- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What router should I buy?
Posted on 8/5/14 at 8:07 pm to Hopeful Doc
Posted on 8/5/14 at 8:07 pm to Hopeful Doc
I'll add those in, but you're right that most routers prioritize traffic pretty well. I've tested some of the network prioritization options on a few routers and never saw any significant difference. Routers pretty well know that when two devices are suddenly demanding a burst of uninterrupted up and down stream bandwidth respectively, those devices are the priority at the moment.
Thought about covering DD-WRT flashing, but I think that's targeting people who don't really need a guide.
Thought about covering DD-WRT flashing, but I think that's targeting people who don't really need a guide.
1
Posted on 8/6/14 at 8:45 am to hashtag
quote:
The Chromecast will only use wireless n, even with an AC1700 router. So, you will only get 900 Mbps to your chromecast, regardless of whether you use an AC1700 router or N900. You are limited by the physical hardware inside the Chromecast. It won't get there any faster.
Let's clarify something here. You don't get 900 Mbps from an 802.11n router. On a dual-band router you can get 450 Mbps on each band provided that your router has a dual radio and three antennas and supports channel bonding and your remote receiver has similar capabilities. Most 802.11n devices like Chromecast operate only on the 2.4GHZ band and have a single antenna and no channel bonding so their speed will be a maximum of 75 Mbps, not much more than 802.11g. With channel bonding (which really only works on the 5GHZ band) you can double the speed to 150 Mbps. Adding a second antenna will give you 300 Mbps and a third will give you the maximum of 450 Mbps. Devices that operate on the 2.4GHZ band will continue to be plagued with congestion and channel overlap regardless of the protocol used.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 9:55 am to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
Thought about covering DD-WRT flashing, but I think that's targeting people who don't really need a guide.
I disagree haha. The dd-wrt forums are fricking miserable for trying to learn anything, and a lot of the tutorials are out-dated. I am stuck with a router at home that I was trying to make into a client bridge but I can't get the client to pick up internet from the main router.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 11:42 am to Layabout
quote:
Let's clarify something here. You don't get 900 Mbps from an 802.11n router. On a dual-band router you can get 450 Mbps on each band provided that your router has a dual radio and three antennas and supports channel bonding and your remote receiver has similar capabilities. Most 802.11n devices like Chromecast operate only on the 2.4GHZ band and have a single antenna and no channel bonding so their speed will be a maximum of 75 Mbps, not much more than 802.11g. With channel bonding (which really only works on the 5GHZ band) you can double the speed to 150 Mbps. Adding a second antenna will give you 300 Mbps and a third will give you the maximum of 450 Mbps. Devices that operate on the 2.4GHZ band will continue to be plagued with congestion and channel overlap regardless of the protocol used.
I already said all this, but you make a valid point about channel bonding and how the 40 MHz width is not really doable on 2.4GHz. I didn't know the Chromecast wasn't dual band. That kind of sucks.
That's another topic I need to add to the guide: Do people even know what bands they are using, especially those who use a single SSID for both bands? The router's going to select the strongest signal, which is almost always 2.4GHz because of its range advantage, so even their dual-band clients aren't reaping the benefits of 5GHz. Then these same people get AC Routers and think they needed them, never mind the lack of AC clients in their home and that AC can only operate on the 5GHz band.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:05 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
I don't want to get into the weeds on it though.
Most consumers just want to know "If I hook it up here, will it cover me when I am over here" (or slight variations) and "why am I not seeing the full speed my ISP promised".
Posted on 8/6/14 at 6:06 pm to ILikeLSUToo
I think a little troubleshooting would be good to have in there. How to change channels if you're in a busy area, how to find out what your computer is compatible with, etc. I think what anyone wants is to maximize their speed at the best price.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 9:58 pm to guedeaux
quote:
I can't get the client to pick up internet from the main router.
If you tell the whole story and don't leave out any details, I'm sure someone who is following this board or thread could pick up on it and throw you a bone.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 10:18 pm to guedeaux
quote:
I disagree haha. The dd-wrt forums are fricking miserable for trying to learn anything, and a lot of the tutorials are out-dated. I am stuck with a router at home that I was trying to make into a client bridge but I can't get the client to pick up internet from the main router.
I'm not well versed with the DD-WRT functions (just never needed it for anything), but there's a wiki page about client bridges with DD-WRT: LINK
Posted on 8/9/14 at 6:03 am to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
If I send something from my PC to my XBox..For example...I want it to get there as quickly as possible....A faster wireless router will make that happen...If I want to stream to my Chromecast, the same would hold true..I want it to get there as fast as possible..I understand that while I am transferring at 300, I am only going to get 25 from my internet..
Your Xbox and Chromecast are single band 2.4GHZ devices with single antennas. The maximum speed they are capable of is 75 Mbps regardless of the router you're using.
Posted on 8/9/14 at 6:50 am to Layabout
So, after all this talk, I need some recommendations for a new router. I currently have a 54g router to replace.
2000 sq ft house
Devices: all are 802.11n except my phone which has ac.
Dell Laptop, rarely used
Chromecast - normally streamed from macbook pro
Macbook Pro
Moto X
iPad 2
Epson Wireless Printer
50 Mbps down plan from Cox
Surfboard 6141
Main concern is good coverage throughout house. If I'll need an access point to do this, I've heard good things about the Ubiquitous Unify APs. I was also leaning to a single band router since I think 5 GHz would be useless for my needs.
Thoughts?
2000 sq ft house
Devices: all are 802.11n except my phone which has ac.
