RT-AC88U

[kvic]

Less than a week ago, Tim used an older driver, and people still called him out on it, claiming the results were due to the old drivers. Obviously, it can't be both...

If I read it right, AC88U with the old firmware (378.xxx) performed much worse than R8500 (if it cames with the same old driver as AC88U) one week ago. The latest charts not so.

Both AC88U and R8500 have the new Wifi chip. RT-AC3200 has the older wifi chip. On the latest tests, old and new wifi chip perform on par on 5GHz downlink as seen on R8500 and RT-AC3200. AC88U is one notch worse.

On 5GHz uplink, R8500 and AC88U perform on par. RT-AC3200 is one to two notch better.

Assume the new chip spec shall perform at least as well as the older chip. The driver for the new chip is a convenient suspect..

 

[sfx2000]

If I read it right, AC88U with the old firmware (378.xxx) performed much worse than R8500 (if it cames with the same old driver as AC88U) one week ago. The latest charts not so.

Both AC88U and R8500 have the new Wifi chip. RT-AC3200 has the older wifi chip. On the latest tests, old and new wifi chip perform on par on 5GHz downlink as seen on R8500 and RT-AC3200. AC88U is one notch worse.

On 5GHz uplink, R8500 and AC88U perform on par. RT-AC3200 is one to two notch better.

Assume the new chip spec shall perform at least as well as the older chip. The driver for the new chip is a convenient suspect..

As RMerlin mentioned earlier, the drivers in the earlier build were running with debug enabled, and this puts a lot of load on the chip (memory thrash for debug hooks and logging, as well as extra task loading) on the earlier units - the current firmware should be better off..

 

[sm00thpapa]

From my understanding the AC88U and AC5300 have the same radios and wireless drivers. The only difference is the antenna design. Do you think that will make a difference in wifi reception? Or am I totally wrong here?

 

[RMerlin]

From my understanding the AC88U and AC5300 have the same radios and wireless drivers. The only difference is the antenna design. Do you think that will make a difference in wifi reception? Or am I totally wrong here?

The AC5300 has the same version, but not necessarily the same profile configuration. Wifi behaviour might be different from the AC88/AC3100.

 

[kvic]

From my understanding the AC88U and AC5300 have the same radios and wireless drivers. The only difference is the antenna design. Do you think that will make a difference in wifi reception? Or am I totally wrong here?

I can't find chamber tests for RT-AC5300..we can't come to any conclusion yet on wifi performance between the two.

 

[kvic]

the current firmware should be better off..

Yes.. the current firmware (compared to 378.xxx) is definitely better off for AC88U owners.

We can't explain two things...

1) AC88U with newer driver performs worse than R8500 with older driver on 5GHz downlink. It's consistently worse across all attenuation .

2) 5GHz performance of AC88U and R8500 (both contain newer wifi chip) is not as good as RT-AC3200 (which contains older wifi chip) if not worse.

 

[nightfly]

First post!

Bought an AC88U and have had it 6 days. So far, one "crash" and one "don't know what happened but it's unresponsive - crash". When I first got it, I immediately upgraded it to .858 fw version.

The first crash happened early in the morning after a few days of up time under no load. Woke up and discovered just the power light light on the unit. No wireless and no WAN connectivity wired. Reboot and disabled "Traffic Analyzer" which I had enable the night before. This was last Thursday morning. Today, Sat night I got a lockup. All LEDs blinking - remained connected wirelessly but could not get to internet or router (wired too.).

I have the DLNA server enabled along with the SAMBA server with a USB 3.0 drive attached. Otherwise, all else is default setup along with one guest 2.4 network - so overall a minimal setup: no QOS, no VPN, etc. I only get ~85MB or so NTFS read performance from a Win7 wired box.

I upgraded from a N66U which had it troubles until I went with the Merlin builds but currently is stable. Contemplating back-grading to the AC68u for $130. I tested a Netgear X4 7500 for a few days and consistently got over 100MB with the same client and ext drive. But the X4's 2.4 performance was really bad, worse than my N66U so it went back.

So two crashes in under a week. Is it a bad unit? Maybe, unlikely. I bought from Amazon so I can get another unit and reconfigure. Go back to N66u and just wait or...just want stability; AC compatibility, and very good USB 3.0 peformance.

 

[sm00thpapa]

First post!

Bought an AC88U and have had it 6 days. So far, one "crash" and one "don't know what happened but it's unresponsive - crash". When I first got it, I immediately upgraded it to .858 fw version.

The first crash happened early in the morning after a few days of up time under no load. Woke up and discovered just the power light light on the unit. No wireless and no WAN connectivity wired. Reboot and disabled "Traffic Analyzer" which I had enable the night before. This was last Thursday morning. Today, Sat night I got a lockup. All LEDs blinking - remained connected wirelessly but could not get to internet or router (wired too.).

I have the DLNA server enabled along with the SAMBA server with a USB 3.0 drive attached. Otherwise, all else is default setup along with one guest 2.4 network - so overall a minimal setup: no QOS, no VPN, etc. I only get ~85MB or so NTFS read performance from a Win7 wired box.

