RT-AC88U

[winb83]

I've had the following routers long term
R7000
R7500
RT-AC66R
RT-AC68R
RT-AC87R
RT-AC88U

I've also tried these routers briefly
R8500
RT-AC3200

This has been the most stable router of that lot. Most of those ASUS ones had 5GHz issues. The 66 and 87 were complete junk. I had minor issues with the 68 the 7000 was decent the 7500 towards the end some days I'd get up and have no 5GHz network and have to reset it.

As for the tri-bands I can't use them because my Sony soundbars render the second 5GHz band unusable to it turns them into dual bands.

I think I'll settle on this router and stay with it. I tend to sell my routers annually and buy whatever the latest one is but with 8 Ethernet ports and the best performance I've seen in a router I think I'll just keep this one a while. Most of my wireless clients can't take advantage of the technology this implements anyway so it's pointless to keep upgrading.

for example my Galaxy S6 and iPhone 6S seem to max out at 867Mbps on the link rate.

 

[thiggins]

I was getting 90Mbps out of 112Mbps (gigabit connection)

125 MBytes/sec is equivalent to a Gigabit Ethernet connection. 112 Mbps is 14 MBps.

 

[dlandiss]

125 MBytes/sec is equivalent to a Gigabit Ethernet connection. 112 Mbps is 14 MBps.

THANK YOU for reminding the subscribers here that MBps ≠ Mbps ≠ mbps. It can be hard to sort out speed problems when the units are ambiguous.

 

[ShadeZeRO]

I'm debating between the AC3200 & the AC88U
What seems to be the consensus?

I stream a lot over Wi-Fi from my NAS.
Light gaming. I have the 100 Mbit package from Comcast.

I see the 88U for $279 and the AC3200 for $264.

Edit:
I decided upon the AC88U.
Primarily because of LACP support.
Secondary due to MU-MIMO

 

[kvic]

SNB's review on R8500. I believe it shares the same underlying BRCM platform, so wireless throughput might be indicative of AC88U.

R8500 only achieves <600Mbit/s throughput on 5G band with a 3x3 link. It's nothing to write home about. Much less than what early adopters of AC88U here are seeing (they experienced >750Mbit/s throughput).

Wait a bit for SNB's lab test on AC88U probably is a wise move..

 

[sm00thpapa]

Hasn't it generally been agreed that so far smart connect sucks.

I agree it does. It will be another 2 years before they get it to work properly. Aren't we all still waiting for a true MU-MIMO router as well? Like I said many times before both are gimmicks on the outside of the box to take your money. I'm hoping the AC88U is what ASUS claims it to be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RMerlin]

SNB's review on R8500. I believe it shares the same underlying BRCM platform, so wireless throughput might be indicative of AC88U.

R8500 only achieves <600Mbit/s throughput on 5G band with a 3x3 link. It's nothing to write home about. Much less than what early adopters of AC88U here are seeing (they experienced >750Mbit/s throughput).

Wait a bit for SNB's lab test on AC88U probably is a wise move..

I can tell that Netgear is using an older SDK than Asus (10.10.58 vs 10.12.907). Don't know if it has any sizable impact on performance however.

 

[connorm]

wierd, i think on my R7000 i seen atleast 500mbps+ on 2X2 AC but i never tested 3X3

now i have actiontec WEB6000Q and its got QCA1000 4X4+2X2 version (2x2 2.4) and i get 550+ on 2X2 with my iphone 6S

im living in a smaller apartment now so range isnt a huge issue to me and ive been looking at getting a 2X2 AC AP that can use tomato so i can use more channels so in the future i dont get 5GHz interference

and i cant find a single 2X2 AC AP which can do 500mbps+ in tests

yet i have gotten 500mbps+ on R7000(3X3 broadcom AC) and WEB6000Q (4X4 QCA AC) consistently and i know they can do it

so i guess my question is

A) is there any 2X2 AC AP's which can get 500mbps+ ( i am pretty sure ubnt new offerings can, but i dont know if i can garautnee being able to change country code to get the channels i want)

B) i would be curious as to a mini list of AC AP's which can do proper high throughput and can handle 500mbps on 2x2

and another question just for fun

what is the highest throughput anyone has seen proven on AC? as it should be on 4x4 2165 or whatever id expect 900-950mbps (getting as fast as wired gigabit, wifi getting as fast as wired !!!!!!!!)

 

[kvic]

I can tell that Netgear is using an older SDK than Asus (10.10.58 vs 10.12.907). Don't know if it has any sizable impact on performance however.

that leaves some room for hope

 

[kvic]

now i have actiontec WEB6000Q and its got QCA1000 4X4+2X2 version (2x2 2.4) and i get 550+ on 2X2 with my iphone 6S

How did you test to find out 550+?

