If you don't have speeds in access of 150Mbps whats the point of a AC router ?

[sfx2000]

Take a n300 router. I give 2/3 available of theoretical bandwidth off the top so only 200mbps available before we even connect a device.

10 identical (in hardware and usage) devices all close to the router (so no attenuation from being further away)

20mbps available per device.

You're upside down - do the math that way, and you'll see why more bandwidth is better...

Not all clients eat all bandwidth all the time...

 

[Nullity]

You're upside down - do the math that way, and you'll see why more bandwidth is better...

Not all clients eat all bandwidth all the time...

True (in the real world), but his hypothetical scenerio does seem accurate and shows that he understands that WiFi is a shared link.

 

[superjet]

You're upside down - do the math that way, and you'll see why more bandwidth is better...

Not all clients eat all bandwidth all the time...

Sorry it wasn't clear, that's what I was saying that more bandwidth is better. I used n300 because where I live with comcast and centurylink dominating they send out a lot of single band n300 combo gateway devices. Aside from the nightmare that causes in the apartment buildings in the city, it's the trash old standard.

I point people (value less performance) to Archer c8 TP-Link ac1750
Middle of the road Nighthawk R7000
Higher end used to be the ac2400 MuMimo capable devices now it's the X4S.

True (in the real world), but his hypothetical scenerio does seem accurate and shows that he understands that WiFi is a shared link.

I'm a fan of the bigger pipes is better (except for my debacle with the 8500 netgear. I talk to people all day every day about how their comcast n300 router/modem combo is not going to give them satisfactory wireless performace on a 200mbps WAN connection. That's the math I use in the conversation.

At my place I have upstairs AP, downstairs AP/gateway and outside detached garage AP. All AC 1750 broadcasting a 2.4 and 5ghz network with the same names. It works for me

 

[stevech]

900Mbps!! Fiber to the desktop?

Wireless broadband data speeds (WiFi included) -- depend on the ratio of signal power to noise+interference. Acronym: SINR (signal to interference and noise ratio).

THIS IS TWO-WAY. Most people are unaware that the client-to-router signal strength is important, and rarely made known to the user.

As well, since WiFi is in an unlicensed band, speed is reduced as you and neighbors' WiFi compete for air time. It's like a the parliamentary procedure: One speaker at a time. WiFi is not "managed" so a speaker speaks when he hears silence; there is no moderator. To use a metaphor.

WiFi speeds in marketing and on the box, are the "burst rate bits per second". Data is sent in tiny bursts with 802.11 WiFi. The receiving end has to send an acknowledgement of successful receipt every few bursts. And there are retransmissions to do error correction. If you could see the bursts, you'd see that they are sent rather infrequently (in the world of thousands of bursts per second).

So all this adds up to a rule of thumb: For each step of SINR (signal strength mainly), there's a unique ideal burst bit rate. IEEE 802.11 defines what burst rates can be used so devices can talk across brand names. About 60% of the burst rate is available, presuming no delays for air time access. If you are near the channel of a neighbor that uses a lot of air time, a LOT, like streaming HD video on WiFi (real HD, not the shrunk down speeds like Netflix uses) - then your net speeds are way less than 60% of the ideal burst rate. So you change and try to use a less busy part of the band's channels (channels overlap so you have to separate by about 3 channels). But in unlicensed, what you experience today will differ tomorrow, due to nearby WiFi usage habits of people.

oversimplified, but I hope it helps.