Deciding between a 2×2 and a 4×4 access point

[negora]

Hi:

I'm considering purchasing a new access point, probably one with AX support. I was obsessed with it being a 4×4 device, to take advantage of MU-MIMO. But now I'm reconsidering my position and thinking about getting a 2×2 one. It's weird for me to take one step back, because I've been using a 3×3 router for years, but...

These are the reasons that have led me to change my mind:

1. The analysis that @thiggins made about MU-MIMO time ago, which showed no benefit when enabling it. Recently, he commented that some colleagues had seen some improvements on MU-MIMO. But I don't hold my breath on it. Is there any significant improvement on this field?
   
   
2. Most of my WiFi devices, if not all, use 2×2 streams. I have an AC Wave 1 3×3 PCIe card, but I'm putting it on sale soon. So I doubt that I use any 3×3 or 4×4 station soon. I even doubt that most of the new devices that I'm interested on, consoles included, support more than 2 streams.

So, Would it be correct to claim that 4×4 APs, right now, are only useful if you use at least one station with 3×3 or 4×4 streams? What do you think? Am I missing something?

Thank you.

 

[L&LD]

I would still get the 4x4:4 router. The range and throughput is superior to a 2x2:2 setup. No MU-MIMO needed.

 

[negora]

I would still get the 4x4:4 router. The range and throughput is superior to a 2x2:2 setup. No MU-MIMO needed.

Thanks for your answer. I understand that they get better throughput if you use a 3×3 or 4×4 client. But if you have 2×2 clients only, and if you exclude MU-MIMO from the equation, Why a 4×4 AP would provide better throughput and range?

Is it simply because they usually have a faster SoC and better components? Or is it because, having 4 streams at its disposal, the switch between one STA and another can be faster? For example, by using beamforming and doing some communications earlier.

Then, I think I will stay in AC and won't jump into AX. Because the AX access points are really expensive for what they offer. I've checked the price of the Netgear EAX80, and also the opinions of some buyers, and they seem not to be very happy.

In general, it seems like access points are less cared for than routers, by their manufacturers. In addition to my router, right now I've an Asus EA-AC87 (4×4 MU-MIMO), which works fine. But Asus didn't even fix the KRACK vulnerability. The frequency of updates in other APs don't seem to be much better.

 

[thiggins]

More streams give you a little more receive gain, which can help extend range. That said, when using multiple APs, range is not as important. Too much range can lead to high overlap, which will make roaming between APs more difficult for clients.

I would not factor either MU-MIMO or OFDMA into your decision.

APs are simpler devices than routers, so don't need as many updates.

 

[negora]

More streams give you a little more receive gain, which can help extend range. That said, when using multiple APs, range is not as important. Too much range can lead to high overlap, which will make roaming between APs more difficult for clients.

Thank you. I had no idea about that relation between streams and receive gain. In my case, I'll use multiple APs, so range should not be a concern.

I would not factor either MU-MIMO or OFDMA into your decision.

I read your 2 articles, but I still kept hope that OFDMA improved in the sort term. But, by your words in some threads of this forum, that doesn't seem likely.

APs are simpler devices than routers, so don't need as many updates.

I understand that, but I can't believe that in 2-3 years after the release of an AP, there is almost no bug to be fixed (at the software level). I believe that the change logs of the firmwares of many routers count with that type of updates with more frequency.