I upgraded from a N66U which had it troubles until I went with the Merlin builds but currently is stable. Contemplating back-grading to the AC68u for $130. I tested a Netgear X4 7500 for a few days and consistently got over 100MB with the same client and ext drive. But the X4's 2.4 performance was really bad, worse than my N66U so it went back.

So two crashes in under a week. Is it a bad unit? Maybe, unlikely. I bought from Amazon so I can get another unit and reconfigure. Go back to N66u and just wait or...just want stability; AC compatibility, and very good USB 3.0 peformance.

After you upgraded the firmware did you reset to factory specs than configure it? You went from .378 to .380. Sometimes without a factory reset that can cause issues.

 

[nightfly]

After you upgraded the firmware did you reset to factory specs than configure it? You went from .378 to .380. Sometimes without a factory reset that can cause issues.

Fresh from the box, I upgraded it so it was at factory defaults before and after upgrade. I decided to give Asus another chance and ordered a replacement from Amazon. We'll see.

 

[sm00thpapa]

Fresh from the box, I upgraded it so it was at factory defaults before and after upgrade. I decided to give Asus another chance and ordered a replacement from Amazon. We'll see.

It was factory defaults for .378 not .380. You needed to factory reset it to get it to factory default for .380. If you still have the router I would give it a try.

 

[faur]

I'm ok with ac88u. I have 5 days without reboot and more important, i have no loss in speed. With ac87u it was needed always to reboot it every 2-3 days in order to have the same speed... I'm still expecting an AC88U wifi driver to have the same range and speed as ac5300, having the same wifi chip...

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[kvic]

I'm ok with ac88u.

I'm expecting a lot from AC88U with the new wifi chip (bcm4366).

Not the MU-MIMO stuff which I don't care from the beginning and won't be for a long while.

The new wifi chip has better spec which should improve both wireless throughput and range.

 

[faur]

Agree, i'm just ok, not impressed at all...

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[nightfly]

It was factory defaults for .378 not .380. You needed to factory reset it to get it to factory default for .380. If you still have the router I would give it a try.

I do this when I get the replacement. I'd rather put the effort into a new one just in case. I did get another "lock up no WAN" about an hour after I posted the above note.

Interface-wise, Asus blows away Netgear. The Netgear X4 7500 interface and features are stuck really look no different from my flawed N3700 from over 10 years ago. Love my N66u, just time to upgrade as I need "more" bandwidth wirelessly, WAN, LAN and NAS.

Off topic: is it possible to setup the N66U to provide a 2.4 AP and use the 5Ghz band for "back-haul" to the AC88u? Does this require custom fw? Thanks.

 

[ronan_zj]

so the main difference between AC88U and AC5300 is the AC5300 has extra 5G chanel? and the cost is $100 more?

 

[kvic]

You ask the same question in two threads, which isn't necessary..

Out of curiosity, I compared the two.. AC5300 has double the weight of AC88 (1814g vs 950g). Perhaps AC5300 is better built. It's a good paperweight comparable to a laptop from older days.

AC5300 is a quarter less bulky than AC88 in terms of volume. Surprise! 245x245x65 mm for AC5300 vs 11.8x7.4.3.3 inch for AC88. Interestingly, ASUS only list metric dimensions for AC5300 and imperial dimensions for AC88. Marketeers' dirty tricks...giving a hard time for consumers to directly compare their sizes.

AC5300 consumes 40% at most more electricity than AC88U. 19V@3.45A vs 19V@2.37A. That's fair given AC5300 has one more 4x4 5GHz band.

My wish is to have AC88U in a more compact form perhaps like AC5300 or smaller. Sacrificing four extra LAN ports is fine.

 

[sm00thpapa]

so the main difference between AC88U and AC5300 is the AC5300 has extra 5G chanel? and the cost is $100 more?

It has an extra 5GHz radio not channel and 4 more Gigabit ports with link aggregation.

 

[kvic]

I'm sharing test result from my AC56U. I know it's a bit off-topic..I hope someone with AC88U could conduct similar test.

Test Setup

Debian 8.2 on bare metal <= GbE => RT-AC56U <= ac 2x2 => Debian 8.2 on Virtualbox

The bare metal is a Thinkpad T61 connected to AC56U through gigabit ethernet. Virtualbox runs on a Mac connected to AC56U through 802.11ac 2x2:2 wireless and about 3m apart.

The Mac has a BCM94360CD wireless card which is capable of 802.11ac 3x3:3 and under utilised in my setup.

On the bare metal, I run

• $ iperf -s

On the Virtualbox I run

• $ while (true); do iperf -c jess -P 5 -t 25 | grep SUM; sleep 5; done
• it initiates 5 parallel streams for a duration of 25s. Then rests 5 seconds and repeat.
• if you're using Windows, adjust -P values to achieve max throughput. Windows TCP/IP stack is not as efficient as Linux. So you may need more parallel streams to stress the 802.11ac link.

