TP-LINK Archer C7 AC1750 Wireless Dual Band Gigabit Router Reviewed

[pete y testing]

Can't agree with that...I have two of the new wireless-AC routers here, both of which have great 5GHz. coverage, but the 2.4GHz. coverage is always better. That's physics, a 5GHz. signal attenuates a lot quicker than a 2.4GHz. signal with distance, and objects in between the router and client. You can't beat physics.

i have , the netgear r7000 , asus rt-ac68u , linksys wrt1900AC and in all cases the signal is as good at 20 meters through 2 walls as it is at 10 feet with 5 gig

this generic assumption that 2.4 gig goes further comes from the days before beam forming and amplification

as an example

netgear r7000 5 gig 10 feet with connected dlink 327L to desktop comp

asus pce-ac66

read 46 MB/s write 32 MB/s sync 1.3 gig


netgear r7000 5 gig 20 meters 2 rooms away with connected dlink 327L to desktop comp

asus pce-ac66

read 49 MB/s MB/s write 32 MB/s sync 877.5M

------------------
netgear r7000 2.4 gig 10 feet with connected dlink 327L to desktop comp

asus pce-ac66

read 23 MB/s MB/s write 14 MB/s sync 450M


netgear r7000 2.4 gig 20 meters 2 rooms away with connected dlink 327L to desktop comp

asus pce-ac66

read 14.5 MB/s write 13.5 MB/s sync 324M

the same or similar data is generated for the asus and linksys ( can post the long version if you want )

beamforming has changed the game when it comes to 5 gig , itrs time we recognized this and moved past the initial days of 5 gig low coverage

pete

 

[thiggins]

Beamforming helps mainly at mid-range and at most provides 3-4dB of gain. This buys you 1 -2 MCS rates. It also requires beamforming support on both ends of the link for maximum gain. "Implicit" beamforming (support on AP only) provides lower gain.

RF designs have improved and radio sensitivity has gotten better since early 5 GHz days. But laws of physics still apply. If they didn't, then the throughput vs. attenuation plots shown in the charts would be the same. They aren't. 2.4 GHz tests run all the way out to 63 dB attenuation while 5 GHz tests can go only to 45 dB.

And external antennas are mainly for show. Internal designs can be just as good as external. When was the last time you saw an antenna on a phone or tablet?

 

[L&LD]

And external antennas are mainly for show. Internal designs can be just as good as external. When was the last time you saw an antenna on a phone or tablet?

The last time I had a phone with excellent reception and voice quality.


Sorry, a little tongue in cheek.

 

[azazel1024]

I have to disagree on the external versus internal. In most cases an internal antenna (on ROUTER) is ~2dBi gain design (half wave length dipole), where as external antennas can often times be significantly higher gain with 5dBi rubber ducks being pretty common. You don't see external antennas on cellphones and such because it is "unsightly" and it isn't needed for "good enough".

You CAN have a higher gain internal antenna than a standard half wave dipole, but a cell phone is basically too small for something like that (and actually it probably doesn't even have a full half wave dipole antenna in it, its probably quarter wave length 2.4GHz, as a half wave length 2.4GHz dipole antenna would be roughly 3cm in length. Quarter wave length would be about 1.5cm with that then being a halfwave length 5GHz (actually 4.8GHz, but it is probably close enough to have decent gain in the 5.2-5.9GHz range).

Part of why laptops and tablets tend to have somewhat better wifi reception than a cellphone, they often times have higher gain antennas in them, because they have more space to work with.

 

[thiggins]

The last time I had a phone with excellent reception and voice quality.


Sorry, a little tongue in cheek.

back atcha.

 

[thiggins]

I have to disagree on the external versus internal. In most cases an internal antenna (on ROUTER) is ~2dBi gain design (half wave length dipole), where as external antennas can often times be significantly higher gain with 5dBi rubber ducks being pretty common. You don't see external antennas on cellphones and such because it is "unsightly" and it isn't needed for "good enough".

Once you throw different gain into the discussion, we are no longer comparing just internal vs. external.

If the antenna gain is the same, antennas can be inside or outside and it is not going to make a lot of difference if the router is carefully designed in each case.

 

[azazel1024]

That's pretty true. Though I am curious on chasis/antenna design and material choices. I know little about the RF window of the kind of plastics used in most routers and also on antennas how they compare or even the impact you could find where the heat sink, PCB, etc might be "in the way" with certain angles from the AP to a client for an internal antenna (or external too for that matter).

My guess is, it probably doesn't generally matter all that much, but I am curious.

