ASUS RT-N66U - my review

[darksamus]

Dude they already fixed most of the problems and there working on the DLNA and Loopback NAT issues. Right now as it stands the most current firmware is STABLE and gives you the fastest throughput and range.

I don't know where you were in this forum.

EDIT: After viewing Gerners Tomato Youtube video I can see it does support VLANs and bunch of other cool configurations that isn't in the stock firmware. Not that you would need all this and perhaps loose some throughput my points above still stand.

All I'm saying is don't expect too much from a company who release their product with a broken firmware.

 

[Greg_Elite]

All I'm saying is don't expect too much from a company who release their product with a broken firmware.

I agree with you. It looks bad for the company and is unlike Asus. I think the best thing to do now is pester them to fix it.

Not to mention idk about you but $200 doesn't come by to quickly as I'm a student and between that and the rarity of this router right now on the market, flashing it with a third party firmware in rescue mode makes me a little qeezy. Buying this router reminds me of buying a Lamborghini Aventador. You pay a lot of money just to get on a waiting list (unless the dealer has one or can locate one).

 

[G37x]

Upcoming Asus fw revision

fyi: Just got another confirmation that the upcoming fw revision will fix indeed both NAT L and DLNA. Also someone here asked a question about why you can't go above 40mW...Their answer is that this Tx power can actually be adjusted up to 500mW (limit allowed by the FCC). This is a UI issue and will be clarified in the upcoming update as well.

Cheers,
G37x

 

[hggomes]

500mW? that seems a "little" abusive in my opinion but ok...

 

[G37x]

500mW? that seems a "little" abusive in my opinion but ok...

I agree but will see...

 

[njweb]

fyi: Just got another confirmation that the upcoming fw revision will fix indeed both NAT L and DLNA. Also someone here asked a question about why you can't go above 40mW...Their answer is that this Tx power can actually be adjusted up to 500mW (limit allowed by the FCC). This is a UI issue and will be clarified in the upcoming update as well.

Cheers,
G37x

Thanks for the update. It seems they are promptly addressing issues and releasing firmware updates quickly (as previously noted). I am not affected by either one (don't use NAT loopback and am currently not using DLNA), but it is good to see they are responsive.

Wow! (re. the upcoming 500mW setting!) I initially asked about whether the 40mW max was a bug, but when nothing was mentioned and given the excellent wifi performance as it is, I then figured the 40mW might be an uncalibrated value as rhombus suggested to me in a PM.

I am already getting a really great signal to the furthest reaches of my house (one floor down from the router and on the opposite corner) with it set to 40mW, so I can only imagine what bumping it to 100mW (or 200mW IF safe) might do (let alone 500mW which sounds dangerously high IF it really is a true 500mW).
Again, I suspect the currently-displayed 40mW could be more like 100mW or so (which is a more common value for higher end routers like the E4200 v1).
Only Asus can add clarification.
I will take some updated measurements once they fix this and see how much difference it makes.

 

[NightOwl326]

I am already getting a really great signal to the furthest reaches of my house (one floor down from the router and on the opposite corner) with it set to 40mW, so I can only imagine what bumping it to 100mW (or 200mW) might do (let alone 500mW).

I will take some updated measurements once they fix this and see how much difference it makes.

Please do! Let us know at what mW setting it starts to melt. "Got 5 bars in every room, but then it started smoking". "Now where did I put that old Amped router anyhow"?

 

[kamaran]

Testing results have been posted in the wireless charts

 

[njweb]

Please do! Let us know at what mW setting it starts to melt. "Got 5 bars in every room, but then it started smoking". "Now where did I put that old Amped router anyhow"?

I would not suggest putting it too high which is why I mentioned 100mW.
In fact, given existing firmware's wifi performance, I had long been suspecting the so-called "40mW" current setting might just be a typo (and in fact really be something like 100mW which is what some Linksys units have as a default), maybe that is what they are fixing since I doubt they want a ton of units returned due to overheating...

Also:
1) Unbalanced conditions can arise at certain levels:
You can only go so high before it gets too unbalanced (although it would still increase one side of it)/
It would increase transmit range but not receive range since the client still can't "talk" any louder or be heard better (luckily the RT-N66U has good antennae which help it to pick up weak client signals better than some other routers, but there is still a limit to what amount is useful).

2) Going too high (experimentation could help tell what level that is) eventually increases noise (distortion) too much and will actually have an adverse effect.


The two points above are not from the following article I found as I was about to post, but it is interesting anyway:
Article about TX power
http://tomatousb.org/tut:increasing-wrt54g-transmit-power
I also did just notice as I am about to post that 250mW is REPORTEDLY being used without problem with some routers. However, who knows which model router they are using.
I would not try running a 1995 Yugo or Hyundai engine at the same levels as a Ferrari...

I would suspect (experts correct me if I am wrong) that given that different router brand / models are designed differently (different boards, capacitors, heat sink, venting, CPU, firmware etc.), a TX power that might be safe for one router might be unsafe for another design.

http://tomatousb.org/tut:increasing-wrt54g-transmit-power

Maybe Asus (engineers) can explain what the next firmware update will really do for TX power on an absolute (and properly calibrated) level and what the "40mW" really equates to (I doubt it is really going to go from 40mW to 500mW but I could be wrong...).
I will give the support line a call or send them an e-mail for clarification...

My performance is fine as it is, which is why I suggested I personally may not even touch it except for temporary experimentation, still not going any higher than a safe limit (even short term I would personally be leery out of caution on my own part - others says some levels are okay for the short run but would eventually burn the unit out - I don't like taking chances especially when it is working great as-is).