Test Result

Spoiler: iperf stats

[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.64 GBytes 562 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 654 MBytes 219 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 667 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.58 GBytes 540 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.96 GBytes 672 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.98 GBytes 679 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.98 GBytes 680 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.2 sec 1.93 GBytes 659 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 667 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.99 GBytes 682 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.94 GBytes 663 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.99 GBytes 682 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.69 GBytes 580 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.7 sec 1.72 GBytes 574 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.96 GBytes 673 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.89 GBytes 647 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 666 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.99 GBytes 680 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.91 GBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 2.00 GBytes 686 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.92 GBytes 657 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.98 GBytes 678 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.87 GBytes 641 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.88 GBytes 643 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.91 GBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.97 GBytes 675 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.92 GBytes 658 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.88 GBytes 643 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.87 GBytes 641 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.93 GBytes 662 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.92 GBytes 658 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.96 GBytes 671 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.92 GBytes 658 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.98 GBytes 679 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.82 GBytes 626 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 667 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.91 GBytes 656 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.94 GBytes 664 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.90 GBytes 651 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.95 GBytes 667 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.88 GBytes 644 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.93 GBytes 662 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.89 GBytes 648 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.91 GBytes 654 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.68 GBytes 575 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.73 GBytes 593 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.86 GBytes 637 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.94 GBytes 663 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.91 GBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.96 GBytes 671 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.91 GBytes 656 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.94 GBytes 664 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.93 GBytes 660 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.99 GBytes 680 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.94 GBytes 666 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 668 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.90 GBytes 651 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.93 GBytes 664 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.89 GBytes 648 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.93 GBytes 661 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.2 sec 1.73 GBytes 590 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.69 GBytes 579 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.86 GBytes 637 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.96 GBytes 671 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.89 GBytes 648 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.86 GBytes 636 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.87 GBytes 640 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.83 GBytes 625 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.71 GBytes 586 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.96 GBytes 671 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.92 GBytes 657 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.75 GBytes 599 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.94 GBytes 665 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.93 GBytes 661 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.94 GBytes 667 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.91 GBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.70 GBytes 582 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.73 GBytes 594 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.95 GBytes 669 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 669 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.73 GBytes 594 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.98 GBytes 678 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.96 GBytes 672 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.89 GBytes 646 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.81 GBytes 621 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.97 GBytes 676 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.54 GBytes 529 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.18 GBytes 405 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.82 GBytes 622 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.71 GBytes 586 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.87 GBytes 639 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.71 GBytes 585 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.95 GBytes 668 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.95 GBytes 670 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.90 GBytes 652 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.97 GBytes 674 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.98 GBytes 678 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.89 GBytes 648 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.97 GBytes 675 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.94 GBytes 664 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-27.0 sec 1.95 GBytes 620 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.97 GBytes 674 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.47 GBytes 503 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.89 GBytes 648 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.56 GBytes 534 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.23 GBytes 421 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.89 GBytes 648 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.94 GBytes 666 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.94 GBytes 666 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.91 GBytes 655 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.87 GBytes 642 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.1 sec 1.82 GBytes 622 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-25.0 sec 1.79 GBytes 614 Mbits/sec

CPU Utilisation of Three Typical Cycles

Would be great if you can indicate CPU utilisation of your AC88U during tests.

Conclusion...

That test was done while the Mac is also used for casual browsing, and under usual radio interference in a typical household (e.g. human bodies passing by). If repeat the same test overnight (while people sleep), most of the time I see >670Mbit/s.

If we take 600Mbit/s as the average, it's 70% efficiency over a 867Mbit/s 802.11ac 2x2 radio. This is now my yardstick of judging any new routers..

 

[CyberAthlete]

Picked up two AC3100 from Best Buy. Set one up as the main router, the other as an Access Point. I had the AC87u for 3 months before exchanging out for these new ones. So far really impressed. Stable connectivity, no disconnects on any device from what I can tell, and range is superb! I get full signal and 80mbps-90mbps speedtest on my phone from the top floor all the way into my basement. This is done using the router on the 2nd floor and then taking the phone into the basement.

Router is on the second floor
The access point sits on the first floor for devices on that floor and and the basement

Current setup:
AC3100 Router (second floor). Caters to upstairs (serves 8-10 devices). 2 unique SSIDs. Roaming Assistant disabled.

• 2x Desktop PCs
• Laptop A
• iPad
• 3x Smartphones
• Roku 4

AC3100 Access point (for first floor and basement). 2 unique SSIDs + Guest SSID. Roaming Assistant disabled.

• Laptop B
• PS4
• PS3
• Xbox 360
• 2x Desktop PCs
• Amazon Fire Stick
• 1x Smartphone
• + guests (1-8 at any given time)

Note that each router is connected to a unique device. I did it this way to split the load between both routers.

 

[thiggins]

Picked up two AC3100 from Best Buy. Set one up as the main router, the other as an Access Point. I had the AC87u for 3 months before exchanging out for these new ones...

Which band are you reporting performance for?