Dell Laptop, rarely used
Chromecast - normally streamed from macbook pro
Macbook Pro
Moto X
iPad 2
Epson Wireless Printer
50 Mbps down plan from Cox
Surfboard 6141
Main concern is good coverage throughout house. If I'll need an access point to do this, I've heard good things about the Ubiquitous Unify APs. I was also leaning to a single band router since I think 5 GHz would be useless for my needs.
Thoughts?
Posted on 8/9/14 at 8:34 am to hashtag
quote:
So, after all this talk, I need some recommendations for a new router. I currently have a 54g router to replace.
You can't go wrong with the Asus RTN66-U. Highly rated with excellent coverage. I have a 2-story 3500 sq ft house with no dead spots. The router employs what's called beaconing to focus the signal on the attached devices. I use an external N900 adapter for one family member with a more or less fixed large screen laptop and it pulls in the full 450 Mbps. I also have six wired gigabit ethernet connections for video distribution and streaming.
The Asus router is about $120 at Amazon and Wal-Mart.
This post was edited on 8/9/14 at 8:36 am
Posted on 8/9/14 at 11:14 am to Layabout
quote:
he router employs what's called beaconing to focus the signal on the attached devices.
The technology is called beam-forming, and it only works on clients with adapters that support it, and for 802.11n, that excludes pretty much every client that doesn't use a specifically purchased after-market adapter spec'd for beam-forming. It's really the combo of internal and external antennae and high power output that give the upper-end ASUS routers the advantage in tests.
Posted on 8/9/14 at 12:53 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
The technology is called beam-forming, and it only works on clients with adapters that support it, and for 802.11n, that excludes pretty much every client that doesn't use a specifically purchased after-market adapter spec'd for beam-forming.
I've read that the Asus router uses implicit beam forming based on lost packets to concentrate the signal. This technique doesn't require matching client hardware. I have no idea of the true effectiveness of it but it sounds reasonable.
This post was edited on 8/9/14 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 8/9/14 at 2:03 pm to Layabout
I thought ASUS used something they'd branded as "Radar" which is mostly to do with power amplification, maybe with some implicit beam forming. Most of this is done to enhance the inherently lower coverage that the 5GHz band provides. Even still, implicit beamforming on its own simply means it will enhance downstream throughput (marginally, at best, and only relevant to local network connection) and doesn't enhance the signal strength.
On another subject, the whole beamforming marketing is part of what gives people that placebo effect about AC routers having a stronger signal, since explicit beamforming is now part of the standard. Truth be told, the people without AC clients buying 3x3 MIMO AC routers for "future proofing" are doing no such thing. Explicit beamforming itself has room for improvement, and 4x4 MU-MIMO routers, like the upcoming AC87U, will be the first proper upgrade for "future proofing." And really, that's still only for people in big houses and high-traffic local networks.
On another subject, the whole beamforming marketing is part of what gives people that placebo effect about AC routers having a stronger signal, since explicit beamforming is now part of the standard. Truth be told, the people without AC clients buying 3x3 MIMO AC routers for "future proofing" are doing no such thing. Explicit beamforming itself has room for improvement, and 4x4 MU-MIMO routers, like the upcoming AC87U, will be the first proper upgrade for "future proofing." And really, that's still only for people in big houses and high-traffic local networks.
Posted on 8/9/14 at 2:11 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
I thought ASUS used something they'd branded as "Radar" which is mostly to do with power amplification, maybe with some implicit beam forming. Most of this is done to enhance the inherently lower coverage that the 5GHz band provides. Even still, implicit beamforming on its own simply means it will enhance downstream throughput (marginally, at best, and only relevant to local network connection) and doesn't enhance the signal strength.
On another subject, the whole beamforming marketing is part of what gives people that placebo effect about AC routers having a stronger signal, since explicit beamforming is now part of the standard. Truth be told, the people without AC clients buying 3x3 MIMO AC routers for "future proofing" are doing no such thing. Explicit beamforming itself has room for improvement, and 4x4 MU-MIMO routers, like the upcoming AC87U, will be the first proper upgrade for "future proofing." And really, that's still only for people in big houses and high-traffic local networks.
You sound very educated on this matter, yet I'm hardcore ethernet so all I heard was blah blah blah wireless interference sucks I'm running gigabit ethernet
Posted on 8/9/14 at 2:18 pm to Casty McBoozer
I run hardwired when I can. My main PC of course, nearby "smart" devices like the blu-ray player and smart tv, and magic jack.
Posted on 8/11/14 at 12:36 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:can you recommend a router or router/access point for my situation that I linked above. You seem like you know a thing or two about this interwebz stuff.
ILikeLSUToo
Posted on 8/11/14 at 1:16 pm to hashtag
Layabout's suggestion for the ASUS RTN66-U is solid. Pretty much best in class. Strong signal with amplification, easy setup, reliable. It's N900, but I'd recommend it over any AC router at the moment, until we start seeing the true potential of 802.11ac, like with ASUS's upcoming RT-AC87 4x4 MU-MIMO router, which I'd consider a minimum purchase for any sort of "future proofing," and only if you know you'll be getting some serious new hardware with adapters to take advantage of the available spatial streams, and only if you tend to heavily traffic your local network. That's going to be an expensive router at launch. $270 I think.
The RTN66-U is $120, though, so if you want to go a little cheaper, the Linksys EA4500-NP is decent and can be found for under $100. I'd get the ASUS, though.
The RTN66-U is $120, though, so if you want to go a little cheaper, the Linksys EA4500-NP is decent and can be found for under $100. I'd get the ASUS, though.
This post was edited on 8/11/14 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 8/11/14 at 1:41 pm to ILikeLSUToo
the asus looks like the winner then.
Posted on 8/11/14 at 2:19 pm to kingbob
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News