Soldato
OK, I’ll give you more rope. Explain where you get 1733 from. Not from the side of the box, actually where the number comes from.
And the 50-60% figure? Where are you getting that from?
asus RT 86u mesh 1gbsp
- Thread starter George23ed
- Start date
And the 50-60% figure? Where are you getting that from?
I don't need any rope, I don't care, what I get is what I get, as I said simple math can lead you to the answer more is available with extra channel width, the doubling of channel width has pretty much been the part of the path to wifi boosts for time, and that's what I see, an iperf to test an AC laptop shows far more than 500mbps, sure it fluctuates I have lots of things on at the moment.
If I use my AX wifi machine 1Gb LAN is properly saturated.
Even my phones (Fold 4) wifi6 160Mhz connection to server is limited by 1Gb LAN backhaul.
If I use my AX wifi machine 1Gb LAN is properly saturated.
Even my phones (Fold 4) wifi6 160Mhz connection to server is limited by 1Gb LAN backhaul.
Last edited:
OK, makes sense...but if I am losing speed by using wireless to connect the routers, then what if I used a decent powerline adapter to connect the two..or is that not a good idea?
Soldato
Surely the Fold 4 is 2x2 on AX and only does 160MHz on the 6GHz 6e connection? Qualcomm FastConnect is 2x2 with DBS giving two aggregated 2x2 for the equivalent of 4x4 and 160MHz.I don't need any rope, I don't care, what I get is what I get, as I said simple math can lead you to the answer more is available with extra channel width, the doubling of channel width has pretty much been the part of the path to wifi boosts for time, and that's what I see, an iperf to test an AC laptop shows far more than 500mbps, sure it fluctuates I have lots of things on at the moment.
If I use my AX wifi machine 1Gb LAN is properly saturated.
Even my phones (Fold 4) wifi6 160Mhz connection to server is limited by 1Gb LAN backhaul.
I never said your tools weren’t showing you BS results but you’re not getting 900Mbps on an AC connection.
I have two wifi 6 phones both 2x2, my note 10 is 80Mhz (1.2Gb link) and can't get near the Fold, S22 onwards do 160Mhz on 5Ghz (2.4Gb link) , hence link doubling, I don't have 6Ghz yet. Wifi 5 AC 160Mhz is a thing too hence the AC performance.
The folds doing quite well considering its route phone > ap > switch > switch > switch > pc
All tools report the same, please point me to a non-lying tool, everything including file copies to my NAS all tally with the speed bump, I don't know what else to say, I'm not a network guy, I plug this **** in, it just works, the speed whether you choose to believe it or not is there
The Samsung connecting at 160, no 6Ghz in site, only wifi noise being all my APs It'll soon be time for wifi 7, 320Mhz channels and 4kQAM which'll up the link to 5.8Gbps.
Some other tests of 160Mhz from another source that is using a better router and testing in 6Ghz band too.
itigic.com
The folds doing quite well considering its route phone > ap > switch > switch > switch > pc
All tools report the same, please point me to a non-lying tool, everything including file copies to my NAS all tally with the speed bump, I don't know what else to say, I'm not a network guy, I plug this **** in, it just works, the speed whether you choose to believe it or not is there
The Samsung connecting at 160, no 6Ghz in site, only wifi noise being all my APs
It'll soon be time for wifi 7, 320Mhz channels and 4kQAM which'll up the link to 5.8Gbps.
Some other tests of 160Mhz from another source that is using a better router and testing in 6Ghz band too.
What real speed does the Wi-Fi 6E of the Samsung Galaxy S22 and Tab S8 give?
Wi-Fi 6E technology is here to stay, and a good example of this can be found in the new smartphones and tablets that come onto the market, and that is that all high-end models have the possibility of connecting to these Wi-Fi networks that They work in the new 6GHz frequency band. In this article
itigic.com
Last edited:
I came across an AC 2x2 160 test from 2018 in anechoic chamber and they cap out at 940 due to gigabit LAN limitation, so it's not just me, it can happen you just need the right hardware, I would suggest you didn't have 160Mhz AC support in whatever you were testing.
160 MHz Wi-Fi Channels: Friend or Foe? - SmallNetBuilder
Updated - 160 MHz channel bandwidth is an essential feature of 802.11ax. We take a look at whether it means trouble for your 11ac network.
www.smallnetbuilder.com
160MHz is pretty much half the total allocated to 5GHz Wi-Fi and needs DFS frequencies to operate, I'd never plan for it to work reliably but if it works for you then great. Here we get enough stuff flying over that it would be shutting down quite a lot.
Soldato
I came across an AC 2x2 160 test from 2018 in anechoic chamber and they cap out at 940 due to gigabit LAN limitation, so it's not just me, it can happen you just need the right hardware, I would suggest you didn't have 160Mhz AC support in whatever you were testing.
160 MHz Wi-Fi Channels: Friend or Foe? - SmallNetBuilder
Updated - 160 MHz channel bandwidth is an essential feature of 802.11ax. We take a look at whether it means trouble for your 11ac network.
