AX86u 160 mhz

[willyburz]

All 4 od them do, I forgot I have 2 other device that only support 80Mhz connected as well. That said, I turned those devices off and still only get 80Mhz.

Same here man, shirt's been happening since the summer update. Won't stay locked 160 for shirt.

 

[sfx2000]

Try using a non-DFS channel for the control channel - there are devices out there that will not search for DFS on active probing, so discovery of the AP can be delayed, sometimes quite a while, and they may not find it otherwise.

Once the control channel is found, the beacon is parsed for the VHT channel configuration, and the client should find the supplemental channels for 40-80-160MHz widths

 

[themartygriffin]

Same here man, shirt's been happening since the summer update. Won't stay locked 160 for shirt.

Try using a non-DFS channel for the control channel - there are devices out there that will not search for DFS on active probing, so discovery of the AP can be delayed, sometimes quite a while, and they may not find it otherwise.

Once the control channel is found, the beacon is parsed for the VHT channel configuration, and the client should find the supplemental channels for 40-80-160MHz widths

I have tried using a few non-DFS channels (many have a lot of interference from my neighbors) and am still only seeing 80MHz max.

 

[willyburz]

Try using a non-DFS channel for the control channel - there are devices out there that will not search for DFS on active probing, so discovery of the AP can be delayed, sometimes quite a while, and they may not find it otherwise.

Once the control channel is found, the beacon is parsed for the VHT channel configuration, and the client should find the supplemental channels for 40-80-160MHz widths

I did lock 36 and left 20/40/80/160...Or are you saying uncheck DFS and set to auto, cause the last time I set to auto it went to 161 wich can't do 160hz

 

[themartygriffin]

I did lock 36 and left 20/40/80/160...Or are you saying uncheck DFS and set to auto, cause the last time I set to auto it went to 161 wich can't do 160hz

I tried that same channel (and some others) and both locking 160 and the 20/40/80/160 setting with no dice. I also updated to the 388.1 merlin firmware, and noticed no difference.

 

[sfx2000]

I did lock 36 and left 20/40/80/160...Or are you saying uncheck DFS and set to auto, cause the last time I set to auto it went to 161 wich can't do 160hz

Yes and no, the control channel needs to be on the UNI-1 band (lower channels) for most regions...

Again, 160MHz needs DFS to unlock the extended upper two channels, so some locations, it might not work.

 

[jsz]

Yes and no, the control channel needs to be on the UNI-1 band (lower channels) for most regions...

Again, 160MHz needs DFS to unlock the extended upper two channels, so some locations, it might not work.

This is correct.. The second 160mhz block (100-128) interferes with Weather Radio. It doesn't work 9/10 times.

36-64 is the only valid way you're getting 160mhz working consistently on 5 Ghz... at least for the US.

I did lock 36 and left 20/40/80/160...Or are you saying uncheck DFS and set to auto, cause the last time I set to auto it went to 161 wich can't do 160hz

Because the router is detecting heavy interference on unii-1. It doesn't matter what clients you have. "Auto" will force you into the least congested unii-1 or unii-3 channel.

You can force channel 64 for all the router cares and it will still provide you with 160mhz bonding, granted the main channel will be at a weaker 250mW power output due to FCC regulations per US. Whether this is good or bad depends on local interference.

What you're seeing is correct for the RT-AX86U. 160MHz is not valid on channel 149. To get 160MHz bandwidth that includes channel 149 you would need a WiFi router that supports channels 149 to 177 (U-NII-3 and U-NII-4).

The client also needs to support UNII-4 in addition to the router.


UNII-4 has most of its current practicality as a Wireless Backhaul. ASUS for example updated their older XT8 model to support it.

 

[sfx2000]

You can force channel 64 for all the router cares and it will still provide you with 160mhz bonding, granted the main channel will be at a weaker 250mW power output due to FCC regulations per US. Whether this is good or bad depends on local interference.

should also note that one loses 3dB on 160MHz compared to 80MHz on Rx/Tx performance.

On some radios - moving from 80 to 160 also halves the MIMO streams to cover the bandwidth.

 

[jsz]

should also note that one loses 3dB on 160MHz compared to 80MHz on Rx/Tx performance.

On some radios - moving from 80 to 160 also halves the MIMO streams to cover the bandwidth.

As for DB loss, throughput advantage tends to make up for it.. its a trade off. I can force 80mhz on my router and loose performance due to the PHY rate.. might be diff on gen 2 AX BCM stuff.

And Only older AC W2 stuff.

 

[sfx2000]

As for DB loss, throughput advantage tends to make up for it.. its a trade off.

And Only older AC W2 stuff.

Not really...

For most folks - 802.11ac Wave 1 was the most benefit to be honest - 11ac Wave 2 and 11ax is picking up nickels in the parking lot...

I'm not impressed with 11ax/Wifi6 - much like 4G-LTe and 5Gnr...

 

[jsz]

Not really...

For most folks - 802.11ac Wave 1 was the most benefit to be honest - 11ac Wave 2 and 11ax is picking up nickels in the parking lot...

I'm not impressed with 11ax/Wifi6 - much like 4G-LTe and 5Gnr...

AC Wave 2 and AX are more related... Wave 1 devices tend to be lower powered and have weak throughput. 3x3 AC wave 1 does not compare to 4x4 radios for both AX and AC W2.

Its night and day going from BCM4360 > BCM4366E @ 1W output. At least when considering throughput/speed at 25-30FT distance.

In my home, the 160mhz unii1+extended throughput can outweigh higher UNII3 80mhz block. Obviously depends on neighbors router auto switching/interference, though same case for UNII-1 with 160mhz disabled.

AX (gen1/2) isn't that big coming from AC Wave2.. that's correct. Its only around a 10% advantage at similar PHY tiers per MCS index.

