Why isn't this a great idea?

[energized]

OK, I am pretty much a newbie, with extremely limited knowledge about the routers.

But, I can do math fairly quick, and at $400 for the excellent router with tri-band, that's twice as much as the $200 very good router with dual-band.

So why not have two $200 very good routers, and have "dual dual-band" where you'd have two 2.4ghz signals, which is one more than the single 2.4ghz signam from the excellent router?

 

[thiggins]

It's a fine idea, as long as you are happy with the lower maximum bandwidth 2.4 GHz provides. Set the second router up as an access point, place it about 10 feet from the first and set its channel to a different one, using 1, 6 or 11 and 20 MHz bandwidth mode.

 

[System Error Message]

there are differences, you cant combine the CPUs for example.

 

[pete y testing]

$400 for the excellent router with tri-band

the $400 router would be wave 2 and thus 2156M on its 5 gig transmissions , 2 x $200 units would be only 1300M on its 5 gig transmissions

so its not really apples v apples

So why not have two $200 very good routers, and have "dual dual-band" where you'd have two 2.4ghz signals, which is one more than the single 2.4ghz signam from the excellent router?

if you had the 2 some distance apart and connected by ethernet then that would give you a far better overall wifi coverage area and tbh isnt that what most of us are after and is why wifi is moving into the mesh / dw space

 

[sfx2000]

But, I can do math fairly quick, and at $400 for the excellent router with tri-band, that's twice as much as the $200 very good router with dual-band.

Actually the 400 dollar router probably isn't going to offer much more than the 200 dollar router in consumer space...

AC1900 Wave1 class Router/AP's are still the best bang for the buck - the "improvements" have been incremental, and most clients don't improve on their performance.

 

[sfx2000]

the $400 router would be wave 2 and thus 2156M on its 5 gig transmissions , 2 x $200 units would be only 1300M on its 5 gig transmissions

But it really doesn't work that way - the AP's are so far ahead of the clients...

Most clients are 2*2:2 SU (we see some MU clients now, but many of those are 1*1:1), so that's AC867...

Like I mentioned above - AC1900 class is the value solution for a single Router/AP.

If one wants/needs to go more - consider the Mesh solutions - Orbi's have a good reputation there, as does Eero..

Going into components, prepare to spend big, but even then - ERX plus a couple of UniFi's isn't much more costly than the higher end BHR's, and probably offer more performance, but at an added deployment effort/cost/learning curve.

 

[pete y testing]

But it really doesn't work that way

it does work that way but as you say the clients are not yet up to speed

here for instance i have quite a few 2156M client adaptors and so can connect to that 2156M transmission and do get faster throughput as a result and thats why you pay the $400 for , so as long as the OP understand the benefits and limitations of 1300M and 2156M transmission and his client devices and their capabilities then he can pretty much answer his own question


if the case is the OP wants better coverage then the mesh/dw is the way to go only if he doesnt have structured ethernet in place and if there is ethernet then AP's are the way to go

 

[sfx2000]

here for instance i have quite a few 2156M client adaptors

What are those client adapters that can do 2156Mbps?

I'm thinking most are wireless bridges - not client adapters...

I know of the Asus PCI card, but that's the exception rather than the norm - the norm is AC867/AC433 these days for AC support in most clients.

 

[pete y testing]

What are those client adapters that can do 2156Mbps?

all asus pce-ac88

and a 5300 in media bridge mode

 

[sfx2000]

all asus pce-ac88

and a 5300 in media bridge mode

And that's not typical...

 

[pete y testing]

but does prove the point that there certainly is a difference between the $200 and $400 router wifi throughput with the right adaptors

 

[sfx2000]

but does prove the point that there certainly is a difference between the $200 and $400 router wifi throughput with the right adaptors

That's probably a stretch there...

 

[thiggins]

all asus pce-ac88
and a 5300 in media bridge mode

Are you getting 2156 Mbps link rate?

 

[energized]

the $400 router would be wave 2 and thus 2156M on its 5 gig transmissions , 2 x $200 units would be only 1300M on its 5 gig transmissions

so its not really apples v apples

OK, that is also what I understood from thiggins' response also. The $200 router isn't cutting edge technology.

But, even though you're giving up on the 5ghz bands, wouldn't you gain back a bit with the "extra" 2.4ghz band? And I also understand that the 2.4ghz band is slower vs cutting edge technology, but you're getting 4 bands.

I see to that the newest ones do the ad band, but at the expense of the second 5ghz band, so I just think that seems a bit counterintuitive also.

And, I appreciate all the responses, as I initially thought it was too much of a "newbie" question!

 

[pete y testing]

Are you getting 2156 Mbps link rate?

with the pce-ac88 yes , the 5300 struggles and usually says 1.9 or 1.7

 

[pete y testing]

But, even though you're giving up on the 5ghz bands, wouldn't you gain back a bit with the "extra" 2.4ghz band? And I also understand that the 2.4ghz band is slower vs cutting edge technology, but you're getting 4 bands.

if you placed one at ether end of the house then this would be beneficial as far as wireless coverage goes , if you sat them close together you might finds the clients not liking the over saturation of wifi signals

 

[thiggins]

with the pce-ac88 yes , the 5300 struggles and usually says 1.9 or 1.7

QAM 1024 works only at short distances. So your client and router must be pretty close.

 

[pete y testing]

So your client and router must be pretty close.

yup same room but on other wall , but proof of concept that you can get the full throughput of 2156M and thus showing that a wave 2 triband is not the same as 2 x 5 gig 1300M

 

[sfx2000]

QAM 1024 works only at short distances. So your client and router must be pretty close.

I've actually never seen this is real-world applications - not even radiated in a screen-room - cabled up, yes, but not in free air...

Similar to TurboQAM in 2.4... never seen that either...