 

[loyukfai]

seems the v2 version of the c7 is 3rd party compatible which would make it a good cheap play thing for the 3rd party world

with the advent of the c8

http://www.tp-link.com/lk/products/details/?model=Archer+C8

and the news of the c9

http://www.cebit.de/product/archer-c9/456765/Q250142?source=pkl

the C7 will soon be a thing of the past so you may as well grab one while stocks last

im not all that impressed by the 2.4 gig on the v2 but it is better than the original v1 which in my humble opinion was just horrid

pete

What are the differences between C7, C8 & C9?

Cheers.

 

[htismaqe]

certain angles from the AP to a client for an internal antenna (or external too for that matter).

After my experiences with various routers over the past few months, I don't think this can be understated.

Just moving one external antenna a fraction of an inch on the AC68U, for example, changed my signal strength in some areas significantly.

No, external antennas aren't more powerful than their internal counterparts, but they're definitely more "tunable".

 

[Alex Atkin UK]

After my experiences with various routers over the past few months, I don't think this can be understated.

Just moving one external antenna a fraction of an inch on the AC68U, for example, changed my signal strength in some areas significantly.

No, external antennas aren't more powerful than their internal counterparts, but they're definitely more "tunable".

Couldn't agree more.

I have a couple of outdoor antenna beaming a 2.4Ghz connection across the road.

The only option for reception there however is the device itself (became poor as more APs came online) or a repeater.

I bought a WDR3600 so I could re-broadcast the signal on 5Ghz and I found that having the antenna vertical would give around 10-15Mbit, but moving them both horizontal laid on top of each other (weird I know) it doubled the speed, even reaching 40Mbit a few times. Considering it still has to get through tree leaves, a thick double wall/a mental fence (depending on how its actually deflecting off things) and other networks on the same channel (every channel is in-use) - that is pretty impressive.

Perhaps this has some correlation with how I mounted the antennas on the other hand of the connection, it was all guesswork. But the point is, with internal antennas you have very little flexibility for getting the best angle.

 

[ChristineBCW]

Jeepers... the Archer C7 v2 is on sale thru NewEgg at $79 with their email-list 'private' code, listed on the link above.

It bothers me that Version 2's are ever a step down in performance. It always sounds like they found a new assembler contractor that uses more child-labor or, in lieu of solder, "chewing gum will do."

 

[Stork]

Newegg is now sold out.

 

[ChristineBCW]

I didn't complete the purchase, but I added it to my logged-in ID cart, gave credit card details, added in the $20 savings... that's as far as I went. But it let me continue forward.

There is a "thru 9/22" date limit and when I've seen them go thru sales of such 6-day intervals, it's usually a re-stockable, so maybe try again?

This might also be the terminal date for these C7-v2s, and we'll see the C8s? C9s? I just hope we won't see more steps backward as the newer versions go on sale!

"Don't tell me the original Edsel is still the best version?!!"

from the "It can't get worse" Dept...

 

[thiggins]

Moved the C8 posts

Started a new thread.

 

[kilgannon]

I just nabbed an Archer C7 ver 2.0 for $59.99 over the weekend. I see on TP-LINK's downloads page that there is a ver 3.0. Any ideas what this new version changes?

 

[robwiel]

Hi, apparently there is V3 of this router now, will you be testing it?
http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?77972-Archer-C7-v3-(yes-v3)

 

[azazel1024]

Hi, apparently there is V3 of this router now, will you be testing it?
http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?77972-Archer-C7-v3-(yes-v3)

Thanks for the information and that just increased my interest in it a lot. Especially if it has US availability. I don't have the money to spare particularly soon, but if it is dual band external antennas now, instead of 3 internal 2.4GHz and 3 external, that is indeed fantastic news for what I want to do with it.

At the current price, could easily replace both of my access points with it...well, when I have the money. I've been a little hesitant over Apple compatibility issues (which seem fixed, at least mostly, with the latest firmwares) as well as the internal 2.4GHz antennas (one of the replacements is my external AP, which sits in my garage with antennas run on 1ft coax to sit outside...so having internal antennas is not workable for that, as the wall has aluminum siding and in testing with the antennas inside, the wall attenuates around 20dB compared to having the antennas sit 12" further from the router, and outside). External antennas though...

 

[thiggins]

Hi, apparently there is V3 of this router now, will you be testing it?
http://forum.tp-link.com/showthread.php?77972-Archer-C7-v3-(yes-v3)

TP-LINK says the V3 has a bit more power (probably on the lower 5 GHz channels) and their testing shows some improved performance. So we may give it a go. Keep in mind our standard test channel is 153, so we might not see a difference.

 

[Lethasniper007]

is this router any good for gaming with the xbox one, how does the qos work on this router does it perform good. is this the only router in the market right now that has full ip bandwith control

 

[Lethasniper007]

Is this router good for console gaming like the Xbox 360 or should I get the TPlink c8