What's coming after AC3200 Routers?

[sm00thpapa]

What's coming after the AC3200 routers? Look for prices to be in the $400.00 range for the next class of routers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RMerlin]

What's coming after the AC3200 routers? Look for prices to be in the $400.00 range for the next class of routers.

My guess is, it will depend on how well these 270-300$ routers sell. If they sell well, then I guess we can expect a 320-340$ product in the coming months

 

[KGB7]

What's coming after the AC3200 routers? Look for prices to be in the $400.00 range for the next class of routers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Price inflation has been around way before money was invented.
Economics 101.

 

[sm00thpapa]

My guess is, it will depend on how well these 270-300$ routers sell. If they sell well, then I guess we can expect a 320-340$ product in the coming months

It's gonna be costly for us router enthusiasts who must have every new router. LOL!

 

[rtcomputersinc]

This is a LARGE router I figured it would be bigger with the extra antenna. Like almost 2x the size of 66u and 68u. Unboxed mine late last night will mess with tomorrow.

 

[funkahdafi]

This is a LARGE router I figured it would be bigger with the extra antenna. Like almost 2x the size of 66u and 68u. Unboxed mine late last night will mess with tomorrow.

Which router are you referring to?

 

[IAAI]

Which router are you referring to?

we might have to guess

he may be talking about Netgear R8000 <<< the only AC3200 around

 

[Razor512]

They need to make a router that will bond channels 1-11 on the 2.4GHz band, as well as all available non DFS 5GHz channels Then push out wifi clients which can make use of that, as well as provide more advanced functions such as simultaneously using the 2.4GHz and 5GHz band with a single client to further boost speeds, or at least use the 5GHz for download, and 2.4GHz for upload during times when a user attempts to upload while a download is going.

 

[sm00thpapa]

Since routers have been advertizing 600Mbps on the 2.4Ghz band the 2.4GHz band has been flaky. At least in my case. When will the 600Mbps adapters be released or is this another sales gimmick? I've tried many routers and seem to love the Asus brand. Call me a fanboy but Asus has performed very well in my application. Looking forward to the AC87U and AC3200 in the coming year.

 

[AcostaJA]

Trends verbose next wave will be around Nas-Routers Ala *Apple Airport Extreme Timecapsule*, has no sense more speed on soho routers if have no clients (current case, for a while unless some external adapter is used, common clients have as much ac-1200 capabilities, while tablets and smartphones hardly reach 750 Mbps (galacy s5 only) and actually the hardware inside can't handle that amount of data.

So the logical next step is to offer features other than speed, and all cloud related is trendy, plus add home surveillance, home automation hub, and of course NAS as the features to become mainstream on the next wave of improvements.

 

[azazel1024]

One thing to keep in mind is that with explicit beamforming, which is standard in 11ac, you actually do get increased gain (typically) the more antennas you have on the router, versus the number of the client.

So a router with 4:4 antennas with a client connecting with 1:1 antenna is going to be able to have higher beamforming gain than if the router was 2:2 and the client 2:2. The more spatial streams available, the more options for constructive interference for one of the streams (which also means the other streams are likely to see no gain or destructive interference).

Of course you'd almost always have faster overall speed with a 4:4 client connected to a 4:4 router, but signal gain would still be less.

So there are advantages to something like a 3:3 or 4:4 11ac router with even just 1:1 clients. Granted, it might be a modest benefit, but there IS a benefit.

 

[KGB7]

Let me break it down to lamen tirms.

When a company sells a product, they want to attract an audience with a broad range of home setups. The higher the mbps number, the more devices can share a higher speed over a WiFi. The 1x1 or 4x4 is irrelevant when you have 20 devices simultaneously connected over a WiFi on the same band. But, if you take a 600mbps router vs 1300mbps router on same band, then the same 20 devices have more bandwidth to play with at 1300mbps.

It all comes down to sharing bandwidth with multiple devices.

