors has done in mitigating the USB 3.0 impact and
whether they can meaningfully use 2.4 Ghz while the NAS is active.

(2) The storage throughput of 10-30 MB/s is in the 50-300 mbps
range of wireless throughputs. So it is unclear a priori, whether
storage or WiFi will be limiting when these products are used as a
WiFi-NAS, and whether there is a more subtle interaction
between WiFi and storage that might limit throughput more
than the weaker of the two.

Cheers,
Rick

 

[thiggins]

Thanks for the detailed review. It seems there was not a test to check the storage performance over WiFi, i.e NTFS/FAT read/write
performance when used as a NAS over 2.4/5 Ghz WiFi. Please
let me know if these results are indeed present but I missed them.
Two reasons such tests would be of interest are:

(1) USB 3.0 interference into 2.4 Ghz operation that you noted.
I am sure many of your readers are curious how good a job each
of the router vendors has done in mitigating the USB 3.0 impact and
whether they can meaningfully use 2.4 Ghz while the NAS is active.

I probably should at least temporarily add some sort of check. It won't be exhaustive, however.

(2) The storage throughput of 10-30 MB/s is in the 50-300 mbps
range of wireless throughputs. So it is unclear a priori, whether
storage or WiFi will be limiting when these products are used as a
WiFi-NAS, and whether there is a more subtle interaction
between WiFi and storage that might limit throughput more
than the weaker of the two.

Weakest (slowest) link in the chain applies. That's why we test wireless throughput separately from wired and test USB storage performance with a wired connection.