Nighthawk X8- R8500 Tri Band Quad Stream WiFi Router

[pete y testing]

bypass the active antennas for the MU-MIMO test.

just a question have you actually tested the difference between these active antennas and and equivalent non active antenna set and if so what where the results

pete

 

[RMerlin]

just a question have you actually tested the difference between these active antennas and and equivalent non active antenna set and if so what where the results

pete

The problem there is that if you remove those active antennas, then you no longer have any amplifiers at all beyond the radio transmitter/receivers. Those aren't additions, they are the usual on-board amps being moved up the antenna.

 

[pete y testing]

ah , so just smoke and mirrors , they actually dont achieve any more than the equivalent on board , not even in trerm of rf or other factors eg heat etc ?

had some paid for comment dude here in australia claim the active antennas made it much better compared to the same in a non active router of the equivalent class

i think he was comparing the r8500 or the rt-ac5300

 

[thiggins]

just a question have you actually tested the difference between these active antennas and and equivalent non active antenna set and if so what where the results

No. They are part of the design. NETGEAR Ok's MU-MIMO testing without them because I directly cable for that test so signal level isn't a problem. It actually has to be attenuated to not overload the Veriwave.

NETGEAR said there is a connector in each antenna amplifier that I could alternatively connect to.

As to your comment of smoke and mirrors, if you take off your cynical glasses for a moment, you could see there could be a slight performance gain by having the amplifiers right at the antenna. This avoids the path loss of the 6-8" of tiny cable between antenna and amplifier that most designs have.

 

[RMerlin]

The theory behind Netgear's design is indeed quite sound. My only personal concern is if the unamplified signal going up the antenna might be more susceptible to noise, which means the amplifier at the end of the circuit might end up increasing the amount of noise while amplifying it, versus amplifying it right at the output of the radio. That means the line going from the radio to the end of the antenna will need to be very well shielded, or the amp's filter to be very well finetuned.

 

[pete y testing]

you could see there could be a slight performance gain by having the amplifiers right at the antenna.

but thats what im asking ? is there and have you concluded one way or the other

The theory behind Netgear's design is indeed quite sound.

the theory may be sound but does it actually make any difference as the power output post antennas must still comply with the standards right , so the placement of the actual amplifier should not effect the actual coverage


the claim from netgear is

http://www.netgear.com.au/home/products/networking/wifi-routers/R8500.aspx?cid=wmt_netgear_organic

Each new generation of routers grows more powerful than the last, delivering stronger WiFi signals with greater range. At the same time, the WiFi signals on mobile devices are not getting more powerful. This difference in WiFi performance reduces overall WiFi range and speed.

plz explain that , they are claiming that the routers are getting more powerful and that causes reduced speed and range ?

the second part of the paragraph

To meet this challenge, NETGEAR developed the industry’s first Active Antennas technology. NETGEAR moved the WiFi amplifiers from their usual location, on the router’s motherboard, to the top of the antennas. These Active Antennas help improve WiFi performance by amplifying signal in the antenna itself. This allows the router to receive cleaner and stronger signals from your mobile devices, avoiding signal degradation between the antennas and motherboard.

is what im asking ? does its physically make any difference that is recordable , or is it just a point of difference with no real world gain

 

[sfx2000]

The theory behind Netgear's design is indeed quite sound. My only personal concern is if the unamplified signal going up the antenna might be more susceptible to noise, which means the amplifier at the end of the circuit might end up increasing the amount of noise while amplifying it, versus amplifying it right at the output of the radio. That means the line going from the radio to the end of the antenna will need to be very well shielded, or the amp's filter to be very well finetuned.

FWIW - where netgear is going is similar to the evolution of what has been happening in the 4G/LTE realm - moving things closer to the antenna... these days, the entire radio/PA complex is up in the the antennas rather than down in the shed next to the tower... it's efficiency that drives that evolution for LTE

But as @RMerlin suggests - the devil's detail here is shielding out to the antenna...

 

[RMerlin]

plz explain that , they are claiming that the routers are getting more powerful and that causes reduced speed and range ?

