Nominal WiFi Speeds

[feelyat]

In what circumstances do people get real-world wifi speeds that approach the theoretical maximums implied by the various product names (e.g. AX5400)? I am upgrading my home's wifi 5 multi-AP system (Omada), and while I am getting improved performance, it's coming nowhere near where I would hope, given its advertised speed.

Old: AC1350 (EAP225) - I got ~350-400mbps on a single client.
New: AX5400 (EAP670) - I'm getting ~650-750mbps on a single client.

Are those speeds typical? Should I expect better? Is this just a fact of life, given that my house has...y'know...walls? Would I get similar results with a "slower" set of APs (eg ax3000)? Or should I just return everything and stick with my wifi 5 APs, which were working fine.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Never.

 

[Tech9]

Old: AC1350 (EAP225) - I got ~350-400mbps on a single client.
New: AX5400 (EAP670) - I'm getting ~650-750mbps on a single client.

This is about right for AX class client. Translated to everyday user experience - perhaps you'll notice no difference. Your credit card will show current balance difference.

Would I get similar results with a "slower" set of APs (eg ax3000)?

Yes, the speeds will be about the same to the same clients. Your credit card will show less current balance difference. If your Wi-Fi 5 APs do what you need - keep them.

 

[Tech9]

Are those speeds typical?

Most common clients and speeds:

AC 1-stream, 80MHz - link speed up to 433Mbps, throughput up to about 350Mbps
AC 2-stream, 80MHz - link speed up to 866Mbps, throughput up to about 600Mbps
AX 2-stream, 80MHz - link speed up to 1200Mbps, throughput up to about 850Mbps
AX 2-stream, 160MHz - link speed up to 2400Mbps, throughput up to about 1700Mbps

160MHz wide channel is not guaranteed to work and not a good idea for multi-AP system.

 

[feelyat]

Most common clients and speeds:

AC 1-stream, 80MHz - link speed up to 433Mbps, throughput up to about 350Mbps
AC 2-stream, 80MHz - link speed up to 866Mbps, throughput up to about 600Mbps
AX 2-stream, 80MHz - link speed up to 1200Mbps, throughput up to about 850Mbps
AX 2-stream, 160MHz - link speed up to 2400Mbps, throughput up to about 1700Mbps

160MHz wide channel is not guaranteed to work and not a good idea for multi-AP system.

Thanks. Why is that information so hard to find?

If your Wi-Fi 5 APs do what you need - keep them.

Yeah, that was my initial position. Given that I have 1gbps fiber WAN, I think I'm going to go ahead with the upgrade to AX, with one of the more compact APs, just to get the most out of the service. It's hard to argue that it's a compelling upgrade, though, since most of my wireless devices don't really get a huge benefit from the extra bandwidth.

 

[tgl]

Yeah, as @Tech9 's numbers show, the best real-world single-client throughput you can hope for is about 2/3rds of the nominal Tx rate. There are a number of reasons for that such as packet overhead, but one of the big ones is that a wifi channel is a shared medium, so you can't just blast away 100% of the time. If you did, then not only would no other clients get any service, but you couldn't tell if the other end of your own session had something to transmit to you. So there are "listen before talk" rules built into the protocol, and that means you can't reach the nominal Tx rate continuously.

The other thing that is fishy about manufacturers' class numbering is that they like to claim an aggregate throughput equal to the sum of the best Tx rate of each of the AP's radios. No single client can take advantage of that since it's only using one channel at a time (although I hear WiFi 7 will have extensions allowing multi-channel sessions). And, if your AP has a 4x4 (4-stream) radio which better ones likely do, they'll claim the Tx rate corresponding to that, although your clients are probably no better than 2x2 so they can only reach half of that number. In theory such an AP can transmit to two 2x2 clients at once, but that doesn't help single-client performance.

So depending on how many clients you have and what their capabilities are, you might very well not need a top-spec AP. I think it's likely worth your dough to update to AX-class hardware, but whether an "AX5400" AP is any better than an "AX3000" AP for your usage depends on more details than we have.

