Advantages of 4x4 over 3x3 router?

[maxbraketorque]

I understand that if a computer with a 4x4 antenna array connects to a 4x4 router, it can potentially have better throughput than if it connected to a 3x3 router, but is there any value beyond that? Maybe total throughput can be higher for multiple computers connecting to the router? For a 2x2 or 3x3 client, does the greater number of antennas on the router provide a greater chance of having an antenna that is better aligned for the client?

 

[drabisan]

That's a very good question. In theory a 4x4 AP can serve a 3x3 client at the same time with a 1x1 client.
Or 2 2x2 clients in parallel.

But that's the theory.

In real life...can't tell if a 4x4 AP will actually serve two 2x2 clients each at fill speed! It's a freaking problem of matching AP capabilities with client capabilities, it's not that one side can really solve the problem for both sides.

If you're planning to invest believing the theory...you'd better have time for doing tests and a good return policy for when you decide it doesn't worth the investment.

 

[thiggins]

Drabisan, it sounds like you are describing MU-MIMO, which 4x4 routers support. But now even some 2x2 devices (range extenders) support MU-MIMO, as do some 3x3.

At any event, MU-MIMO requires at least two devices that also support MU-MIMO to see any benefit. The benefit it higher today bandwidth utilization, i.e. it uses airtime more efficiently.

The benefit any 4x4 router will provide over 3x3 is higher receive gain, with any type of device. This will produce higher throughput with medium to weak signals and may slightly improve effective range. This means you may not get a signal in dead spot locations. But in locations where you had a signal, but the connection was too flaky, you now may get a more stable connection with usable throughput.

They also usually have more powerful processors, which also helps performance.
That's why the Router Ranker now shows 4x4 routers as the highest ranked. Routers are tested with a 2x2 client.

 

[maxbraketorque]

Drabisan, it sounds like you are describing MU-MIMO, which 4x4 routers support. But now even some 2x2 devices (range extenders) support MU-MIMO, as do some 3x3.

At any event, MU-MIMO requires at least two devices that also support MU-MIMO to see any benefit. The benefit it higher today bandwidth utilization, i.e. it uses airtime more efficiently.

The benefit any 4x4 router will provide over 3x3 is higher receive gain, with any type of device. This will produce higher throughput with medium to weak signals and may slightly improve effective range. This means you may not get a signal in dead spot locations. But in locations where you had a signal, but the connection was too flaky, you now may get a more stable connection with usable throughput.

They also usually have more powerful processors, which also helps performance.
That's why the Router Ranker now shows 4x4 routers as the highest ranked. Routers are tested with a 2x2 client.

Thanks. Is the higher gain due to having a fourth antenna in a unique location that allows for another beamforming option? I posted a question in another thread, but all ask it here - Is it possible to have SU-MIMO and beamforming active at the same time for a particular client, and if so, does it require a 4x4 antenna?

 

[thiggins]

Beamforming requires at least two streams. So it's possible in 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 APs/routers.

In 802.11ac, beamforming can be used for both SU and MU devices, downlink (AP to STA) only.