What they are saying is that routers transmission keeps improving, reaching increasingly distant mobile clients, but mobile clients does not improve as much on output power, so they are having trouble answering back (the age old "wireless is a two-way street" argument against just increasing a router's output power level). This is one area where Netgear's design is a net plus: they amplify the weak signal right at the antenna level, rather than after it had to travel down back into the router, losing even more of its strength/gaining more noise along the way down.

Moving amps at the antenna improves receptivity (this is what the quoted Netgear material says), but might impact transmission (the theory I mentioned in my post). Netgear's idea is probably that the output power is already so strong right out of the radio, the impact is probably quite minimal (or non-existent), while the benefit to inbound is a net plus.

 

[pete y testing]

while the benefit to inbound is a net plus.

but in reality in terms of real world performance is it a noticeable and measurable difference

i guess what im asking is if you sit and test the r8500 against say the asus rt-ac5300 is there a real world difference coverage wise at distance between the two with the same client as this i havnt seen compared

pete

 

[thiggins]

i guess what im asking is if you sit and test the r8500 against say the asus rt-ac5300 is there a real world difference coverage wise at distance between the two with the same client as this i havnt seen compared

I can't offer an OTA comparison. But the charts provide some idea of relative performance.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tool...file-dn/2283-netgear-r8500/2429-asus-rtac5300

 

[pete y testing]

thanks tim

so going by those charts there is very little difference that would even be noticed by the end user and i expect that is because they are using the same chipsets and amps anyway , and if i read the charts right the client is not gaining anything by using the active antennas in this case

pete

 

[thiggins]

That is what the results say to me, Pete.

 

[RMerlin]

i guess what im asking is if you sit and test the r8500 against say the asus rt-ac5300 is there a real world difference coverage wise at distance between the two with the same client as this i havnt seen compared

I understand your question, and it's a valid one. On paper, the theory says it should help, by an uncertain factor. In real life, it's not easy to test as the hardware is designed for only one very specific case - the amp is either near the SoC, or in the antenna - you can't move them, Only real way to test this would be to have a router that has both the internal amp and the external one, and being able to manipulate their gain individually to compare results.

So, closest test that can be done is to compare with a different model, which might not give the whole story, due to the numerous variables introduced (filter design, internal noise, power supply quality, etc...

What might be interesting there is for Netgear engineers to provide some test data, as I'm sure they did the tests with the amps in both locations to reach the conclusion that moving it to the antenna brings reception improvements (unless the marketing department took over at that point and was satisfied with just the theory )

 

[pete y testing]

(unless the marketing department took over at that point and was satisfied with just the theory )

seen that done lately , more than i would care to admit

 

[Marinemaster]

I see Costco has a somewhat similar model also X8 and box says AC5000 and model 8300 so I was wondering if is the same CPU and Switch and Radio inside as the 8500. I see it has 1 USB less and speed is 600 instead of 1000. Is anyone has any idea that would be great.

I looked around looks like this may be a older 2014 model.

 

[SLK350]

What are the gains of flashing DD-WRT "Kong Mod"?

 

[Mikkel Winther]

So after having a bunch of issues with the Netgear Orbi system, I went back to my old X8 router, but seemingly that is now also generating issues.

All of our devices (Android, iOS and Chromecast) are sporadically thrown off the WiFi and then reconnected afterwards. Is this a known issue or any way to fix it via settings for the router?

 

[thiggins]

Could be interference from neighboring WiFi systems. Is the problem on both 2.4 and 5 GHz?

 

[Mikkel Winther]

Could be interference from neighboring WiFi systems. Is the problem on both 2.4 and 5 GHz?

Haven't tested on 2.4Ghz, only on 5Ghz. It's only been an issue for the past few weeks sadly, so it might not be the hardware itself. Will look into if the upstairs neighbors changed anything on their wireless.

 

[RMerlin]

Haven't tested on 2.4Ghz, only on 5Ghz. It's only been an issue for the past few weeks sadly, so it might not be the hardware itself. Will look into if the upstairs neighbors changed anything on their wireless.

Make sure you're not on a DFS channel. Safest way to test is to use channel 36, and see if it stays more stable.