Wutikorn
Senior Member
Charts only show router tested with the latest test revision. RT2600AC was tested with older test revision, so it is not showing in the current chart. You should be able to find it if you select older tests.
Synology RT2600ac Router Reviewed
Dave in NM
Regular Contributor
Any chance it can be added to current version 10, so we can see where it falls.
I just tried the 86U after using an R9000 on Voxel's firmware.
The Asus 86u has dreadful wired and wifi performance in comparison. On the R9000 I was getting 950/950 regularly on speedtest. On the 86U, the best I'd see is around 500...a couple of times it got up to 700. My R9000 gets me 500 on wifi. The 86u could barely do 300. I also couldn't stand the fact that it won't pull native ipv6. I had to enter my ipv6 details in as static while the Netgear pulled it easily.
I ordered the Synology to test it out tomorrow since it's wifi chip is the same as the R9000 and the R7800 - both have shown great results in all my tests and work well. I guess I'm just checking to see if I can find something better. The R9000 has the best CPU of the bunch so it definitely has an advantage there. Software wise, I'm interested to see what SRM can do. Definitely will never use ASUS again. Their firmware is more than ridiculous.
The Asus 86u has dreadful wired and wifi performance in comparison. On the R9000 I was getting 950/950 regularly on speedtest. On the 86U, the best I'd see is around 500...a couple of times it got up to 700. My R9000 gets me 500 on wifi. The 86u could barely do 300. I also couldn't stand the fact that it won't pull native ipv6. I had to enter my ipv6 details in as static while the Netgear pulled it easily.
I ordered the Synology to test it out tomorrow since it's wifi chip is the same as the R9000 and the R7800 - both have shown great results in all my tests and work well. I guess I'm just checking to see if I can find something better. The R9000 has the best CPU of the bunch so it definitely has an advantage there. Software wise, I'm interested to see what SRM can do. Definitely will never use ASUS again. Their firmware is more than ridiculous.
I have no plans to retest it.
Dave in NM
Regular Contributor
Thx. Sold, onto Orbi. And I'm loving this RBK50.
sfx2000
Part of the Furniture
SRM 1.2 has added quite a few more features - 160 and 80+80 support, WPA3, and more Mesh Point - all thanks to updates from the Qualcomm-Atheros QSDK...
If time and resources permit, might be worth a second look.
I have one under test right now, and this is shaping up to be a really nice Small Business Class Router/AP...
Code:
BSS 00:11:32:aa:bb:cc(on wlan0)
last seen: 364115.402s [boottime]
TSF: 505033201 usec (0d, 00:08:25)
freq: 5320
beacon interval: 100 TUs
capability: ESS Privacy SpectrumMgmt ShortSlotTime RadioMeasure (0x1511)
signal: -25.00 dBm
last seen: 0 ms ago
Information elements from Probe Response frame:
SSID: SynoRT2600_SRM12_Test
Supported rates: 6.0* 9.0 12.0* 18.0 24.0* 36.0 48.0 54.0
DS Parameter set: channel 64
Country: US Environment: Indoor/Outdoor
Channels [36 - 36] @ 24 dBm
Channels [40 - 40] @ 24 dBm
Channels [44 - 44] @ 24 dBm
Channels [48 - 48] @ 24 dBm
Channels [52 - 52] @ 24 dBm
Channels [56 - 56] @ 24 dBm
Channels [60 - 60] @ 24 dBm
Channels [64 - 64] @ 24 dBm
Channels [100 - 100] @ 24 dBm
Channels [104 - 104] @ 24 dBm
Channels [108 - 108] @ 24 dBm
Channels [112 - 112] @ 24 dBm
Channels [116 - 116] @ 24 dBm
Channels [132 - 132] @ 24 dBm
Channels [136 - 136] @ 24 dBm
Channels [140 - 140] @ 24 dBm
Channels [149 - 149] @ 30 dBm
Channels [153 - 153] @ 30 dBm
Channels [157 - 157] @ 30 dBm
Channels [161 - 161] @ 30 dBm
Channels [165 - 165] @ 30 dBm
Power constraint: 3 dB
HT capabilities:
Capabilities: 0x9ef
RX LDPC
HT20/HT40
SM Power Save disabled
RX HT20 SGI
RX HT40 SGI
TX STBC
RX STBC 1-stream
Max AMSDU length: 7935 bytes
No DSSS/CCK HT40
Maximum RX AMPDU length 65535 bytes (exponent: 0x003)
Minimum RX AMPDU time spacing: No restriction (0x00)
HT TX/RX MCS rate indexes supported: 0-31
HT operation:
* primary channel: 64
* secondary channel offset: below
* STA channel width: any
* RIFS: 0
* HT protection: no
* non-GF present: 0
* OBSS non-GF present: 0
* dual beacon: 0
* dual CTS protection: 0
* STBC beacon: 0
* L-SIG TXOP Prot: 0
* PCO active: 0
* PCO phase: 0
Overlapping BSS scan params:
* passive dwell: 20 TUs
* active dwell: 10 TUs
* channel width trigger scan interval: 300 s
* scan passive total per channel: 200 TUs
* scan active total per channel: 20 TUs
* BSS width channel transition delay factor: 5
* OBSS Scan Activity Threshold: 0.25 %
Extended capabilities:
* HT Information Exchange Supported
* Extended Channel Switching
* TFS
* WNM-Sleep Mode
* TIM Broadcast
* BSS Transition
* SSID List
* Operating Mode Notification
* Max Number Of MSDUs In A-MSDU is unlimited
VHT capabilities:
VHT Capabilities (0x338b79f6):
Max MPDU length: 11454
Supported Channel Width: 160 MHz
RX LDPC
short GI (80 MHz)
short GI (160/80+80 MHz)
TX STBC
SU Beamformer
SU Beamformee
MU Beamformer
RX antenna pattern consistency
TX antenna pattern consistency
VHT RX MCS set:
1 streams: MCS 0-9
2 streams: MCS 0-9
3 streams: MCS 0-9
4 streams: MCS 0-9
5 streams: not supported
6 streams: not supported
7 streams: not supported
8 streams: not supported
VHT RX highest supported: 0 Mbps
VHT TX MCS set:
1 streams: MCS 0-9
2 streams: MCS 0-9
3 streams: MCS 0-9
4 streams: MCS 0-9
5 streams: not supported
6 streams: not supported
7 streams: not supported
8 streams: not supported
VHT TX highest supported: 0 Mbps
VHT operation:
* channel width: 1 (80 MHz)
* center freq segment 1: 58
* center freq segment 2: 50
* VHT basic MCS set: 0xfffc
WMM: * Parameter version 1
* u-APSD
* BE: CW 15-1023, AIFSN 3
* BK: CW 15-1023, AIFSN 7
* VI: CW 7-15, AIFSN 2, TXOP 3008 usec
* VO: CW 3-7, AIFSN 2, TXOP 1504 usec
RSN: * Version: 1
* Group cipher: CCMP
* Pairwise ciphers: CCMP
* Authentication suites: PSK 00-0f-ac:8
* Capabilities: 16-PTKSA-RC 1-GTKSA-RC MFP-capable (0x008c)
L&LD
Part of the Furniture
sfx2000, the dBm numbers are interesting to me. As is the RT2600AC too.
Is 24dBm better than 30dBm (should they be -24dBM, in other words)?
If so, this seems to fall in line with my experience that for most of my router installations, the lower bands are much preferred.
Or, am I reading those values incorrectly?
Is 24dBm better than 30dBm (should they be -24dBM, in other words)?
If so, this seems to fall in line with my experience that for most of my router installations, the lower bands are much preferred.
Or, am I reading those values incorrectly?
sfx2000
Part of the Furniture
30 dBm would be better in this case - but this is typical post FCC...
Older devices were limited to 17 dBm - so while the new limits are 30, 24 is a nice place to be considering legacy clients in the UNII-1/UNII-2 bands to keep links balanced.
Syno is using Qualcomm's QSDK, and they've done the hard work here - and based on my experience working across Wimax, 3g/4g, and Wifi, the numbers look ok.
L&LD
Part of the Furniture
Thanks, sfx2000,
I'm assuming though that the lower Control Channels (36 to 48, here) still have more 'penetration' than the higher (149 to 165) Control Channels though. Correct?
Even though the higher channels have 6 dBm more raw signal?
sfx2000
Part of the Furniture
Note the DFS support in the capture above - some clients will not do DFS, as they didn't do the FCC/EU cert testing there....
Asus USB devices stick out - not sure why, as the firmware in those devices _can_ do it, but can be redlined out - again, regulatory stuff...
Buffalo 11n - they typically don't do UNII-3, long story there with Japan certs..
sfx2000
Part of the Furniture
UNII-3 band is likely going to give better overall - but that's a battle with noise in the channel - but that affects all vendors, and we're starting to get off-topic.
The interesting stuff with RT2600ac is the DFS and 160MHz support in 5GHz, along with WPA3 and WPA2/3 coexistence...
MU and the Mesh support is a bonus I suppose... but one gets that with QSDK in any event with the current IPQ series chipsets.
dlarkin_dc
New Around Here
From the test/review... "The Synology scored slightly higher on the functional test but had one serious test failure, i.e. one of the firewall tests found port 80 open to the WAN side."
I didn't find this resolved or mentioned in any of the Synology firmware updates, and I did my best to scroll through this forums and didn't see any follow up mention of it. It sounds like a feature that is in the Synology NAS firmware for hosting websites.
Can any of the rt2600ac users here chime in... is this still an issue in current firmware,or an option that can be disabled?
Dave
I didn't find this resolved or mentioned in any of the Synology firmware updates, and I did my best to scroll through this forums and didn't see any follow up mention of it. It sounds like a feature that is in the Synology NAS firmware for hosting websites.
Can any of the rt2600ac users here chime in... is this still an issue in current firmware,or an option that can be disabled?
Dave
Dave in NM
Regular Contributor
I must be crazy but i bought this router again yesterday (sold my initial one a while back) to go along with my three MR2200ac routers.
dlarkin_dc
New Around Here
Dave, not crazy at all. They seem like amazing hardware, just what I need. I'm very used DSM on the NASs, but the home grown DSM-lite Tomato-clone with an open WAN-side port, and it's port 80... I feel like some assurance is needed when the WRT R7800 is my other choice.
How reliable have you found the rt2600ac... like uptimes, any snags you've run into?
Dave in NM
Regular Contributor
Well the 7800 is a great device.
Actually, I've found the Synology 2600ac super-reliable and solid, a cut above ASUS and Netgear (though that's not saying much). We'll see next week how this new one works out, the SRM software is more mature than when I had it originally.
Actually, I've found the Synology 2600ac super-reliable and solid, a cut above ASUS and Netgear (though that's not saying much). We'll see next week how this new one works out, the SRM software is more mature than when I had it originally.
I've considered switching to the Synology mesh hardware, but from what I see of it, not designed for living areas. I don't want something that looks like that in my living room or bedroom. Sounds weird, but the low-profile nodes for the mesh that I have now just sit the same table that the TV's are on. The Synology nodes couldn't do that, no place to hide them in our living areas. Wife acceptance factor = 0 *smile*, and not too happy with them myself. When Synology designs a low-profile node that fits in with a normal room (not a computer room *smile*), I'll be there. Not quite sure what they were thinking when they went that way, pretty unique among the mesh designs that I've seen.
Meanwhile, our current mesh serves our needs. I do like to play with new stuff, though *smile*...just waiting on Synology for this one.
Meanwhile, our current mesh serves our needs. I do like to play with new stuff, though *smile*...just waiting on Synology for this one.
Dave in NM
Regular Contributor
I love the size of the mr2200ac mesh nodes, they looks like small routers. But yep they are not "pucks". But the last thing I want is a google listening devices in my house.
dlarkin_dc
New Around Here
They certainly do not have living space styling!
Dave in NM
Regular Contributor
Depends how techy you are. For my house, we like seeing them around.
