What's the benefit of enabling the 160hz?

[Spartan]

It is set to disabled by default on ASUS routers and I also noticed many members here don't enable it. What is the benefit of it anyway? Does it give any extra speed for Wireless clients that have an AX WLAN card and why is it disabled by default?

 

[RMerlin]

It is default by default on ASUS routers and I also noticed many members here don't enable it. What is the benefit of it anyway? Does it give any extra speed

Yes.

why is it disabled by default?

Because to have 160 MHz of contiguous frequency on the 5 GHz band, you need access to the DFS channels, which aren't available in every countries, which can take over a minute to become available, and also can be problematic if you live in area where there are other services using the same frequencies. 80 MHz is far more reliable.

 

[To Infinity and Beyond]

Yes.


Because to have 160 MHz of contiguous frequency on the 5 GHz band, you need access to the DFS channels, which aren't available in every countries, which can take over a minute to become available, and also can be problematic if you live in area where there are other services using the same frequencies. 80 MHz is far more reliable.

I have the same question. Thanks for your explaination, very clear!

 

[Tech Junky]

160 gets me 1.5gbps with an AX411 card and an AP with a 2.5ge port.

 

[mstar]

Any disadvantages of enabling 160hz? i too scared to mess up my network is keeping it off just for compatibility reasons as i have few wifi 6 clients

 

[bdub76]

Any disadvantages of enabling 160hz? i too scared to mess up my network is keeping it off just for compatibility reasons as i have few wifi 6 clients

As Merlin said above, you’re likely to hit the DFS channels and reduce your reliability. But what’s the use case, where you’ll use that much bandwidth for any sustained period of time that would offset the lower reliability?

If you’re running Merlin, install vnstat and check out your actual usage. You’ll be surprised how little bandwidth you actually use and at what speeds.

 

[Spartan]

160 gets me 1.5gbps with an AX411 card and an AP with a 2.5ge port.

On my Alienware m15 R7, it came with a MediaTek MT7921 Wireless card which was randomly disconnecting all the time so I bought an Intel AX211 from Amazon. When I installed it, it didn't appear in the device manager so I contacted the reseller and he told me that the Intel AX211 needs a CNVio2 compatible slot so he advised me to get the Intel AX210 instead which I did and that worked fine. So I thought that my laptop isn't compatible with this CNVio2 spec.

After reading your post about the Intel AX411, I looked it up on Amazon and I found that it also says CNVio2 yet if you read the reviews, many laptop owners including ones who had the MediaTek WLAN card in their laptop are reporting that it installed successfully. So now I am wondering, could it be that I got a bad Intel AX211 card initially that's why it wouldn't even show up in my device manager like it was dead? do you think I should try buying the Intel AX411 or would it be the same compatibility issue?

I am wondering perhaps those reviews are not pertaining to the AX411 specifically as I see you can click on 4 diff. WLAN cards in that same listing maybe they were reviewing the other non-CNVio2 models?

 

[Tech Junky]

@Spartan

Intel x11 cards need cnviX

x10 cards are fully compatible with most machines because they have all of the parts to operate independent of the CPU and even work in AMD machines.

I tested the mtk cards and wasn't impressed by them in comparison.

Now iirc 10 or 11 gen Intel has cnvi version 1 and may work with the ax201/211 cards. If yours didn't then I would rule out the 411 working as well.

 

[Spartan]

@Spartan

Intel x11 cards need cnviX

x10 cards are fully compatible with most machines because they have all of the parts to operate independent of the CPU and even work in AMD machines.

I tested the mtk cards and wasn't impressed by them in comparison.

Now iirc 10 or 11 gen Intel has cnvi version 1 and may work with the ax201/211 cards. If yours didn't then I would rule out the 411 working as well.

Thanks for saving me the hassle of buying it and returning it. MediaTek MT7921 actually gave me slightly faster WiFi speeds (800mbps vs 720 Mbps on the Intel AX210), the problem with them as also reported by numerous people on the web is the frequent disconnection. Like I have my Lightech Anywhere MX3 mouse connected via Bluetooth and sometimes it works the whole day and sometimes, it would randomly turn off Bluetooth on/off the whole time until I reboot. While being in the middle of work this bothers the heck out of me to the point where I got so sick of it and just replaced it with the Intel AX210 and now not one disconnection. I've tried diff. drivers as well but Mediatek cards are just flawed and left sour taste in my mouth.

 

[L&LD]

Mediatek cards are notoriously atrocious (for some!).

Intel may not be the fastest, but it is the most stable and reliable one in my experience too.

 

[Spartan]

Mediatek cards are notoriously atrocious (for some!).

Intel may not be the fastest, but it is the most stable and reliable one in my experience too.

Yes I've seen 10s of threads with issues for MediaTek, most if not all laptops that have an AMD CPU rather than an Intel have a MedaiTek Wireless card in them instead of Intel (my laptop is an Alienware m15 R7 AMD variant). Upgrading it to an Intel AX210 was the best 35 USD upgrade!

 

[L&LD]

I have a few AMD systems (current) and older Intel laptops too, the newer AMD systems feel very molasses-like to me, particularly on battery power (and regardless of where the power settings are set to). This is true not just of WiFi usage, but general usage of the systems too.

Does your AMD variant offer better gaming performance for you? What were your reasons for purchasing it over the comparable (seems 'better'?) Intel model?

