New Way To Categorize Wi-Fi Products Coming

[thiggins]

I'm going to be changing the way Wi-Fi products are grouped in the SNB Charts, Rankers and Finders. The current "class" system is fast breaking down as Wi-Fi marketers include 802.11ad and 160 MHz bandwidth link rates in the big number on the box.

While the Charts will continue to record the "class" number and I'll continue to refer to them in reviews, they will no longer be used to group products for ranking.

Instead I'll be switching to a qualitative grading system intended to better reflect the way people actually buy these things. After all, I don't think the average consumer says, "Gee, I think I'll go buy an AC3200 router today!"

I've run this past some Wi-Fi product makers and now it's your time to weigh in.
=====================================================
SNB's Wi-Fi Product Grading System

There will be six grades used for all access points, routers and extenders.

Legacy
======
This grade is included to cover older, non 802.11ac products, so previously
reviewed products can be classed and ranked.
- All N and G

Wired
=====
This grade has no Wi-Fi. Ethernet connectivity only.

Economy
========
This grade has everything you need to connect any Wi-Fi device. It is the best match to the capability of most WiFi devices
- AC1300 and below (802.11ac 1x1 & 2x2)

Midrange
========
- All dual-radio 802.11ac 3x3 and 4x4
Includes AC1750, AC1900, AC2600, AC3100

Premium
========
- Tri-radio (AC3200 and AC5400)
- WiGig

Distributed Wi-Fi Systems (DWS)
===============================
- Any system with multiple physical nodes
This includes "Mesh" and Router / satellite (NETGEAR Orbi, Amped Wireless Ally)

What doesn't matter in grading:
- MU-MIMO
- 80+80 / 160 MHz bandwidth
- Feature set

 

[sfx2000]

I'd just keep it simple - and not do the 1st class/business/coach class...

Because to the client - it really doesn't matter...

Wireless - Basic PHY load - e.g. 2*2:2. 3*3:3. and so forth...

Wired - just call it as it is...

DWS - client based - if they offer AC867, that's what it is...

Goes back to the marketing escalation - AC-Gazillion? Nope, not really...

 

[sfx2000]

And FWIW - standards are standards - so Turbo/Nitro QAM in 2.4GHz is out of scope, and MCS levels beyond MCS9 on VHT should be considered the same within the 802.11ac context.

Which means - most AC1900 class devices are actually AC1750 class - bring down the numbers - so I get what you're trying to do here...

Case in point - Airport Extreme AC - 3*3:3 20MHz, no Turbo on 2.4GHz (as that's out of spec) - 216Mbs, but it's 3*3:3 on the 11ac side, which is AC1300

So... what do we call this - capability wise, it's truly an AC1900 class device, but it's not - it's AC1516 class according to standards and implementation...

But it's the same as the Asus RT-AC68U and Netgear R7000 - in some ways better (it has a higher grade CPU in the SoC) - and that AC1900 class takes things out of 802.11 specs...

At the same time the Airport Extreme AC performs as well or better than the RT-AC68U/R7000...

(and then we get into the weird space - e.g. WRT1900 - 4*4:3 - and it performs very well - don't see it in the numbers, but in real world it's faster at long range, a bit slower at short range - it's not attenuation only - range has rician/rayleigh fading as well - which the current test benchtest platform doesn't cover)

So... nice to see things simplified a bit, but consider the basics...

 

[sfx2000]

My guess is that I'm the primary and only person that suggests things here...

 

[pete y testing]

Instead I'll be switching to a qualitative grading system intended to better reflect the way people actually buy these things.

prob a wise move as indeed the whole class thing is of little value or use to the novice / home buyer

Midrange
========
- All dual-radio 802.11ac 3x3 and 4x4
Includes AC1750, AC1900, AC2600, AC3100

Premium
========
- Tri-radio (AC3200 and AC5400)
- WiGig

however im not sure why a dual band say rt-ac88u would mid range while a tri band router would be premium , of course the manufactures want it classified that way because the tri band cost more but to the average punter does it give any greater benefit performance wise in a standard home environment

imho you should base the categories on quite a few specific points like cpu speed , ram , wave 1 or 2 ac , number of ports and age of the unit

the reason i say that is because you can have specific criteria that self determine what level the devices falls into , as new criteria and capability come on to the market you then change the status of the category so older models automatically fall down into the level below as they drop below the category threshold

this way you wont have to reclassify devices as the parameters set will do it for you , after all the linksys wrt54gl was once a premium product but certainly isnt today and what is so called premium today wont be in year or so , eg the rt-ac3200 was a premium product per say until the 5300ac class came out

i dont envy you having to do this as pressures from all sides will have you squirming a bit , you will get trolled for setting stuff in the wrong categories

perhaps do a thread and ask the masses what are the say 6 features or performance keys that are most important and base the grading system on that

just my 2 cents

pete

 

[pege63]

Dont forget that 160/80+80MHz is just 2x2 (and WiFi client needs to be 160MHz and MU-MIMO capable.)

 

[NUTW0RX]

I agree that lumping tri-banders as "premium" would be incorrect especially when those from Netgear and ASUS have problems keeping three radios working. Stick to PHY rate of one 5 GHz radio and how many spatial streams.

Maybe change DWS to Fashion before Function? Big black routers with those things poking out are really ugly. Now you have smaller internal antennas with less power, coverage, lower throughput and apple white to blend in with the decor.

 

[thiggins]

Thanks for your comments guys.

I'm looking at how the Ranker comes out with all AC products in one bucket.

 

[pete y testing]

i guess the other thing is exactly what you are basing the grading system on , if price point then economy , mid range and premium would be a good scale to use , but not so much when based on performance

I'm looking at how the Ranker comes out with all AC products in one bucket.

will be interesting to see if indeed the data points used in the ranker achieve the same ends as i mentioned above with regard to the ranker becoming automated in terms of performance indication with the change in data point criteria , eg over all result will be entry level / mid range / high performance and the routers move through the levels as the data point are raised with the invent and release of new product with higher performance data sets

mi9ght be too much work but may remove the need for you to ever have to visit it again apart from to input new data performance levels that would re adjust the ranker accordingly , hope that makes some sense , it sort of does in my head lol

pete

 

[thiggins]

The Rankers will continue to rank performance. I may look into a way to make it easier to see the best price/performance. You can do it now manually by sorting by ascending price and looking at rank. Gets tedious.

 

[thiggins]

Update. I've tried various groupings in the Ranker and have concluded simpler is better.
These will be the new categories (Types):

Wired only
Legacy (N and G)
AC Router
AC DWS (Mesh and router + extender/satellite)

AC Router will also include AX products because they will initially be
used with AC devices.

I will revisit the groupings when test methods are changed.