I thought I would do some quick compare and contrast between the WNDR3800 and the new WNDR4300, as they are both Atheros-based units. The WNDR3800 has been discontinued and as far as Netgear “Premium Edition” routers, the WNDR4300 seems to have taken its place.
First some equipment info:
WIRELESS SIGNAL:
This is looking at the received signal strength between the router and laptop. One at a time, each router was placed vertically the same 14 feet away from the laptop. There was one wall between them as well, so no clear line of sight. In addition, “20/40 MHz Coexistence” was disabled on both routers.
Both were set to channel 1 for the 2.4GHz radio. There are 8 other routers in range broadcasting on 2.4GHz. They are broadcasting on channels: 2, 6, 10 and 11. No others are on channel 1. Also I should note that on the WNDR3800 the Clean Channel Selector sensitivity was set to “Low.”
As for 5GHz, no other routers in range were broadcasting on this frequency. On both routers, the channel was set to channel 44.
WNDR3800:
WNDR4300:
LAN SPEED TEST:
I used LAN Speed Test application from Totusoft and wrote and read a 200MB file from my laptop to & from my Netgear ReadyNAS Duov2 (running firmware v5.3.6). Wireless situational setup was the same as described above in the wireless signal section.
WNDR3800:
WNDR4300:
Any comments are welcome. Personally I am waiting for SmallNetBuilder.com’s review. I may be wrong, but as of now I attribute the difference in 2.4GHz performance with the WNDR4300 having the SOC (system on chip) be the same chip as what handles 2.4GHz radio. The WNDR3800 has a separate SOC and chip for the each radio. However, the WNDR4300 is a MIPS 74K-based, while the WNDR3800 SOC is based on the older MIPS 24K architecture, so the WNDR4300 should be faster even if one takes into account the MHz speed difference.
First some equipment info:
- OS: Windows 7 x64 w/ SP1
- Laptop Wireless Adapter: Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205 (2x2) w/ v15.2.0.19 drivers
- Laptop 10/100/1000 NIC: Marvell Yukon 88E8507 w/ v11.45.4.3 drivers
- WNDR3800: v1.0.0.40 firmware (latest as of now)
- WNDR4300: v1.0.1.30 firmware (latest as of now)
WIRELESS SIGNAL:
This is looking at the received signal strength between the router and laptop. One at a time, each router was placed vertically the same 14 feet away from the laptop. There was one wall between them as well, so no clear line of sight. In addition, “20/40 MHz Coexistence” was disabled on both routers.
Both were set to channel 1 for the 2.4GHz radio. There are 8 other routers in range broadcasting on 2.4GHz. They are broadcasting on channels: 2, 6, 10 and 11. No others are on channel 1. Also I should note that on the WNDR3800 the Clean Channel Selector sensitivity was set to “Low.”
As for 5GHz, no other routers in range were broadcasting on this frequency. On both routers, the channel was set to channel 44.
WNDR3800:
- 2.4GHz fluctuated between -29 to -32
- 5GHz fluctuated between -44 to -47
WNDR4300:
- 2.4GHz fluctuated between -30 to -34
- 5GHz fluctuated between -50 to -52
LAN SPEED TEST:
I used LAN Speed Test application from Totusoft and wrote and read a 200MB file from my laptop to & from my Netgear ReadyNAS Duov2 (running firmware v5.3.6). Wireless situational setup was the same as described above in the wireless signal section.
WNDR3800:
- Wired- write @ 162.0Mbps, read @ 146.5Mbps
- 2.4GHz- write @ 97.9Mbps, read @ 78.5Mbps
- 5GHz- write @ 96.0Mbps, read @ 50.9Mbps
WNDR4300:
- Wired- write @ 231.9Mbps, read @ 147.6Mbps
- 2.4GHz- write @ 93.4Mbps, read @ 57.1Mbps
- 5GHz- write @ 85.7Mbps, read @ 73.1Mbps
Any comments are welcome. Personally I am waiting for SmallNetBuilder.com’s review. I may be wrong, but as of now I attribute the difference in 2.4GHz performance with the WNDR4300 having the SOC (system on chip) be the same chip as what handles 2.4GHz radio. The WNDR3800 has a separate SOC and chip for the each radio. However, the WNDR4300 is a MIPS 74K-based, while the WNDR3800 SOC is based on the older MIPS 24K architecture, so the WNDR4300 should be faster even if one takes into account the MHz speed difference.