1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice

Welcome To SNBForums

SNBForums is a community for anyone who wants to learn about or discuss the latest in wireless routers, network storage and the ins and outs of building and maintaining a small network.

If you'd like to post a question, simply register and have at it!

While you're at it, please check out SmallNetBuilder for product reviews and our famous Router Charts, Ranker and plenty more!

TP Link Archer C2600 Reviewed

Discussion in 'Wireless Article Discussions' started by moron+genius, Oct 25, 2015.

  1. moron+genius

    moron+genius Occasional Visitor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    32
    hi SNB will there be any review on TP Link Archer C2600 coming soon? Interested in this product but would like to know it's performance before buying. Thanks.
     
  2. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,789
    Within 2 weeks.
     
    Hydro likes this.
  3. moron+genius

    moron+genius Occasional Visitor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    32
    Great! Looking forward to it thanks!
     
  4. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,789
    discomega, Hydro and L&LD like this.
  5. TeutonJon78

    TeutonJon78 New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks for getting the review done.

    It seems strange that they would only use 32 MB of flash relative to the competitors 128 MB. Is that spec verified?

    I find it odd they are making such different options between their new routers in the firmware. You'd think that most of those features would be generic across their products as well (like port access control, the UPnP/DLNA server).
     
  6. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,789
    TP-LINK verified the RAM and flash capacities.

    Functional differences are due to underlying differences in the base firmware provided by QCA and Broadcom.
     
    TeutonJon78 likes this.
  7. TeutonJon78

    TeutonJon78 New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Well, that's an slightly odd choice by them then. For this cost of the router, I can't image it would cost that much more to add a little extra flash.
     
  8. TheLostSwede

    TheLostSwede Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Messages:
    131
    So normally routers use a compressed OS image that is uncompressed into RAM. This generally works fine, but it's also why it's so slow to save settings on many routers. This thing seems to be using SPI flash as well, which is comparatively slow to something like parallel NAND or eMMC, but it's easier to implement and usually costs less.
     
  9. TeutonJon78

    TeutonJon78 New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Nothing like extreme cost savings on a premium router. o_O
     
    TheLostSwede likes this.
  10. pege63

    pege63 Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    958
    Location:
    Sweden, AngelIsland
    Very nice and good review ;):):D
     
  11. sfx2000

    sfx2000 Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    13,988
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Many smartphones do the same thing with the firmware image to maximize space for user apps...

    In any event, since NAND cannot execute in place (NOR can, but NAND can't), we pop the image into RAM on bootup - with a compressed image it's actually faster to do that than to copy an uncompressed image over...
     
  12. TheLostSwede

    TheLostSwede Regular Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Messages:
    131
    I didn't say it was bad, simply explaining what was going on in this case. But it also means that it's possible to cut corners to save money. I wish eMMC would be more common in routers, as you can execute in place in eMMC as well. Problem with NOR is the capacity, 128MB is considered huge and costs a fair bit of money, whereas 512MB of NAND is at the most $3-4 for some good quality SLC stuff, or about the same as 4-8GB of eMMC...
     
    sfx2000 likes this.
  13. moron+genius

    moron+genius Occasional Visitor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks for the review. Probably will go for R7000 since this C2600 does not perform equal or better. However I'm wondering R7000 performance is better because the client is another R7000, better compatibility?
     
  14. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,789
    That's a possibility. But the R7000 bridge used as test client has had its firmware frozen since it was put into use.
     
  15. Deejay2k1

    Deejay2k1 New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Hi snb-user.

    I read the review and also a couple other reviews and could not find out if the router in supposed to be used as an Access Point with its default software?
    Could anyone answer this for me?

    Also as maron+genius said is the R7000 really better than he C2600 comapred to its wireless performance?
     
  16. thiggins

    thiggins Mr. Easy Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    13,789
  17. Charlie_Croker

    Charlie_Croker New Around Here

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    8
    I am using one of these in AP mode, secret is to make sure you connect to your LAN via LAN port and not WAN port, which caught me out after years of using Asus routers as APs.
    1. Network/Internet set Dynamic IP.
    2 Network/DHCP Server untick "Enable DHCP server" box. And thats it :)


    Network consists of:Ubuiqiti ERL, Asus AC3200, AC87, AC 66U and Archer C2600

    All working well and the Archer is a great access point ;)
     
    Jag likes this.
  18. JerseyBiker

    JerseyBiker New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    South Jersey Shore
    I would also like to know if the C2600 is better than the R7000 or not. I have owned a R7000 for about a year and a half. It's really screwed up right now. It constantly and randomly disconnects device and I have to go through all kinds of rigamaroles to get them reconnected. It's been a couple on months now and nothing I tried works to resolve the issue. The Netgears have only a 1 year warranty. So I ordered the C2600 for 188.00 on an Amazon 1 day sale yesterday. Probably wouldn't have even thought of the C2600 if not for the sale ad. It's scheduled to be delivered tomorrow but I already have buyers remorse. I do not want to go backwards in performance. So is the C2600 a downgrade from the R7000? Also any suggestions in the $150 to $250 range that is at least equal to the R7000 in performance? Thanks
     
  19. microchip

    microchip Very Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Belgium
    Why do you think the C2600 has less performance than and/or is less "better" than the R7000? And what kind of "performance" are you referring to? Did you read the review of the C2600?
     
  20. JerseyBiker

    JerseyBiker New Around Here

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    South Jersey Shore
    Thank you very much for the fast reply didn't, expect to hear back so soon. I did read the review but most of it is over my head. I know this site is geared towards business networking but I have a home network. I found this site searching for reviews of the c2600. My concern is that one of the comments here seems to imply that the c2600 not as good as the R7000. I assume that person's opinion is based on the review or maybe other sources. As far as performance I'm referring to wifi speeds and range. I guess I should have searched the reviews before ordering. There are only 8 reviews on Amazon. Before I open the box I want to be sure I'm getting something that is at least as good as what I have.