 

[Tech9]

Thanks. Why is that information so hard to find?

Perhaps because marketing numbers look better and every site copy/paste specs data only.

go ahead with the upgrade to AX, with one of the more compact APs

Yes, see EAP6xx or similar AX1800-class from the slim line. They fit better home deployment.

 

[feelyat]

So depending on how many clients you have and what their capabilities are, you might very well not need a top-spec AP. I think it's likely worth your dough to update to AX-class hardware, but whether an "AX5400" AP is any better than an "AX3000" AP for your usage depends on more details than we have.

I'm conceding that it's not better, or even necessary. I'm sensing a distinct "diminishing returns" effect with higher-spec wifi. The truth is that most of my household devices are consuming content (streaming video or music) which uses a tiny amount of the bandwidth I have available even now. The upgrade would be for the few devices that I use regularly in more high-bandwidth situations. Only I can determine if that's worth the hit to my wallet.

 

[Tech9]

I did similar APs upgrade some time ago from Wi-Fi 5 to Wi-Fi 6. Not noticeable much with usual Internet activities, but helps when transferring data to/from NAS.

 

[coxhaus]

You might try using different channels on your APs. Since you have 5 you will need to space them with appropriate power levels. This will give you more active talkers, not so much a single user but overall, a better system.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Thanks. Why is that information so hard to find?

Because it's not an exact science and it depends on how far from the router you are and what your client is. Not all clients work the same way and some WiFi chip makers have some slight compatibility issues which means you won't see the same result from two different devices.
Personally I would still say it's worth the upgrade if you have modern devices, as personally I have seen improved range and speeds, but that was upgrading from a seven year old 802.11ac router, but also a really poor ISP 802.11ac router. It really varies a lot depending on what the original router was.

 

[feelyat]

You might try using different channels on your APs. Since you have 5 you will need to space them with appropriate power levels.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have 3 APs that adhere to Wi-Fi version 5 (802.11ac). The channels are arranged so they don't interfere with each other or my neighbors, and I've used the Omada optimizer to adjust their power accordingly. I did the same with the ax APs I replaced them with, but there wasn't much improvement.

Personally I would still say it's worth the upgrade if you have modern devices, as personally I have seen improved range and speeds, but that was upgrading from a seven year old 802.11ac router, but also a really poor ISP 802.11ac router. It really varies a lot depending on what the original router was.

Indeed it does, and everything is a trade-off. I get a lot of benefit from the fact that I have 3 APs hidden throughout the house, semi-invisibly (in hallways, stairwells, etc), but that means there's almost always a wall between the client and the AP, so I can't come close to the theoretical limit. As I'm learning more about those tradeoffs, I have a better understanding of what to expect with an upgrade. As you say, it still might be worth it, but I don't know if it's worth splurging for "higher-end" features like 160MHz bands and extra streams, for my setup. I've got round two of the upgraded APs coming today, so we'll see.

 

[coxhaus]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I have 3 APs that adhere to Wi-Fi version 5 (802.11ac). The channels are arranged so they don't interfere with each other or my neighbors, and I've used the Omada optimizer to adjust their power accordingly. I did the same with the ax APs I replaced them with, but there wasn't much improvement.

So are you using separate channels for 5 Ghz on your APs as they do not have much range going through walls especially outside walls. Neighbors should not be much of a problem on 5 Ghz.

 

[feelyat]

So are you using separate channels for 5 Ghz on your APs as they do not have much range going through walls especially outside walls. Neighbors should not be much of a problem on 5 Ghz.

From my office, my device can see 5Ghz networks on 4 different wifi systems in my neighbors' houses.

At times, one of them actually gets better signal strength than my network, but at the moment, I have the top spot, by a small amount. So yes, I go for separate 5Ghz channels.

 

[Tech9]

signal strength

Signal strength doesn't matter. What matters is channel available bandwidth.