(I might venture to experiment temporarily with 100mW in the updated firmware [which may even actually be the current "40 mW" displayed value (could be a bug and incorrect], given current performance rivaled my Amped R10000 which had the best signal of any router I tried, including recent models like the E4200 v1 and Zyxel NBG5715).

Long story short, I would be careful setting TX power too high for fear of affecting stability in the short run and wear and tear concerns (burnout) in the long run.

I have edited my other post to add some clarification thoughts that were running through my head but I fell asleep (passed out is a better term) before 9 PM which is extremely unusual (still way behind after at least 15 years of never sleeping nearly enough lol).
I woke up at 9:15 PM or 9:30 PM and, until I saw the time, thought it was 4 or 5 AM!!!

 

[njweb]

Testing results have been posted in the wireless charts

Thanks!
The accompanying write-up should not be far off then.

I have not checked all of Tim's wireless charts (got to get ready for work in a minute) but I did notice the RT-N66U did come out on top of the charts on average on both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, with the current firmware.

It will be interesting to see the 'by location' performance breakdowns.

These are the two titles if anyone wants to look them up while awaiting Part 2 of the write-up:
Average 2.4 GHz Downlink Throughput
Average 5 GHz Downlink Throughput

 

[darksamus]

Does anyone know what the "b/g protection" mode do in the stock firmware?

 

[njweb]

I would not suggest putting it too high which is why I mentioned 100mW.
In fact, given existing firmware's wifi performance, I had long been suspecting the so-called "40mW" current setting might just be a typo (and in fact really be something like 100mW which is what some Linksys units have as a default), maybe that is what they are fixing since I doubt they want a ton of units returned due to overheating...
<snip>

Just did a quick google search and sure enough safe TX power does vary depending on the router (hardware), as suspected:

Source DD-WRT:Quote:
How high should I set the transmit power on my router?
Somewhere around 84 mW is considered to be the best setting for maximum power with minimum noise for most hardware. The Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 has a built-in amplifier. The amplifier is turned on by default; the radio power should not be set above 10mW (on v23SP2), or 70mW (on v24). The forums have had discussions about what power level is safe, with little consensus. Use common sense and don't set the power higher than you really need to. If you're trying to get more range, consider using a different antenna and make sure you have a clear line of sight, two of the most critical factors in your router's range.

From a network security standpoint, the transmitter power level should be just enough to cover the intended area reliably. Optimal power settings can be determined by trial-and-error.
END QUOTE

I don't know how long ago it was written (technology changes of course) but it at least gives a glimpse into power settings amnd how they vary.

Linksys uses 100mW (I read a while back) as the default on the E4200.

I plan to ask Asus what the recommended and safe TX (tranmit) power value is for the RT-N66U given that they are reportedly updating the GUI values as per G37x.
It might be worth others reaching out too (since different tech support reps may give different answers based in their knowledge oad lack thereof).

 

[thiggins]

Does anyone know what the "b/g protection" mode do in the stock firmware?

It ensures that the radio listens long enough to be sure it doesn't miss packets from these slower protocols

 

[Creep89]

Hey guys, I don't know whether it's a bug or a bad configuration I made?

I activated QoS, entered my maximum down/upstream (currently 64MBit/5MBit) and left it in the "automatic mode".

The problem I encounter is that transferring a file via wireless lan to my local NAS, the transfer-speed slows down to 64MBit. After disabling QoS I get over 170MBit. I don't get the point why QoS wants to manage traffic inside my home network? My old FritzBox didn't behave that way.

edit: Sorry guys, actually I made a mistake. I entered the up- and downstream data in the wrong fields (upstream-rate in the downstream field, downstream-rate in the upstream field). But entering the data in the right fields makes my situation even worse

 

[G37x]

RT-N66U fw coming...

Guys just fyi: I'm told the fw update should be available early next week. This is the one that's supposed to fix NAT L and DLNA.

Cheers,
G37x

 

[Lucinda]

Hey guys, I don't know whether it's a bug or a bad configuration I made?

I activated QoS, entered my maximum down/upstream (currently 64MBit/5MBit) and left it in the "automatic mode".

The problem I encounter is that transferring a file via wireless lan to my local NAS, the transfer-speed slows down to 64MBit. After disabling QoS I get over 170MBit. I don't get the point why QoS wants to manage traffic inside my home network? My old FritzBox didn't behave that way.

edit: Sorry guys, actually I made a mistake. I entered the up- and downstream data in the wrong fields (upstream-rate in the downstream field, downstream-rate in the upstream field). But entering the data in the right fields makes my situation even worse

After doing many research online. It's a good thing I finally came across someone who has the same problem. I thought it was my rt-n66u because nobody seems to bring up this issue.

All of my wireless file transfers go very slow when enabling QOS. A 100 meg file usually takes 30 seconds on my previous router. On the rt-n66u with QOS enabled it take about 15 minutes.

This definitely has to be a bug .

I've been pretty disappointed so far with this router. I understand that it is a brand new release and was excited about it. The specifications and all sounds great but after paying almost $200.00 for this router I was hoping that it would work for the reasons I purchased it for.

 

[Creep89]

Yeah.. Network speed slows down to the value you entered in the upstream field. I really think this is a bug, so I'm going to report it tomorrow.

 

[dinko]

@Creep89 and Lucinda: Ya, I noticed the same thing as well. Setting the QoS limits LAN/WLAN bw instead of just WAN. I also found it weird and it does sound like a bug. Didn't experiment further. I will also report it as a bug (have a slew of other GUI related tidbits that I have been meaning to send) so hopefully it will get addressed.

Romain

 

[Greg_Elite]

Bring it all to Networking_Support@asus.com.
Make sure you have the newest firmware flashed.

 

[Creep89]

Yep I'm running the latest firmware available, it's the *.90.