To answer one of your other questions: between my AC56U (a 2x2 802.11ac AP) and client BCM94360CD (3x3 802.11ac max), I got max 436Mbit/s throughput using iperf

That throughput is about 50% of 866Mbit/s link rate for a 2x2 802.11ac. Not outstanding but respectable (and indeed a bit higher than numbers from SNB's lab test of AC56U).

 

[connorm]

Maybe i am incorrect and my old macbook 2X2 ac test was under 500, but definately over 400mbps

550+ with qca1000 4X4 chip in my WEB6000Q to my iphone 6s 2X2

I can post iperf results when im home in a bit

Its essentially the same 5ghz radio as the 87u and i think r7500

Havnt people seen 550+ on 2X2 rt-ac87u?????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blind_Bandit]

Maybe i am incorrect and my old macbook 2X2 ac test was under 500, but definately over 400mbps

550+ with qca1000 4X4 chip in my WEB6000Q to my iphone 6s 2X2

I can post iperf results when im home in a bit

Its essentially the same 5ghz radio as the 87u and i think r7500

Havnt people seen 550+ on 2X2 rt-ac87u?????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

its not the same chipset for the 5Ghx band the 87u used a Quantenna chipset.

https://wikidevi.com/wiki/ASUS_RT-AC87U

https://wikidevi.com/wiki/ASUS_RT-AC88U

Woops you seem to be comparing the 87 to the WEB6000Q. I can't find any specs on that.

 

[kvic]

Havnt people seen 550+ on 2X2 rt-ac87u?????

I highly doubt it on 2x2. It's not ac87u specific but most 2x2 solutions.

From SNB lab test, ac87u achieves about 500Mbit/s on 3x3 (2x2 will be much less)
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/bar/113-5-ghz-dn-c

Most consumers and even prosumers look at max link rates which are the physical layer maximum capability. On top of it is the MAC layer protocol or so called "media access" (not to be confused with DLNA, mp4, mp3 sort of media access) which out of necessity will significantly reduce the physical throughput of the radio.

The design of MAC protocol in WiFi is so called CSMA/CA. Achieve 50% of physical link rate is respectable. 60% would be outstanding. 70% is excellent (more than that is perhaps god sent from aliens at the moment).

AC88U hits 60% mark according to anecdotal reports from early adopters. That's why it interests me so much. But based on review on R8500 which shares the same SoC solution as AC88. I'm less optimistic ASUS can break the rank..

 

[connorm]

WEB6000 Q i am 99.99% sure it is QCA1000 4x4 chipset to iphone 6s 2x2 AC

channel 153 80mhz 550mbps in both directions at the same time

550/866 = 63% and yeah highest i ever seen was about 105 on 144mbps/ (150?) link which is just below 70%


Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.10240]
(c) 2015 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Connor>iperf3 -c 192.168.1.12 -P10 -t 40 -i 5
Connecting to host 192.168.1.12, port 5201
[ 4] local 192.168.1.10 port 56507 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 6] local 192.168.1.10 port 56508 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 8] local 192.168.1.10 port 56509 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 10] local 192.168.1.10 port 56510 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 12] local 192.168.1.10 port 56511 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 14] local 192.168.1.10 port 56512 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 16] local 192.168.1.10 port 56513 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 18] local 192.168.1.10 port 56514 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 20] local 192.168.1.10 port 56515 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ 22] local 192.168.1.10 port 56516 connected to 192.168.1.12 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 36.7 MBytes 61.5 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 0.00-5.00 sec 35.5 MBytes 59.6 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 0.00-5.00 sec 34.7 MBytes 58.2 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 0.00-5.00 sec 33.4 MBytes 56.0 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 0.00-5.00 sec 32.3 MBytes 54.2 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 0.00-5.00 sec 31.4 MBytes 52.6 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 0.00-5.00 sec 30.6 MBytes 51.4 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 0.00-5.00 sec 29.9 MBytes 50.2 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 0.00-5.00 sec 29.2 MBytes 49.0 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 0.00-5.00 sec 28.5 MBytes 47.8 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.00-5.00 sec 322 MBytes 541 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 36.6 MBytes 61.4 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 5.00-10.00 sec 34.5 MBytes 57.8 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 5.00-10.00 sec 33.7 MBytes 56.5 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 5.00-10.00 sec 32.8 MBytes 55.0 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 5.00-10.00 sec 31.5 MBytes 52.8 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 5.00-10.00 sec 30.5 MBytes 51.2 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 5.00-10.00 sec 29.8 MBytes 50.0 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 5.00-10.00 sec 29.0 MBytes 48.6 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 5.00-10.00 sec 28.1 MBytes 47.2 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 5.00-10.00 sec 27.5 MBytes 46.1 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 5.00-10.00 sec 314 MBytes 527 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 10.00-15.00 sec 38.1 MBytes 64.0 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 10.00-15.00 sec 36.4 MBytes 61.0 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 10.00-15.00 sec 34.9 MBytes 58.6 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 10.00-15.00 sec 34.2 MBytes 57.4 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 10.00-15.00 sec 33.0 MBytes 55.3 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 10.00-15.00 sec 31.9 MBytes 53.5 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 10.00-15.00 sec 31.1 MBytes 52.1 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 10.00-15.00 sec 30.5 MBytes 51.2 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 10.00-15.00 sec 29.6 MBytes 49.6 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 10.00-15.00 sec 28.9 MBytes 48.4 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 10.00-15.00 sec 329 MBytes 551 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 15.00-20.00 sec 37.5 MBytes 62.9 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 15.00-20.00 sec 36.2 MBytes 60.7 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 15.00-20.00 sec 35.1 MBytes 58.9 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 15.00-20.00 sec 34.1 MBytes 57.3 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 15.00-20.00 sec 32.6 MBytes 54.7 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 15.00-20.00 sec 31.7 MBytes 53.2 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 15.00-20.00 sec 31.2 MBytes 52.3 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 15.00-20.00 sec 30.4 MBytes 51.0 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 15.00-20.00 sec 29.3 MBytes 49.2 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 15.00-20.00 sec 28.9 MBytes 48.4 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 15.00-20.00 sec 327 MBytes 549 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 20.00-25.00 sec 37.0 MBytes 62.1 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 20.00-25.00 sec 35.6 MBytes 59.8 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 20.00-25.00 sec 34.8 MBytes 58.4 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 20.00-25.00 sec 33.2 MBytes 55.6 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 20.00-25.00 sec 32.7 MBytes 54.9 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 20.00-25.00 sec 31.9 MBytes 53.6 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 20.00-25.00 sec 30.8 MBytes 51.7 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 20.00-25.00 sec 30.0 MBytes 50.4 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 20.00-25.00 sec 29.5 MBytes 49.4 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 20.00-25.00 sec 28.7 MBytes 48.2 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 20.00-25.00 sec 324 MBytes 544 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 25.00-30.00 sec 38.0 MBytes 63.7 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 25.00-30.00 sec 36.3 MBytes 60.9 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 25.00-30.00 sec 35.4 MBytes 59.4 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 25.00-30.00 sec 34.1 MBytes 57.2 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 25.00-30.00 sec 33.1 MBytes 55.5 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 25.00-30.00 sec 32.1 MBytes 53.9 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 25.00-30.00 sec 31.3 MBytes 52.4 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 25.00-30.00 sec 30.4 MBytes 51.0 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 25.00-30.00 sec 29.5 MBytes 49.5 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 25.00-30.00 sec 28.9 MBytes 48.5 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 25.00-30.00 sec 329 MBytes 552 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 30.00-35.00 sec 38.3 MBytes 64.3 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 30.00-35.00 sec 36.6 MBytes 61.4 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 30.00-35.00 sec 35.5 MBytes 59.5 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 30.00-35.00 sec 34.1 MBytes 57.3 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 30.00-35.00 sec 33.5 MBytes 56.2 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 30.00-35.00 sec 32.6 MBytes 54.7 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 30.00-35.00 sec 31.6 MBytes 53.0 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 30.00-35.00 sec 31.1 MBytes 52.2 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 30.00-35.00 sec 30.5 MBytes 51.1 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 30.00-35.00 sec 29.7 MBytes 49.7 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 30.00-35.00 sec 334 MBytes 559 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ 4] 35.00-40.00 sec 38.7 MBytes 64.9 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 35.00-40.00 sec 37.3 MBytes 62.6 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 35.00-40.00 sec 36.2 MBytes 60.8 Mbits/sec
[ 10] 35.00-40.00 sec 35.1 MBytes 59.0 Mbits/sec
[ 12] 35.00-40.00 sec 34.1 MBytes 57.3 Mbits/sec
[ 14] 35.00-40.00 sec 33.5 MBytes 56.3 Mbits/sec
[ 16] 35.00-40.00 sec 32.2 MBytes 54.1 Mbits/sec
[ 18] 35.00-40.00 sec 31.6 MBytes 53.0 Mbits/sec
[ 20] 35.00-40.00 sec 30.7 MBytes 51.5 Mbits/sec
[ 22] 35.00-40.00 sec 30.1 MBytes 50.5 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 35.00-40.00 sec 340 MBytes 570 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-40.00 sec 301 MBytes 63.1 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-40.00 sec 301 MBytes 63.1 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 6] 0.00-40.00 sec 288 MBytes 60.5 Mbits/sec sender
[ 6] 0.00-40.00 sec 288 MBytes 60.5 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 8] 0.00-40.00 sec 280 MBytes 58.8 Mbits/sec sender
[ 8] 0.00-40.00 sec 280 MBytes 58.8 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 10] 0.00-40.00 sec 271 MBytes 56.8 Mbits/sec sender
[ 10] 0.00-40.00 sec 271 MBytes 56.8 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 12] 0.00-40.00 sec 263 MBytes 55.1 Mbits/sec sender
[ 12] 0.00-40.00 sec 263 MBytes 55.1 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 14] 0.00-40.00 sec 256 MBytes 53.6 Mbits/sec sender
[ 14] 0.00-40.00 sec 256 MBytes 53.6 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 16] 0.00-40.00 sec 249 MBytes 52.1 Mbits/sec sender
[ 16] 0.00-40.00 sec 249 MBytes 52.1 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 18] 0.00-40.00 sec 243 MBytes 50.9 Mbits/sec sender
[ 18] 0.00-40.00 sec 243 MBytes 50.9 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 20] 0.00-40.00 sec 236 MBytes 49.6 Mbits/sec sender
[ 20] 0.00-40.00 sec 236 MBytes 49.6 Mbits/sec receiver
[ 22] 0.00-40.00 sec 231 MBytes 48.5 Mbits/sec sender
[ 22] 0.00-40.00 sec 231 MBytes 48.5 Mbits/sec receiver
[SUM] 0.00-40.00 sec 2.56 GBytes 549 Mbits/sec sender
[SUM] 0.00-40.00 sec 2.56 GBytes 549 Mbits/sec receiver

