Router for 4K HDR streaming

[Ars]

Hi,

I'm looking for router that can stream 4K HDR videos (~100 Gb file size) from external HDD (DLNA) to Smart TV over 5Ghz WiFi. Additionally it will be used for typical stuff like youtube etc with total 5-7 devices in ~70 sqm. ISP 200mbit/sec.
I would prefer recognized wireless brands like ASUS or Netgear.

At the moment below options are available:
ASUS AC66U B1 - 115 Eur
Netgear R7800 - 180 Eur
ASUS AC86U - 180 Eur

I'm leaning towards AC66U B1, unless there is a chance it won't be able to such streaming task and more power is needed.

No need in future proofing, just want to get best bang for the buck today.

 

[L&LD]

In that smaller home area, the RT-AC66U_B1 with RMerlin firmware will be more than enough if it can be placed properly (centrally) in the area(s) to be covered for the 5 to 7 indicated devices.

 

[microchip]

I'd go for the R7800 or AC86U as both have better range than the AC66U B1. The R7800 has a slighly better range than the AC86U but its GUI is not that good, though you have options like Voxel/DD-WRT/OpenWrt. Of course, nothing beats yet RMerlin for the AC86U

As for streaming in local LAN, there won't be much difference as LAN traffic is switched, not routed

 

[Ars]

I'd go for the R7800 or AC86U as both have better range than the AC66U B1. The R7800 has a slighly better range than the AC86U but its GUI is not that good, though you have options like Voxel/DD-WRT/OpenWrt. Of course, nothing beats yet RMerlin for the AC86U

As for streaming in local LAN, there won't be much difference as LAN traffic is switched, not routed

I forgot to specify that streaming will be via WiFi. Does it make any difference?
The range is not so important, because the most demanding devices are very close to router.

 

[microchip]

I forgot to specify that streaming will be via WiFi. Does it make any difference?
The range is not so important, because the most demanding devices are very close to router.

It does make a bit of a difference, but traffic is still switched, not routed. That said, if you can (and if I was you) I'll go wired for streaming. WiFi is mostly for portable devices. I don't think a TV/BD-Player is portable. WiFi can also become unreliable in case of interference leading to getting buffering messages on your streaming devices/TV

In the end, you'll have to test to see how it goes for you. If it works decently on WiFi, then use it. I still trust a wired connection more over WiFi, though

 

[ColinTaylor]

If you really want the router to be a DLNA server then all the options will be bad. Routers make for very poor DLNA servers and usually can't transcode on the fly. Without transcoding you are dependent on your media files being in a compatible format and the DLNA server having matching profiles for the client.

 

[microchip]

If you really want the router to be a DLNA server then all the options will be bad. Routers make for very poor DLNA servers and usually can't transcode on the fly. Without transcoding you are dependent on your media files being in a compatible format and the DLNA server having matching profiles for the client.

True, but some people think it is convenient to use the router as DLNA instead of having a full NAS/PC running all the time

I agree that routers are not very well suited. I use routers only for core functionality to route and switch traffic. My movie/music collection is on a custom-built PC that acts as a NAS stuffed with disks with DLNA and NFS running. From there I stream to my NV Shield TV