AirPort Extreme vs. Everything Else

[tbutler@ofb.biz]

I'm looking to move from 802.11g into the world of "n" now that I have a MacBook Pro capable of such amazing feats. I'm also adding some gigabit switches to my home office network to speed things up as I look forward to adding a NAS of some sort soon (still hung up on Synology vs. ReadyNAS on that).

So, the problem is this: Part of me is inclined to go with an AirPort Extreme (Winter 2009/simultaneous dual band). But, SNB doesn't seem to have the most recent revision charted out and I've come up with virtually nothing elsewhere to help compare it to other options.

Primarily, I'm considering the Linksys WRT610N and WRT400N as well as the Netgear WNDR3700 as alternatives. (I want simultaneous dual band, since my MBP can do 5 GHz).

I've always been a Linksys guy, but the 610N seems to get such low ratings from users, I've been leaning towards the WRT400N, which looks perfect save for the lack of gigabit networking. But, I'm not entirely clear if that is a problem in the real world (i.e. how likely am I to be able to achieve speeds higher than 100 Mbps over Wi-Fi?). If the lack of gigabit networking on the router could be a bottleneck in transferring data between my MBP and my future NAS, I'd probably want to scratch the 400N...

Given the problems I hear about the 610N, that leaves me with the WNDR3700 and AirPort Extreme. The WNDR3700 is intriguing since it has a 4-port gigabit switch (which is enough to handle the systems located immediately around the router), whereas with the AirPort I'd have to add a gigabit switch to the mix, since its own only has 3 ports. Anyone know of a performance comparison between a current model AirPort Extreme and the WNDR3700?

So, in a long round about way, does anyone have thoughts on what might be best in this scenario? My inclination is either the WRT400N (if I'm unlikely to reach real world speeds over 100 Mbps via Wireless N with current routers) and the AirPort Extreme (if I *am* likely to get over 100 Mbps on wireless N).

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[thiggins]

Apple is very selective about who they let review their products. We were at one time on their "ok" list. But since repeated requests to review the new Airport Extreme and other Apple products have not resulted in any products showing up at my door, I guess SNB has moved to the "no review group".

That said, the Airport Extreme generally gets good marks from owners. I would not worry about reaching 100 Mbps speeds with 802.11n. See Draft 11n ≠ 100 Mbps Ethernet.

The NETGEAR WNDR3700 is one of the few 11n routers that can really take advantage of its Gigabit Ethernet ports. But only under strongest-signal (same room) conditions.

 

[tbutler@ofb.biz]

Thanks, Tim. I really appreciate your reviews, by the way.

I had seen your 100 Mbps article, but I wasn't sure at the time if that still applied with the current batch of routers. So, if it's unlikely I'll get the Apple to go over 100 Mbps (even at 5 GHz?), do you suppose I'd be better off going with the much cheaper Linksys WRT400?

I was hoping it might be able to be more in league with the WNDR3700 and push past that barrier, but if not... maybe I shouldn't mess with a good thing (e.g. Linksys routers I've used on various networks).

(I realize that is a hard call, not having actually seen the current Apple units.)

Thanks again,
Tim

 

[thiggins]

If you look at the Wireless Charts, you'll see the speeds that I have been getting. Rarely do they exceed 100 Mbps.

Using the 5 GHz band doesn't increase the likelihood of > 100 Mbps performance.

I liked the WRT400N as a dual-band router with 100 Mbps ports.

 

[ToeKnee]

combined throughput?

If you look at the Wireless Charts, you'll see the speeds that I have been getting. Rarely do they exceed 100 Mbps.... Using the 5 GHz band doesn't increase the likelihood of > 100 Mbps performance.

Apologies if you've addressed this, but I did spend a fair amount of time searching the forums to find out if any of your tests measure combined throughput on dual-band APs. Although I understand the difference between theoretical and actual speeds, my concern is whether the total throughput of a dual-band AP (or router in bridge mode) will exceed 100 Mb/s under heavy load, to determine whether it needs to connect to a gigabit port in my switching closet, or if if a fast ethernet port is adequate.

I have a few of the newer dual-band Airport Extremes deployed in my school in heavy-use areas (in bridge mode). I use the same SSID for both networks, restricting the 2.4 Ghz to 'g' and the 5 Ghz to 'n' or 'a' (wish I could do just 'n' in 5 Ghz, but it offers every combination but 802.11g/802.11n among the two bands). The older and newer Mac laptops then each have their separate wireless networks. The MacBooks do a great job (in limited testing so far) of connecting to the 5 Ghz radio most every time, freeing up 'g' bandwidth for the older iBooks. However, if the 2 bands' combined throughput never exceeds 100 Mb/s, I may as well use the more ubiquitous 100 Mb/s ports in the switching closet instead of wasting a gigabit port, but I do not have a good way to test this throughput myself.

I understand you have not tested the newer Airport Extremes, but in the best-case real-world scenario, can the combined throughput on the dual band routers you test exceed 100 Mb/s?

P.S. in order to test a unit, does it have to come straight from the manufacturer, or could someone, for example, box one up during a school break (i.e. Thanksgiving weekend or Christmas break) and ship it to you? I would really like to know how these units measure up to the others you review, and I think others would, too. Thanks for this great site.

 

[thiggins]

I understand you have not tested the newer Airport Extremes, but in the best-case real-world scenario, can the combined throughput on the dual band routers you test exceed 100 Mb/s?.

Yes. See the NETGEAR WNDR3700 review.