Poll: E4200 vs. WNDR4000

[Aqualung]

Okay folks, which one would you rather buy (assuming you're interested in the features they both advertise)? Now, of course, most of you wireless network aficionados will probably say "one is better at this, and the other one at that, so, dude, you're comparing apples w/oranges!" Alright, just think of this question as kinda of an overall assessment from the point of view of the run'o'the mill home user, and please spare me the finessing etc. etc. etc.

Many thanks.

 

[greenrhyno]

wndr4000 for me. Tried them both. e4200 speeds were never very good to our iPhones and the signal would seriously degrade over time to the point our 15 Mbps connection was translating to less than 1 Mbps on the iPhone. wndr4000 has stayed consistent, no speed drop off for the month it has been hooked up. I also like the web based menu/controls better on the wndr4000. We get good range on both 2.4 and 5.0 band for our 3 bedroom house.

 

[njweb]

Another vote for the E4200 given the test results right here.
The WNDR4000 was worse on both wireless performance on average on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz and also WLAN to LAN throughput.

My own experience with the E4200, which now also supports IPv6 as promised (just get the latest 1.0.02 firmware - latest as of this posting), is great in terms of performance so I have no reason to doubt Tim's results.

Reliability is a HUGE factor for me. My E4200 has not dropped my wireless connection once in months (paired with a Rosewill RNX-N2X - make sure to only install the Rosewill driver and NOT to install the optional wireless client utility that comes with the Rosewill - the optional utility did cause problems with my E4200 until I uninstalled it; everything has been flawless since).
The WNDR4000's reliability may be fine too, but given the performance results the E4200 comes out ahead in my opinion.
Keep in mind I have no brand allegiance - I was perfectly ready to return my E4200 and get a WNDR4000 if it had been better, especially given at the time (over a month ago) IPv6 was not supported yet on the E4200.
In fact Staples did not have it at the time when my E4200 return period was about to expire, otherwise I was going to try it.
The WNDR4000 test results were posted here shortly thereafter and I figured it was fate that the WNDR400 was not sold in-store yet at Staples when I had gone before Tim's WNDR4000 review came out (despite their web site saying it was available already in-store at the time).

 

[stevech]

What I don't get is that the WiFi experience is governed by the transmitter power of the client as much as that of the WiFi router/AP. When one compares user experiences, seems it can be apples-to-oranges, e.g., if someone compares a really low powered smart phone WiFi with a really disadvantaged internal antenna to another user's experience using a laptop or desktop with a vastly superior transmitter/better antenna.


In consumer networking and IPV6
Is any significant ISP considering going to IPV6 in the next few years?

Of course on the LAN side of our NATing routers, IPV4 is more than adequate, right?

 

[thope]

Bought both, used just as access points as I already have a pfsense router. I find netgear has better maximum throuphput almost 25 mbps with 5300(intel) E4200 generated wndr3700 type speeds (around 16 ~ 17). As far as 2.4 ghz goes E4200 most definately has better range, simply the ssid penetrates much farther. haven't done a speedtest as I usually turn the 2.4 off because the only use I have for wireless is superfast wireless access from my laptop (all my other computers have gigabit lan.) also, wireless n range sucks my cheap buffao dd-wrt hack is freakishly good at providing range for iphones and all.