Please remind me why I bought an Archer C8 over an Archer C5/7

[aviphysics]

Went to Fry's to pickup an Archer C5 and the C8 was only a little more and had a USB 3.0 port (not that I ever have used a router for file storage).

Though SNB ranks all three very high, looking at all the states, it isn't clearly to me how a C8 is a substantially better router or wifi access point. Not sure if I wasted $30 getting one over the other. For that matter, from the SNB numbers, it isn't clear to me how a C7 is better than a C5. What, if anything, am I missing? Am I reading the numbers wrong?

That said, I don't have any complaints about the C8. The GUI was usable, all my computers/phones connected without a hitch, and T-Mobile's wifi calling works great with it (didn't work so well with my last router).

 

[thiggins]

You have to tell me which numbers you are looking at. The most complete view of performance is with the throughput vs. attenuation plots. Here are the three routers compared

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tool...7v2/1733-tplink-archerc8/1971-tplink-archerc5

Unless a manufacturer really screws up the design, routers of the same class tend to perform more alike than different. Each time you add a stream, i.e. 2x2 > 3x3, you may get higher throughput at locations with medium strength signals due to the receive gain from the additional antenna. But it's unlikely the signal will reach farther.

In the case of the ORIGINAL C5, the review reveals it was actually a crippled C7, so performance was very similar. The C5 V2 is a true AC1200 2x2 design, so may be a step back in performance.

I don't really know why TP-LINK produced the C8. It's an AC1750 class router, same as the C7, using a Broadcom design vs. the C7's Qualcomm.

To your main point, the consumer WiFi market has one primary marketing tool, the number on the box. Bigger is always better, just like horsepower in a car or peak watts in an amplifier

Except it's not. You only get the bigger number (actually more like half of it) when you have a device that also supports the # of streams and technology that the router supports. And most devices don't meet these criterial. Smartphones, the dominant device, have at most 2x2 designs (AC1200 class) and will NEVER achieve the numbers.

Sounds like your purchase is working well for you and that's what counts.

 

[aviphysics]

@thiggins the main chart numbers that confused me were those for 5ghz/2.4ghz throughput. It seemed like it didn't matter whether a router was AC1200 or better. Are they all just tested on one or two streems, or is there something else I am missing?

Is there a current use case where a C7 or C8 would offer a substantial benefit over a C5, or is the C5 the current sweet spot for AC routers?

 

[thiggins]

Version 9 uses a 2x2 test client. Version 8 uses a 3x3 AC1900 test client.

 

[System Error Message]

stick with the C8, its definitely better since as you said it was a bit more. So it sounds like the prices were about the same which makes it worth the buy. Another reason to use usb3 isnt just for storage but also for providing power (like charging your phone or using a raspberry pi).