You do realise the Spirent PAL devices are emulators? They’re not actual WIFi clients. They’re virtual test devices. You put the access point in a sealed box with a perfect antenna and it transmits and receives to and from a piece of software pretending to be a client.
You’re claiming to get the same data rates as an emulator. OK. I believe you believe you’re getting those transfer speeds. And I’ve run out of capability to convince you otherwise. So I can only apologise for my inability to communicate the real-world reasons why you’re honestly not getting those speeds.
As for what I was testing with, it was plenty good enough and because I was testing mounted access points it had to be done in a real RF chamber, with a real access point and a real client. And no I couldn’t get close to those speeds. The test facility I used (RN Electronics) is ISO17025:2017 accredited and I have the data streams logged to show how the access points behaved when mounted and we testEd with 160MHz bandwidth access points and clients and they genuinely don’t get 900Mbps+.
Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm using it in the real world and when I see 900 Mbps in iperf and speedtests, 100+ MB in transfers hard to see where I'm going wrong.
I mean you even suggest it is hard to do 900 in 2x2 AX, yet nearly every Wifi 6 AP review does more with a 2x2 client, everybody else must be doing it wrong too?
I mean you even suggest it is hard to do 900 in 2x2 AX, yet nearly every Wifi 6 AP review does more with a 2x2 client, everybody else must be doing it wrong too?
Don't forget the only reason they did anything after knowing they had left security holes and peoples data wide open for years was when a major retail partner refused to stock them if they din't fix it. Oh and then they decided that it was easier to fake FCC test data than actually test/certify. ASUS used to be good in the P2/P3 days, since then they have degenerated to hot garbage tier products. Huawei actually have a better track record, but don't let reality get in the way of marketing, ASUS don't...That's almost 10yrs ago, case mandated that independent security consultants test their firmware every 2 years for the next 2 decades, this would suggest to me they might actually be in a better place than many providers on the security front?
Certainly better than my Huawei gear sharing data with Mr Xi
Soldato
Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm using it in the real world and when I see 900 Mbps in iperf and speedtests, 100+ MB in transfers hard to see where I'm going wrong.
I mean you even suggest it is hard to do 900 in 2x2 AX, yet nearly every Wifi 6 AP review does more with a 2x2 client, everybody else must be doing it wrong too?
I’ve got a customer who will happily pay you to configure their equipment if you can get them wireless 900Mbps+ data rates. Because we can’t get much over 750Mbps (and yes, it’s 2x2 AX clients on 4x4 AX access points).
As I said I just plug it in enable appropriate channel width on 160Mhz and it just works, as shown in above links, Obviously mine are capped @ 1G (900-940) by my crap hardwares 1G port but I have no reason not to believe my iperf or file transfers whether using ac/ax on 5Ghz 160 or wired 1G/2.5G/10G/20G the numbers come out where you expect.
It works for many others too as shown in the linked articles above and most reviews of wifi 6 Aps, perhaps you struggled to read above, I'll help with by including images from above article.
2x2 phone/tablet on a ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AXE11000 in 5Ghz with 160Mhz FYI my Fold has same chip as TabS8, the S22 are exynos 2200 slightly lower performing it seems that the qualcomm has the edge here.
I'd imagine if you are using corporate gear that perhaps they don't enable 160Mhz due to contention and reliability issues
Other reviews too check the reviews on the likes of Dong Knows as I can't link his images, he even gets good speed over distance, I do not, I have AP per room.
In addition Tweaktown usings a Lenovo Yoga 9 with ax 201 2x2
There are so many people managing this on all types of hardware, I'm not going to link them all.
Antenna placement and chipset can have an impact as suggested here and perhaps I have lucked into perfection in my house but I really didn't try that hard.
Last edited:
Because I just discovered screen recorder
youtu.be
Galaxy Fold 4 Wifi speedtest
Doing a Virgin Media speedtest via wifi 6 160Mhz 11ax on Galaxy Fold 4, limited by 1Gb LAN on Wifi 6 AP :(
youtu.be
Soldato
Like I say, there’s a 4-figure sum on the table if you can make my customers Samsung Galaxy Fold 4 do that.
Those Tweaktown numbers are pretty immense. I don’t know anyone getting numbers like that.
Those Tweaktown numbers are pretty immense. I don’t know anyone getting numbers like that.
As much as I'd like to take the monies, it's not something I do, I had similar doubts from one of my mates who rolls out Ubiquiti infrastructure when I first installed these a couple of years back not believing it, to the point he brought his machine around to test because 'I was doing something wrong' but no, it was all good, so you're not the only one who thinks like that.
Can only suggest grabbing some functional gear, probably 6E now, check numbers on that, the 6Ghz hardware does better than the 5Ghz, though has range limitations.
I'm pretty confident that I would be seeing >1Gb with better hardware, the 1Gb ethernet ports on mine are capping it.
Can only suggest grabbing some functional gear, probably 6E now, check numbers on that, the 6Ghz hardware does better than the 5Ghz, though has range limitations.
I'm pretty confident that I would be seeing >1Gb with better hardware, the 1Gb ethernet ports on mine are capping it.
Last edited: