Some confusion about the benchmark summaries and the charts.

[eaenfo]

I've been looking for a new router and I've been comparing the performance on the charts and in the reviews, but I'm having trouble understanding some of the metrics.

For one what is the difference between the "profile" and the non-profile benchmarks?

Also, how come updown throughput is listed in the charts and in the reviews, but there is no test for it? How is that value obtained?

 

[thiggins]

I've been looking for a new router and I've been comparing the performance on the charts and in the reviews, but I'm having trouble understanding some of the metrics.

For one what is the difference between the "profile" and the non-profile benchmarks?

Yes, the charts can be confusing.

The profile charts hold data for the latest test method that tests throughput vs. attenuation in 3dB steps. They provide a more complete picture of wireless performance over a wide, controlled signal level range.

Non-profile charts hold data using the older open-air four-position test method.

For products with profile charts, non-profile charts take four specific measurement values (0, 21, 39 & 60 dB for 2.4 GHz, 0, 21, 39 & 45 dB for 5 GHz) from the profile data. These charts are used to calculate the Router Ranker scores.

Also, how come updown throughput is listed in the charts and in the reviews, but there is no test for it? How is that value obtained?

The test is described in the Version 7 procedure, Step 3c.

 

[Deleted member 28741]

DB

First of all, thanks for providing such a valuable resource with your excellent site, reviews, charts and these forums.

After using these tools (and a month of deliberation!) I finally got an AC 66 U .. When I use the "wifi analyser" app on my android tablet it shows signal strength in -dbm. Is that the same measurement as your "throughput" charts show?

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/imag...ink_dir868l/dlink_dir868l_5ghz_dn_compare.jpg

Also, since throughput depends upon signal strength how much signal is enough?

In the rooms I use wifi on 5ghz I get -45 to -55dbm and on 2.4 ghz I get -30 to -40dbm.

NB that's where my confusion arises as your charts show best results with higher signal strengths and your throughput charts stop at about -45.

 

[thiggins]

When I use the "wifi analyser" app on my android tablet it shows signal strength in -dbm. Is that the same measurement as your "throughput" charts show?

No. Those plots show throughput vs. attenuation, not signal strength. The test process is described here.

Also, since throughput depends upon signal strength how much signal is enough? In the rooms I use wifi on 5ghz I get -45 to -55dbm and on 2.4 ghz I get -30 to -40dbm.

There are no strict rules since signal strength is reported differently by different devices. That said, the numbers you report indicate relatively strong signals.

 

[Deleted member 28741]

Thanks for explaining things so well.

 

[klmd]

Yes, the charts can be confusing.

The profile charts hold data for the latest test method that tests throughput vs. attenuation in 3dB steps. They provide a more complete picture of wireless performance over a wide, controlled signal level range.

Non-profile charts hold data using the older open-air four-position test method.

For products with profile charts, non-profile charts take four specific measurement values (0, 21, 39 & 60 dB for 2.4 GHz, 0, 21, 39 & 45 dB for 5 GHz) from the profile data. These charts are used to calculate the Router Ranker scores.

The test is described in the Version 7 procedure, Step 3c.

If I'm understanding correctly, does this mean that the following is a reasonable approximation regarding your previous test process?

0db attenuation = location A
21db attenuation = location C
39db attenuation = location D
[60dB @ 2.4GHz, 45dB @ 5GHz] attenuation = location F

I ask because this would help translate the attenuations to a real-world setup, e.g. I feel like my setup would compare decently well with location C, so in the profile charts I should pay special attention to the throughputs at 21dB attenuation.

Based on what you said this seems to be true, but just wanted to double check. Also, to "personalize" the results even more, would it be at all accurate for me to walk around with inSSIDer and measure the reported signal strength (-25dBm) right next to the router, and then to the next room (say -45dBm), and treat that as a 20dB attenuation? Of course, to ensure comparable throughput results all else would need to be equal as well (interference, client adapter).

 

[thiggins]

Your understanding of the locations and attenuations are correct.

I did just what you propose to do when developing the new test process. I used inSSIDer and also WiSpy/ Chanalyzer to get RSSI readings.

In the end, I had to give up and just choose attenuation values that tended to hit points on the throughput vs. attenuation curve that I wanted. Readings were not consistent enough and also hit a floor in the lower signal locations where readings appeared to no longer track signal level.

But give it a shot and see what you get.

 

[Deleted member 28741]

Thanks for explaining this so clearly - it makes the rank charts so much easier to understand from a real life perspective.

 

[klmd]

Great, thank you!

P.S., as a suggestion, perhaps an addendum to the test process article could be added explaining how individuals could attempt to translate the attenuation values to get a rough idea of performance levels in their situation (again with the important disclaimer of an ideal setup without significant interference). I'm sure some readers who are more new to this aren't sure what to make of attenuation charts aside from low = close and high = far.

After browsing around the last few days I do have a few other small suggestions too. For one, I noticed that storage performance on routers is not a category in the router charts (for simplicity I'm sure even just including one category, e.g. NTFS read, would give a decent comparison of capabilities). Also, for the new adapter charts, it would be nice to have the ASUS PCE-AC66U added along with the USB adapters that are already there

Anyways, great work on the site! The test process as it's evolved clearly has advantages both in the time-efficiency of testing and standardization of results. Other review sites tend to have way too many uncontrolled variables to have faith in the reliability of the results.