AX clients themselves hold a 7-9DB advantage though. Meaning, you can likely hold a tier higher relative to the last gen ACW2 product with similar radio specs and connecting clients.

AX routers also tend to be capable of holding more clients simultaneously due to improvements/internal clock rate on A7 radio.

I still think AC wave2 devices with 4x4 radios are still superior to the entry 2x2 AX crap most companies put out, at least there hasn't been a 2x2 AX setup that works well in my home/environment.

 

[willyburz]

I hear you all loud and clear, hisorically I locked the least interfeared channel in the lowest channel group...typically 36-48 or so, AND locked 160hz. All of my capable clients just absolutely smoked speed, just dripped. Now it's just frustrating, believe me I'm not complaining about slow connections, just why bleed clean wifi speed at solid distances, with the 160hz wide pimpn pipelines this router had consistantly provided before?!

 

[themartygriffin]

One thing that is different for me today is the channel cleared for radar now says 48/160 (I have been testing with channels 36-48) But it still seems to max out at 80 Mhz even with my AX clients connect and trying to force 160Mhz and also trying the 20/40/80/160 auto setting.

 

[bbunge]

should also note that one loses 3dB on 160MHz compared to 80MHz on Rx/Tx performance.

On some radios - moving from 80 to 160 also halves the MIMO streams to cover the bandwidth.

Pretty good "technical" discussion here! Just for a test I set my 5 GHz back to 80 MHz bandwidth on channel 36. And yes, I do see an increased radio strength. Since I really do not need the 160 MHz but can use a stronger signal anytime I am going to leave it at 80 MHz.

I still suspect the reasons some can't do 160 MHz reliably are the result of environment and fiddling with the settings.

 

[Tech9]

And yes, I do see an increased radio strength.

Learning from own experience again? Let me guess - about 3dBm sensitivity difference.

 

[jsz]

Pretty good "technical" discussion here! Just for a test I set my 5 GHz back to 80 MHz bandwidth on channel 36. And yes, I do see an increased radio strength. Since I really do not need the 160 MHz but can use a stronger signal anytime I am going to leave it at 80 MHz.

I still suspect the reasons some can't do 160 MHz reliably are the result of environment and fiddling with the settings.

AX clients have a 7-9db performance advantage (identical MIMO/power output) over AC clients/Router in conjunction with AX router, so that 3 DB loss can be a non factor, and like I mentioned, there are throughput advantages to using 160mhz bonding. Radio will ramp up faster and have lower latency over 80mhz bonding.

AX clients that only connect via 80mhz (Macbook,Iphone etc) will take that 160mhz SNR hit, but performance is innately greater when using AX>AX setup, at least over last gen hardware in an open room.

When factoring distance, any benefit to 80mhz or 160mhz is RNG to environment and client used.

IE: 80mhz throughput (on my AX86) is worse at my specific fixed distance when using a single router with intel AX2XX 2x2 client.

Just have to figure out what works better for you.

PS: Most AX clients do not support 160mhz outside of Intel AX2XX/4XX cards. Most issues are more than likely client sided.

 

[Tech9]

AX clients have a 7-9db performance advantage

From popular router model specifications:

Not sure what "performance" is measured in db. The data above is for Wi-Fi reception sensitivity.

 

[jsz]

From popular router model specifications:

View attachment 46122

Not sure what "performance" is measured in db. The data above is for Wi-Fi reception sensitivity.

There's a few white papers out there explaining that the AX clients in conjunction with AX routers hold a -8db advantage over a similar AC client, but I believe this is due to the guard interval being lowered back to 800ns from the AC standard of 400ns.

This doesn't account for interference, walls and how good a router can penetrate, but in a wide open room.

A 4x4 AC media bridged router with higher power output is also clearly superior over something like an AX200 for obvious reasons.

It's more in reference to similar AX200 vs AC9260 client with identical power output on on AX routers.

Edit:

Products - IEEE 802.11ax: The Sixth Generation of Wi-Fi White Paper

This is a technical white paper that covers the features that are included in the emerging Wi-Fi Standard, 802.11ax.

www.cisco.com

Wi-Fi 6 vs. Wi-Fi 5 Key Changes to the RF Physical Layer

Learn about the key RF-PHY changes made in Wi-Fi 6/802.11ax compared to Wi-Fi 5 and older generations: the addition of a new frequency band, higher modulation rate, smaller subcarrier spacing, longer guard interval and the introduction of the OFDMA modulation technique providing capacity...

www.litepoint.com

Although the smallest channel in 802.11ac was 20 MHz, the smallest resource unit in 802.11ax is 2MHz, resulting in a very significant 8-dB reduction in the noise power, and accordingly allowing the required signal power to be 8 dB lower too. This situation allows 802.11ax to tolerate 8 dB more noise and achieve a much larger coverage area for low-bit-rate clients.

The flexible PHY timing, including Guard Interval (GI), addresses the problem of multipath fading (for example, outdoor) whereby “echo” energy from one OFDM symbol leaks into the next OFDM symbol, causing Inter-Symbol- Interference (ISI). It can be shown that this more robust guard interval results in up to twice the throughput in outdoor environments such as those currently served by cellular/LTE technology.

So yes and no. Only really has an advantage for low data use.

10% PHY improvement @ 256 QAM is the only clear apples to apples benefit, though as you know, that might not even translate if the radio or amplification is worse at penetrating.

 

[willyburz]

did another hard reset. Still wants to live on 161 when setting auto and 20/40/80/160 and 160hz checked up.

 

[jsz]

did another hard reset. Still wants to live on 161 when setting auto and 20/40/80/160 and 160hz checked up.

It's local interference from neighbors. You cant do anything but force 36-64 if you want 160mhz.