when you say radio throughput, were speed tests or anything able to see a difference ?? my wired pc gets say 580Mb 25Mb up
i have a ax86s i am debating returning, speed test on my s22 ultra using the ookla application on my phone shows 520Mb or so, up is good. if i use chrome or edge, speed is in the 300s vs wired pc chrome or edge mid to upper 500s, device speed tests also are in the 300s... not sure what is going on with it.
had/ have an ac86u that started doing strange radio things, didn't rule out router, vs environment change.
debating the ax6000, or kicking around access points, switch something, brain gets sore trying to sort those out.. lol
I'd reformat the unit back to stock incase QoS or other SW is enabled and messing with you connection speed.
When I say throughput, I'm talking about PHY rate vs what is actually being transmitted to PC.
In my subjective environment, the GT-AC2900 is the worse, AX86S is middle of the road, and GT-AX6000 does the best, granted it's also the worse in terms of PHY.. so there's a trade off here.
IE @ same distances (client + router) with 2x2 AX201 @ 30FT:
GT-AC2900 = 585/650 PHY (variable)
AX86S = 576/648/721 PHY (variable)
GT-AX6000 = 432/544/576 PHY (variable)
The GT-AX6000 will push ISP speeds within PHY limitation while the GT-AC2900 will peak at 450mbps (subjective to home) in conjunction with its 650 PHY rate. AX86S is the middle child, though has 160mhz switching benefits in conjunction with broadcasting full 4x4 signal.. GT-AC2900 does not support this.
The GT-AC2900 can do 160mhz, but split radio into 2x2 + 2x2 80+80 mode and will hurt native 80mhz clients @ distance.. since they only "see" a 2x2 signal. Not saying a 2x2 client can utilize 4x4 radio, but it will grab on to 4x4 broadcast better as there are more possible streams.
160mhz innately benefits throughput, though it's more logical to compare the 80mhz limitation.. in which case GT-AX6000> AX86S/U> GT-AC2900 in my experience.
What performed best for me @ specific testing location through my environment? AX86S.. at least in terms of throughput vs distance @ 30FT.
160mhz> 80mhz bonding is also a legitimate benefit for overall throughput at this 30FT distance in my situation.
The GT-AC2900 can be forced into "160mhz" mode and it will outperform standard 80mhz BCM AX radios close range (5FT)... there's no static metric to determine what's "better".
Coming from GT-AC2900, it wasn't worth me spending $300+ USD for the GT-AX6000 since it basically underperformed my expectations. (in my home/subjective environment).
I just feel it doesn't penetrates objects well assuming mine wasn't defective on the amplifier end. In terms of penetration? I have to agree with
@Tech9. the ACW2 AC86U units do very well. Followed by Gen 1 then Gen2 AX.
Also what ISP are you on? Coax modems can influence this to an extent.
Spectrum in the US for example has 4 different branded 2.5G modems with 2 main chipsets.. PUMA 7 and BCM3390 The Broadcom modems in my environment push much higher throughput via a Broadcom based router as a secondary factor.
Most are Hitron (Intel/Maxlinear Puma 7)
Alternatives are:
Ubbe (Broadcom 3390)
Technicolor (Broadcom 3390)
Sercomm (Intel/Maxlinear PUMA 7)
The Puma7 models tend to benefit dense areas since they support OFDMA and internally benchmark better according to the ISP. IE: More capable of advertised speeds over LAN.
Both run on different provisioning.. so you can improve or worsen your line quality just by switching out modem with an alt chipset.
HW wise the PUMA 7 stuff has stronger HW (Clock rate/ODFMA support), but it doesn't really matter if the end result is worse. YMMV.
Edit: the PUMA 7 stuff performed better with Qualcomm routers at least that was my experience with an older ACW2 platform.