iperf Done.

C:\Users\Connor>

 

[connorm]

I highly doubt it on 2x2. It's not ac87u specific but most 2x2 solutions.

From SNB lab test, ac87u achieves about 500Mbit/s on 3x3 (2x2 will be much less)
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/bar/113-5-ghz-dn-c

Most consumers and even prosumers look at max link rates which are the physical layer maximum capability. On top of it is the MAC layer protocol or so called "media access" (not to be confused with DLNA, mp4, mp3 sort of media access) which out of necessity will significantly reduce the physical throughput of the radio.

The design of MAC protocol in WiFi is so called CSMA/CA. Achieve 50% of physical link rate is respectable. 60% would be outstanding. 70% is excellent (more than that is perhaps god sent from aliens at the moment).

AC88U hits 60% mark according to anecdotal reports from early adopters. That's why it interests me so much. But based on review on R8500 which shares the same SoC solution as AC88. I'm less optimistic ASUS can break the rank..

well, i have also seen and proven 90mbps+ on 2x2 2.4 20Mhz 144 link and i seen it hit 105mbps on devices tims tests showed nowhere near that max throughput

and ive seen 95mbps on 150N 5GHz 40MHz link with iphone 5

i think many people setup there wifi very poorly, for example setting the power to high, or not even understanding how the AC protocol creates channels or what power output the router is making on different channels

i had someone insist to me the other day that channel 8 was the best channel and hes been on it for years smh

 

[m3tpe]

are these good settings good for performance on wifi? Any changes I should do?
I did notice slight improvement in 5ghz connection when compared to my ac87u. At the same location if I run a speedtest, I would get around 30Mbps on speedtest.net. But on ac88u, I got 70Mbps. My internet connection should give me 180Mbps/12Mbps

settings for ac88u by twkidM3, on Flickr

 

[connorm]

yeah set ur channel to 153 extension should be set to lower in that case

153 will be the 20MHz channel

149+153MHz will be the 40MHz channel

149+153+157+161 will be the 80MHz channel

this 80MHz channel will always give the highest tx power, sometimes other channels will give the same tx power, but never more, atleast from what i know. on ur 2.4 disable b/g protection

 

[m3tpe]

yeah set ur channel to 153 extension should be set to lower in that case

153 will be the 20MHz channel

149+153MHz will be the 40MHz channel

149+153+157+161 will be the 80MHz channel

this 80MHz channel will always give the highest tx power, sometimes other channels will give the same tx power, but never more, atleast from what i know. on ur 2.4 disable b/g protection

Wait i'm confused.. so I set 5ghz channel bandwidth to 153? Because Channel Extension dropdown only gives me "auto"

 

[kvic]

WEB6000 Q i am 99.99% sure it is QCA1000 4x4 chipset to iphone 6s 2x2 AC

channel 153 80mhz 550mbps in both directions at the same time

550/866 = 63% and yeah highest i ever seen was about 105 on 144mbps/ (150?) link which is just below 70%

Hitting 60%+ is outstanding I would say.

Actiontec, first time hearing it...looks like an interesting firm.

 

[connorm]

Yes m3tpe id set it to 153 if i were you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk