New AX88U but not getting internet speed over Wifi like I should

[RMerlin]

No idea how I would test that

For quick'n'dirty tests you can use LanBench:

https://chocolatey.org/packages/lanbench

 

[dosborne]

Were the hell did you get that number?

Not sure why you keep bitching at the people who are trying to help you..... Your "colourful" language, particularly in a later post, is not something that many would find encouraging to want to help further.

Maybe just IMO.

Good luck.

 

[Salko]

You could try also disabling MU-MIMO and Beamforming in case your device has compatibility issues with it, see if that helps.

Just tried this and unfortunately no luck I really want to love this router and I even tried exchanging it for another one at the store, but I am seeing the same speeds on it.

 

[RMerlin]

What firmware version are you guys running? After reviewing the source code for the latest 384_6436, I saw that a critical performance/stability fix was missing from the kernel (or to be more accurate, they applied an incomplete patch which introduces a new performance issue). I recommend either going back to 384_6210 for now, or switching to my firmware (which contains the missing kernel fix). Not sure if it's related to the issues some of you are experiencing, but it wouldn't hurt to downgrade for now. Asus is expecting to have a new release out sometime before the end of the month, hopefully with the fix applied.

Only thing for sure is that this router CAN perform better than what some of you are reporting. There are a lot of us (including myself) who have no performance issues with it, so the problem is definitely not with the router's hardware itself.

EDIT: here's another iperf benchmark which I ran between my Huawei P30 phone (connected with a 866 Mbps link, and located one room away from my router, so it was going through one wall) and my desktop (connected over Gigabit Ethernet):

P:\Applications>iperf -c 192.168.10.113 -M 1400 -N -l 64K -t 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.113, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[320] local 192.168.10.100 port 8918 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[320]  0.0-30.0 sec  2.13 GBytes    609 Mbits/sec

And just for the heck of it, if I switch my router to 160 MHz channel width, and I move the phone in the same room as the router. Getting pretty close to the PC's Ethernet being my bottleneck...

P:\Applications>iperf -c 192.168.10.113 -M 1400 -N -l 64K -t 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.113, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[320] local 192.168.10.100 port 9768 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[320]  0.0-30.0 sec  3.13 GBytes    897 Mbits/sec

EDIT2: wanted to see if I could hit the desktop's Ethernet bottleneck, by running four iperf threads. Pretty close to it now, at 924 Mbps.

iperf -c 192.168.10.113 -M 1400 -N -l 64K -t 30 -r  -P 4
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.113, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[388] local 192.168.10.100 port 7541 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[380] local 192.168.10.100 port 7543 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[392] local 192.168.10.100 port 7542 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[384] local 192.168.10.100 port 7540 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
Waiting for server threads to complete. Interrupt again to force quit.
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[388]  0.0-30.0 sec    862 MBytes    241 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[380]  0.0-30.0 sec    636 MBytes    178 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[392]  0.0-30.0 sec    941 MBytes    263 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[384]  0.0-30.0 sec    868 MBytes    243 Mbits/sec
[SUM]  0.0-30.0 sec  3.23 GBytes    924 Mbits/sec

 

[Arct1c0n]

Using latest firmware. Not sure how I feel about going back to older firmware from new and I have no experience with 3rd part firmware flashing and I don't wanna chance bricking my 2 week old $330 router...

 

[Salko]

What firmware version are you guys running? After reviewing the source code for the latest 384_6436, I saw that a critical performance/stability fix was missing from the kernel (or to be more accurate, they applied an incomplete patch which introduces a new performance issue). I recommend either going back to 384_6210 for now, or switching to my firmware (which contains the missing kernel fix). Not sure if it's related to the issues some of you are experiencing, but it wouldn't hurt to downgrade for now. Asus is expecting to have a new release out sometime before the end of the month, hopefully with the fix applied.

Only thing for sure is that this router CAN perform better than what some of you are reporting. There are a lot of us (including myself) who have no performance issues with it, so the problem is definitely not with the router's hardware itself.

EDIT: here's another iperf benchmark which I ran between my Huawei P30 phone (connected with a 866 Mbps link, and located one room away from my router, so it was going through one wall) and my desktop (connected over Gigabit Ethernet):

P:\Applications>iperf -c 192.168.10.113 -M 1400 -N -l 64K -t 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.113, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[320] local 192.168.10.100 port 8918 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[320]  0.0-30.0 sec  2.13 GBytes    609 Mbits/sec

And just for the heck of it, if I switch my router to 160 MHz channel width, and I move the phone in the same room as the router. Getting pretty close to the PC's Ethernet being my bottleneck...

P:\Applications>iperf -c 192.168.10.113 -M 1400 -N -l 64K -t 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.113, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[320] local 192.168.10.100 port 9768 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[320]  0.0-30.0 sec  3.13 GBytes    897 Mbits/sec

EDIT2: wanted to see if I could hit the desktop's Ethernet bottleneck, by running four iperf threads. Pretty close to it now, at 924 Mbps.

iperf -c 192.168.10.113 -M 1400 -N -l 64K -t 30 -r  -P 4
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.10.113, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[388] local 192.168.10.100 port 7541 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[380] local 192.168.10.100 port 7543 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[392] local 192.168.10.100 port 7542 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
[384] local 192.168.10.100 port 7540 connected with 192.168.10.113 port 5001
Waiting for server threads to complete. Interrupt again to force quit.
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[388]  0.0-30.0 sec    862 MBytes    241 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[380]  0.0-30.0 sec    636 MBytes    178 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[392]  0.0-30.0 sec    941 MBytes    263 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
[384]  0.0-30.0 sec    868 MBytes    243 Mbits/sec
[SUM]  0.0-30.0 sec  3.23 GBytes    924 Mbits/sec

I am currently running your latest firmware on my ax88u and on my ac88u. On my ac88u I get full speeds using your firmware which is the strangest thing right now.

 

[Arct1c0n]

I am currently running your latest firmware on my ax88u and on my ac88u. On my ac88u I get full speeds using your firmware which is the strangest thing right now.

Wish I kept my 1900P to test in comparison but I already sold on craigslist to help pay off this AX88U. Starting to regret parting with it....

 

[Deleted member 22229]

Using latest firmware. Not sure how I feel about going back to older firmware from new and I have no experience with 3rd part firmware flashing and I don't wanna chance bricking my 2 week old $330 router...

Flashing Merlin firmware is just as simple as flashing stock. And flashing back to stock is just as simple nothing special needed.

 

[Arct1c0n]

Flashing Merlin firmware is just as simple as flashing stock. And flashing back to stock is just as simple nothing special needed.

Hmm.... I'll have to consider that if the next Asus firmware doesn't fix what merlin mentioned

 

[Arct1c0n]

Just tried this and unfortunately no luck I really want to love this router and I even tried exchanging it for another one at the store, but I am seeing the same speeds on it.

I guess it's a "good" thing we are having same problem as it means it's not hardware based which in "theory" means it should be firmware fixable

 

[Salko]

I guess it's a "good" thing we are having same problem as it means it's not hardware based which in "theory" means it should be firmware fixable

Yeah, It's definitely not hardware-based because I tried exchanging for another but had the same results

 

[sfx2000]

An Intel AC8260 should definitely get more than 300 Mbps however, I get close to 550 Mbps with my own Intel AC7260 in a Thinkpad Yoga 15, however that speed test is run within my LAN (my Internet connection is only 120 Mbps).

With a QCA8065 based Wave2 AP - I'm seeing speeds from 300 to 500 - so it really depends on the client chipset and radio config... realtek USB (Asus USB-56AC) is on the lower end, Broadcom, Intel, and QCA ath10k chips are on the upper end.

iperf3 on internal LAN is a good place to start - if one has more resources, like an Ubuntu box, one can do a web based solution...

https://github.com/librespeed/speedtest

A friendlyarm NanoPI Neo2 is fast enough to be an ethernet based host for both the iperf3 and web based tests, and is fully supported by Armbian...

https://www.armbian.com/nanopi-neo-2/

enjoy...

Note - for iperf3 - this is natively supported in MobaXterm, and one can go to Hurricane's network, as they support iperf3 testing...

https://networktools.he.net/

Good luck, and may the WiForce be with you...

 

[RMerlin]

Hmm.... I'll have to consider that if the next Asus firmware doesn't fix what merlin mentioned

You can safely flash back Asus's 384_6210 on top of your current firmware, like any regular update.

 

[dosborne]

You can safely flash back.......

Although "safe", I'd suggest either loading a configuration file that had been saved form the matching previous firmware revision or performing a reset and manual reconfiguration.

As already mentioned though, flashing "back" and older firmware version is identical to flashing 3rd party firmware as the step involved is simply selecting one file (asus firmware) versus another file (merlin firmware).

 

[Greg72]

No idea how I would test that

Use iperf.

 

[Greg72]

Wtf!? This model is rated a lot higher then 866!

In laboratory setting it is rated at the speeds in a “Quiet” environment. Real world, there is too much interference from everything that is within the RF spectrums.

This discussion pops up way too much. The 866.7 is just theoretical for Ethernet and Wifi 1gbps adapters.

https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html

 

[Arct1c0n]

Fvcking marketing bull

In laboratory setting it is rated at the speeds in a “Quiet” environment. Real world, there is too much interference from everything that is within the RF spectrums.

This discussion pops up way too much. The 866.7 is just theoretical for Ethernet and Wifi 1gbps adapters.

https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html

Farking marketing bullshiting as usual, why should I be surprised anymore, so no wonder my note 8 chokes. Thank God I have very few wifi devices and cat7 wire everything else in my house

 

[Frankflash]

Fvcking marketing bull

Farking marketing bullshiting as usual, why should I be surprised anymore, so no wonder my note 8 chokes. Thank God I have very few wifi devices and cat7 wire everything else in my house

yeap every thing is it's just a way of them making money and telling lies to every one