Linksys EA3500 vs EA4500

[jpereza50]

Hi there,

Im looking to upgrade my WRT120n because my wireless coverage y getting short, I think that my router does not even have amplifiers so anyway it is a wise investment.
So, here´s the thing, I have mostly 1 stream devices so more streams arent needed right now but I do like the chance to have a USB disk shared on the network without the need of an ever online PC, so my options are these two routers (because of USB), both seem very similar, the questions are...

- Will I see any improvement with the 3x3 antenna array of the 4500 against the 3500.
- 4500 has a Twonky Media Server but it can transcode MKV for example, so in my case its basically useless, given this, what other difference do I have?
- I´ve read 4500 has DLNA, then, to share content with my 3500 I need devices that can read SMB shares right? For example, Im planning on buying an Android PC-on-a-stick, will I be able to stream video to that?
- Is DLNA that much needed?


Thank you very much!

 

[thiggins]

Your wireless throughput is limited by the slowest device, which is your 1x1 client. See How Fast Can Your Wi-Fi Go?

DLNA servers provide content indexing and list services for devices that can't browse SMB shares. They do not provide transcoding. If your players can browse SMB shares, you don't need DLNA.

 

[jpereza50]

Your wireless throughput is limited by the slowest device, which is your 1x1 client. See How Fast Can Your Wi-Fi Go?

DLNA servers provide content indexing and list services for devices that can't browse SMB shares. They do not provide transcoding. If your players can browse SMB shares, you don't need DLNA.

Great! but Im more worried about signal strength than total throughput, if a 3x3 arrays provides better strength or coverage that a 2x2


And clearly DNLA I dont need DLNA then.

 

[thiggins]

Great! but Im more worried about signal strength than total throughput, if a 3x3 arrays provides better strength or coverage that a 2x2

That is not true. Moving to a higher class AP (N300 > N450) generally does not guarantee improvement in range.

 

[jlake]

The linksys marketing literature says the EA4500 has greater range than the EA3500.

I have both the EA4500 and the Asus RT-N66U. The Asus router has greater range than the linksys.

My advice would be to spend an extra $30 and get the Asus RT-N66U.

If you're bargain shopping, you can probably get a refurb EA4500 for $80.

 

[jpereza50]

The linksys marketing literature says the EA4500 has greater range than the EA3500.

I have both the EA4500 and the Asus RT-N66U. The Asus router has greater range than the linksys.

My advice would be to spend an extra $30 and get the Asus RT-N66U.

If you're bargain shopping, you can probably get a refurb EA4500 for $80.

Hi there, the thing is that where I live things are a little different, here the N66U is is practically impossible to get and if you do it costs 60% more expensive than the EA4500, being this price absolutely ridiculous.
The EA4500 is 40% more expensive than the E3500.

Any of these routers are really expensive for our economy, the option to buy refurb or somethings like that is to have a friend in the US to send him the router and then to Argentina from him.

As you see... long history.

 

[thiggins]

The linksys marketing literature says the EA4500 has greater range than the EA3500.

I would not make purchasing decisions based on marketing claims.....

 

[jpereza50]

I would not make purchasing decisions based on marketing claims.....

Absolutely right but AFAIK the 4500 has more antennas that the 3500, thats something to keep in mind or maybe not?

 

[thiggins]

Absolutely right but AFAIK the 4500 has more antennas that the 3500, thats something to keep in mind or maybe not?

Again. No.

 

[sfx2000]

Your wireless throughput is limited by the slowest device, which is your 1x1 client.

No, it is not, each 802.11n client negotiates MCS and they connect appropriately. If that were the case, then my iPad 4G, which is single stream and constrained to 20MHz at 5GHz, my MacBookPro would not get over 90Mbs throughput on 5Ghz... I've got the PCAP's and can prove it.

The assumptions in the article, this was the case back on the 802.11g/b/a days, but things are much improved.

The clients connect at the best rate possible to the AP.

DLNA servers provide content indexing and list services for devices that can't browse SMB shares. They do not provide transcoding. If your players can browse SMB shares, you don't need DLNA.

Depends on the host daemon, some do transcoding, but most don't. Having DLNA does make life easier if you have DLNA clients for host discovery, which is is a good thing.

But don't depend on the host doing the transcoding, keep your media at a level that the clients can support natively.

sfx

 

[jpereza50]

But don't depend on the host doing the transcoding, keep your media at a level that the clients can support natively.

Absolutely but the xbox doesnt help... it forces me to transcode every video and add them subtitles, that means I must use two softwares. Not a light task.

 

[thiggins]

No, it is not, each 802.11n client negotiates MCS and they connect appropriately. If that were the case, then my iPad 4G, which is single stream and constrained to 20MHz at 5GHz, my MacBookPro would not get over 90Mbs throughput on 5Ghz... I've got the PCAP's and can prove it.

The assumptions in the article, this was the case back on the 802.11g/b/a days, but things are much improved.

The clients connect at the best rate possible to the AP.

You are correct. I meant that the throughput of each client / AP connection is limited by the slowest device.

What article are you referring to?

 

[sfx2000]

You are correct. I meant that the throughput of each client / AP connection is limited by the slowest device.

What article are you referring to?

This one - the one you referred to...

And again - each client is assigned an MCS class based on RSSI (relative signal strength indication), and each is doled out bandwidth accordingly.

So a narrow channel smartphone might connect at MCS 7 with long GI which is 65Mbps, and a three stream laptop might connect on the same radio in the AP at MSC 23 @ 450 Mbps - they get the bandwidth assigned...

case in point:



Are you suggesting that the 3 stream device is limited? Not the case...

 

[thiggins]

Are you suggesting that the 3 stream device is limited? Not the case...

No. The article says:

To use it, find your router or access point's class in the left-hand column. Then find your client device (including wireless bridges and extenders) across the top. Where the row and column intersect, you'll find the maximum link rate that combination of devices can provide.

Do you have a suggestion for how to make it clearer that the table is referring to the link rate of an AP/STA pair?