Think of it as a router with 100mbps ports and a router with 1gig ports.

Would you rather have a 54mps 6x6 router or a 1300 mbps 2x2 router, with over 10 WiFi devices

 

[funkahdafi]

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. You have to take into the equation the fact that overall performance will be drastically reduced if you have a set of mixed clients, e.g. using different wifi standards. If all of the 20 clients are 802.11ac, then your equation makes sense. But if you have 802.11a/g/n clients on the same radio as your 802.11ac clients, then bandwidth for the ac clients will be much slower because the router spends more time delivering data to the slower clients. Remember that only one client at a time can send/receive data...

So in that case, it's not necessarily true that more bandwidth on the router will result in more bandwidth for all the clients. Performance on Wifi networks is not just about total available bandwidth, it's a lot about how that bandwidth can be used.

Your 1300 mbit router will not deliver top speed to an 802.11ac client if at the same time a slow 802.11g client is transferring a large file, for example.

That problem will be taken care of eventually (by things like MU-MIMO and Xstream) though.

 

[sm00thpapa]

I just wish that routers that advertise covers a 5,000 square foot home actually would cover it. I'm tired of all this talk and the wifi is weak. I live in a 2 story 3,000 square foot home and never had a router cover it all without a dead spot. And I bet these $300.00 routers can't even cover it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KGB7]

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. You have to take into the equation the fact that overall performance will be drastically reduced if you have a set of mixed clients, e.g. using different wifi standards. If all of the 20 clients are 802.11ac, then your equation makes sense. But if you have 802.11a/g/n clients on the same radio as your 802.11ac clients, then bandwidth for the ac clients will be much slower because the router spends more time delivering data to the slower clients. Remember that only one client at a time can send/receive data...

So in that case, it's not necessarily true that more bandwidth on the router will result in more bandwidth for all the clients. Performance on Wifi networks is not just about total available bandwidth, it's a lot about how that bandwidth can be used.

Your 1300 mbit router will not deliver top speed to an 802.11ac client if at the same time a slow 802.11g client is transferring a large file, for example.

That problem will be taken care of eventually (by things like MU-MIMO and Xstream) though.

Good thing we don't have b/g clients on 5 GHz band. And a on 5ghz band is none existent.

 

[funkahdafi]

Good thing we don't have b/g clients on 5 GHz band. And a on 5ghz band is none existent.

The same is true for 802.11n clients on 5 Ghz as well. The point is, older standard clients will slow down your ac clients as long as they are conneced to the same radio.

 

[KGB7]

The same is true for 802.11n clients on 5 Ghz as well. The point is, older standard clients will slow down your ac clients as long as they are conneced to the same radio.

So what? If you have 10ac clients, they will all run slow. There is a bandwidth limitation no matter how you slice it.

 

[thiggins]

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. You have to take into the equation the fact that overall performance will be drastically reduced if you have a set of mixed clients, e.g. using different wifi standards. If all of the 20 clients are 802.11ac, then your equation makes sense. But if you have 802.11a/g/n clients on the same radio as your 802.11ac clients, then bandwidth for the ac clients will be much slower because the router spends more time delivering data to the slower clients. Remember that only one client at a time can send/receive data...

It is not just mixed standards. Mixed capabilities within a standard also limit available bandwidth.
The "slowest" client there also determines total available bandwidth.

See How Much Throughput Can You Really Get From An AC Router?

 

[funkahdafi]

So what? If you have 10ac clients, they will all run slow. There is a bandwidth limitation no matter how you slice it.

You were saying that the higher the bandwidth "on the box", the more bandwidth you will have for your clients. That's not true. Just pointing that out.

 

[KGB7]

You were saying that the higher the bandwidth "on the box", the more bandwidth you will have for your clients. That's not true. Just pointing that out.

How is it not true?? Then whats the point of having a 3200mbps routers?? Might as well just stay with 600mbps then.