NETGEAR R7000P Nighthawk Smart WiFi Router with MU-MIMO Reviewed

[thiggins]

NETGEAR's R7000P Nighthawk Smart WiFi Router with MU-MIMO is the company's attempt to lure you away from the Nighthawk that started it all.

Read on SmallNetBuilder

 

[Makaveli]

Why Netgear ?

This was an opportunity to upgrade the CPU to the same 1.4Ghz modem that is in the AC68P instead you go back to an 800Mhz model?????

You could have also bumped the ram on this model to 512MB and upgraded the retail price.

Those two changes with Mimo would be worth an upgrade as it is now I'll stick to my original R7000 and from the review anyone buying a brand new one now would be better off finding the R7000 none P model.

This is a semi Fail if you ask me!

 

[thiggins]

Those two changes with Mimo would be worth an upgrade

The average buyer uses the number on the box as the primary indicator of performance / goodness. They don't care / don't know about RAM size.

 

[Makaveli]

The average buyer uses the number on the box as the primary indicator of performance / goodness. They don't care / don't know about RAM size.

Agreed but if we are to be marketing these products to only novice users why put any specs on the box at all. The ignorance is bliss approach isn't always best when it comes to tech gear.

And even a novice can clearly see 512 > 256

 

[RMerlin]

More RAM is pointless if your router doesn't have anything that uses that RAM. Netgear's firmware is pretty limited feature-wise, therefore they have no need for the RAM increase.

 

[pete y testing]

im guessing netgear think they have a Porsche 920 type thing with keeping the one basic design as its go to flag ship , the question is will they still run both the original r7000 and the r000p at the same time , makes no real sense to do that but where is the sense in producing the P in the first place unless there is a specific design flaw or fundamental issue with its coding they cant fix

 

[avtella]

They downgraded the CPU clockspeed.... really. MU-MIMO on a 3x3 router ins't much of a help. Overall this looks like a pass vs the original.

More RAM is pointless if your router doesn't have anything that uses that RAM. Netgear's firmware is pretty limited feature-wise, therefore they have no need for the RAM increase.

Yeah that reminds of computer companies advertising discrete graphics cards by RAM size rather than model/shader count and when you looked closer at the specs you'd see it was a low end model that couldn't even reach a high enough resolution to utilize most of that memory.

 

[Makaveli]

More RAM is pointless if your router doesn't have anything that uses that RAM. Netgear's firmware is pretty limited feature-wise, therefore they have no need for the RAM increase.

Agreed but the router will eventually support other open source firmwares since its hardware is pretty close to the original.

 

[psychopomp1]

But since none of us own a device that supports 1024 QAM, the P is for all intents and purposes an AC1900 class router.

Really? I thought the Asus PCE-AC88 supported 1024 QAM. And its supposed to be a popular high end desktop PCI adaptor...

 

[pege63]

Really? I thought the Asus PCE-AC88 supported 1024 QAM. And its supposed to be a popular high end desktop PCI adaptor...

Yes the Asus PCE-AC88 support 1024 QAM and if you have a router that also support it, you can use it full out.
If you use a CH with no other interference on it.
Or that higher link rates require devices that support 1024-QAM modultation in a 4x4 radio, which means another 4x4 router in bridge mode.
But most WiFi client only support 256 QAM so far.

 

[thiggins]

Really? I thought the Asus PCE-AC88 supported 1024 QAM. And its supposed to be a popular high end desktop PCI adaptor...

Good catch. I've corrected the review. Sorry for my error.

 

[sfx2000]

Yes the Asus PCE-AC88 support 1024 QAM and if you have a router that also support it, you can use it full out.
If you use a CH with no other interference on it.
Or that higher link rates require devices that support 1024-QAM modultation in a 4x4 radio, which means another 4x4 router in bridge mode.
But most WiFi client only support 256 QAM so far.

I've never seen QAM256 in 2.4GHz in the wild... I always recommend disabling that feature in the AP, even if the client may support it.

Same goes with QAM512/QAM1024 in 5GHz...

Broadcom (and others) have these non-standard rates as the vendors want to run the numbers (AC-gazillion anybody?), but they run the risk of interoperability and poor performance compared to expectations...

 

[pege63]

I've never seen QAM256 in 2.4GHz in the wild... I always recommend disabling that feature in the AP, even if the client may support it.

Same goes with QAM512/QAM1024 in 5GHz...

Broadcom (and others) have these non-standard rates as the vendors want to run the numbers (AC-gazillion anybody?), but they run the risk of interoperability and poor performance compared to expectations...

Dont you need the support of QAM to get the 600/800/1000 speeds on 2.4GHz band?

 

[thiggins]

Dont you need the support of QAM to get the 600/800/1000 speeds on 2.4GHz band?

40 MHz B/W link rates with short guard interval for two streams are:
64-QAM (standard): 300 Mbps
256-QAM: 400 Mbps
1024-QAM: 500 Mbps (I think)

I haven't found an MCS table that includes 1024-QAM yet, so the last number is a guess. The rule of thumb I've seen is 1024 QAM rate is 125% of 256 rate. That's how a normal 3 stream 80 MHz bandwidth link rate of 1300 Mbps becomes 1625 Mbps.

 

[thiggins]

I've never seen QAM256 in 2.4GHz in the wild

I think I have to agree. I just checked a Samsung Galaxy 7 and Google Pixel phone with an ASUS GT-AC5300. The 2.4 GHz radio was forced to 40 MHz bandwidth and short guard interval.

With the phones right next to the router, the Samsung link rate was 96 Mbps(!) and the Google was 144 Mbps. The utility I was using said the connection was 40 MHz, but the 144 rate says 20 MHz. I can't find 96 Mbps in the MCS table.

 

[sfx2000]

Dont you need the support of QAM to get the 600/800/1000 speeds on 2.4GHz band?

If one has a 4*4:4 radio running 802.11n QAM64 in Wide Channels - 600Mbps is possible... MCS31 with short G/I

QAM256 is non-standard for 11n

 

[sfx2000]

I haven't found an MCS table that includes 1024-QAM yet, so the last number is a guess. The rule of thumb I've seen is 1024 QAM rate is 125% of 256 rate. That's how a normal 3 stream 80 MHz bandwidth link rate of 1300 Mbps becomes 1625 Mbps.

QAM1024 is not defined in the 802.11ac specification, so one won't find an official MCS for this rate...

 

[thiggins]

QAM1024 is not defined in the 802.11ac specification, so one won't find an official MCS for this rate...

QAM 1024 is standard in 802.11ax. So where are the updated tables?

 

[sfx2000]

QAM 1024 is standard in 802.11ax. So where are the updated tables?

802.11ax is still work in progress within the 802.11 TG AX working group -- they're working on D1.0, but that's a long way from a formal release...

http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgax_update.htm

The conversation here should be limited to 11ac and 11n

 

[mike406]

Can you post your source where it says the BCM4708C0 is at 800 MHz? I tried searching but couldn't find the official spec page. I only ask because I tried to edit the specs on the WikiDevi page for this model but someone reverted my changes stating its 1 GHz. There is also some discrepancy with the WikiDevi table as well as it only mentioning 1 GHz on Broadcom's page. Much appreciated.