Upgraded my WiFi card, Router, NAS connection and still going slow (<1gbps) (ax5400 wifi6 -> axe7800 wifi 6e)

[StrongArch]

Hello,
I have been in a year-long battle with my hardware ultimately to get better connection speeds with my Synology DS920+ NAS.

I now have:
Asus RT-AXE7800 WiFi 6E router (previously an Asus TUF AX5400)
New self built PC with Asus motherboard and WiFi 6E AX211 card
Synology NAS connected by 2.5gbe adapter (speed confirmed in Control Panel)

I consider myself quite tech savy but I'm at the end of my tether. Are my expectations too high? The router specs are 5 GHz: 4804 Mbps; 6 GHz: 2402 Mbps. I would expect at least half those numbers, but I'm not even getting a quarter.

The router is set to use 160mhz in the 5ghz mode. My PC is set to use the 5ghz signal.
Windows reports a link speed of less than 1gbps. My router also confirms this. My transfer speeds tested using LibreSpeed and CrystalDisk to the NAS both confirm these slow figures.

In fact my new router is even slower than my previous router because the signal is slightly worse.

My house is small (less than 1000 square footage). The router is on the ground floor at the front of the house, the PC is on the 1st floor on the other end of the house. And there are only a few other neighbouring routers.

Is there some magic setting that I need to change somewhere?

 

[StrongArch]

Router is up to date on firmware. PC has all latest updates, including latest Intel Wifi drivers from their website.

I have tried the antenna supplied with the motherboard (Asus ROG Strix B760-I) and an antenna with a long cable described as "Ziyituod External Wifi Antenna 2.4G / 5.8G Dual Frequency Magnetic Base 6dBi with RP-SMA Adapter Extension Cable 2m"

 

[Ripshod]

You'll only get better wifi speeds if you move the PC closer to the router. That's the attenuation of the signal going through walls and floors. Your expectations are indeed too high.

 

[OzarkEdge]

The wireless link rate less than 1Gbps may be the bottle neck. Have you tested with the PC wired to the router?

Check the Wireless Log in the router webUI to see what bandwidth the wireless connection is actually using... probably 80MHz, not 160MHz. Also notice the other connection details... number of spatial streams and wireless mode.

OE

 

[StrongArch]

I've moved the router to a different spot and changed it back to use all 5g channel bandwidths instead of exclusively 160mhz. I've also enabled Throughput Booster on my PC's intel wifi card. Now I'm getting around 2gbps link speed and over 150 MB/s between the NAS and PC)

 

[OzarkEdge]

I've moved the router to a different spot and changed it back to use all 5g channel bandwidths instead of exclusively 160mhz.

How I see it...

The variable 20/40/80/160MHz bandwidth setting allows the router to vary/reduce the max permissable bandwidth to avoid radio interference/poor performance. Each client connects with its own best bandwidth... 20, 40, 80, or 160MHz, subject to the router's current max bandwidth permitted. Check the Wireless Log... clients will be connected at various bandwidths.

The singular 160MHz bandwidth setting is the max permissible bandwidth. The router does nothing to avoid non-RADAR radio interference with respect to this setting. Each client still connects with its own best bandwith permitted... 20, 40, 80, or 160MHz. Check the Wireless Log... clients will be connected at various bandwidths.

DFS adds a special exception... if RADAR is detected, the router MUST reduce the max permissible bandwidth to 80MHz and force all clients to stop using the prohibited DFS band... 160MHz client connections will drop to 80MHz connections.

So, the singular 160MHz bandwidth setting is not an exclusive setting. You could return to using this setting without consequence to your original link rate issue... assuming there is no significant non-RADAR radio interference in play.

OE

 

[drabisan]

Out of curiosity what Synology NAS do you have and what NIC you bought for it?
(I'm still pissed off Synology jumped so late on 2.5 and 10G wagon and they kept a latest high end model bar, sometimes artificial - if they have a port for a cache SSD but they don't allow the same port to be used for a 10G linecard)

 

[StrongArch]

Out of curiosity what Synology NAS do you have and what NIC you bought for it?
(I'm still pissed off Synology jumped so late on 2.5 and 10G wagon and they kept a latest high end model bar, sometimes artificial - if they have a port for a cache SSD but they don't allow the same port to be used for a 10G linecard)

Hi,
I have the DS920+ and UGreen 2.5g usb-c adapter. Yes I'm kind of annoyed at that too but standards have changed a lot in the past 2 years when even WiFi 6 wasn't very widespread.

 

[glens]

Mr. Obvious here.

Don't forget that product development takes time, so in order to have something come to market with everything being the latest and greatest at that moment, unless standards have been stagnant for a long-enough time, it's either going to be the result of some good guesses or there will be at least some aspect where things fall a little short of full compliance / capability.

 

[Tech9]

I consider myself quite tech savy

Add this to your knowledge:

higher modulation scheme + wider channel = less range