 

[Spartan]

I have a few AMD systems (current) and older Intel laptops too, the newer AMD systems feel very molasses-like to me, particularly on battery power (and regardless of where the power settings are set to). This is true not just of WiFi usage, but general usage of the systems too.

Does your AMD variant offer better gaming performance for you? What were your reasons for purchasing it over the comparable (seems 'better'?) Intel model?

Very good question. My last AMD computer was back in 2000 when the AMD Athlon was released offering similar performance to the Intel Pentium III CPUs at a much more affordable price. Since then, AMD has dominated by Intel for 2 decades.
In 2020 if I recall, AMD went back into the game with their RYZEN CPUs. I was still happy with Intel and didn't even think about what AMD has to offer.

I work in a big online computer store selling custom laptops named HIDevolution and the sales figures of the latest ASUS ROG Zephyrus 14/15 made me wonder, why are these laptops selling like hotcakes? They seemed to offer the best performance and battery life of about 6-8 hours for a gaming laptop that's insane. Still, I didn't have a reason to buy an AMD laptop myself.

I usually buy Alienware laptops myself for one main reason, if something goes bad with the laptop, I can just call Dell and they'd send me a technician the next business day to either fix or replace the machine rather than me having to drive to other brands' service center, leave the laptop for weeks for them to diagnose, then drive back to them to collect it, this convenience has spoiled me even Apple's warranty doesn't come close as you still have to take an appointment and wait for at least 1 week just go get an appointment, let alone the 3-4 weeks to get your machine back.

With that said, I recently bought and refunded 2 Alienware x15 laptops which are their thin gaming laptop range (I'm not a gamer, I just buy gaming laptops because they're the best in terms of hardware and performance), and immediately refunded them. Intel's 12 gen CPUs are the worst Intel CPUs they have ever released. Sure, they sound great on paper, 8 core CPU which speeds of up to 5 GHz but in real life, they overheat so much that even unzipping a 1GB file caused the laptop to instantly reach 100C and thermal throttle down to 2.6 GHz despite their marketing BS cryotech cooling technology.

Then I bought the Alienware m15 (not the thin X series) which is slightly thicker but this time, I got the AMD variant and it was a night and day difference! My laptop NEVER goes above 90C no matter what task I am doing as the AMD CPUs operate at a much lower TDP of around 45W vs Intel's 65W TDP which makes it run cooler but with the same performance.

I will always buy laptops that have an AMD CPU going forward. People nowadays are stuck with whitepaper specs and inflated online reviews which don't draw the full picture of real-world usage. AMD seems to have a deal with MediaTek though as most if not all AMD based laptops have a MediaTek wireless card and that's the first thing one should change which is a very cheap upgrade anyway.

 

[Tech Junky]

Clevo Barebone Laptop Series :: Intel 12th Generation Mobile CPU - R&J Technology, Clevo Barebone Notebook kits, Laptop and desktop system builder

your Memory hard drives build your laptop based this Clevo Barebone Series select from options provided build

rjtech.com

I picked up my 12700H from these guys as I didn't want all the fluff others bundle into the inflated pricing. Add a few components and you're all set. A switch I made a few years back though from paste to graphite pads makes all the difference in both laptop and desktop temps. In the laptops I put them on both the CPU and GPU and it keeps temps in check pretty well. Got sick of dealing with repasting and cleaning it up over time.

Besides the pads making a difference the drivers and os make a difference as well. Bumping from 21h2 to 22h2 seems to let things run cooler too.

Typical use is about 45w up to maybe 60w until you engage the GPU then it stops out at 180w.

 

[L&LD]

Good points to keep in mind above!

As you may surmise by now from my posts, I mostly ignore paper specs too.

The three generations old Intel laptop feels like the much newer one in use (particularly on battery power, but also when both are plugged in to AC power too), vs the newest AMD based system. I can count the seconds for pages to turn on the 'net on the AMD laptop (plugged in, or not).

Neither of these systems run hot. But I agree the Intel systems get there first. And, the AMD has better battery life.

But to me, those benefits are negated by that much sluggish performance.

 

[Tech Junky]

But to me, those benefits are negated by that much sluggish performance.

I've thought about AMD in the desktop side for some niche use cases but, the sticker price is a bit much for something like pcie bifurcation to just play with compared to Intel. The first PC I buot was amd back in the athlon days and it worked well. If I were to go AMD now though it wouldn't be Ryzen but more of a server CPU with higher core/thread count.

It's interesting to hear though on the laptop side the performance gap. I'm waiting on Intel for arrow lake though for the major shift to tiles before looking at any CPU again so that buys me a couple of years with them delaying things.

 

[jsz]

I'll also add that most people still have older WIFI5 and or entry WIFI6 routers without DFS support.

So putting 160mhz clients in a product is kind of redundant. Mobile devices will generally favor 80mhz bonding for battery purposes.

80mhz is also fast enough to cover most type of ISP plans up to 600-800 Mbps (2x2 client), depending on product combo.

Intel AX/AC desktop/laptop clients are the only real world use case for 160mhz IMO. Especially for throughput and breaking the 80mhz "wall". IE: 1GBPS+ throughput over WIFI via 2x2 client.

Thanks for saving me the hassle of buying it and returning it. MediaTek MT7921 actually gave me slightly faster WiFi speeds (800mbps vs 720 Mbps on the Intel AX210), the problem with them as also reported by numerous people on the web is the frequent disconnection.

It's possible power output is higher per certification, but WIFI/antenna EE is also RNG.

I do agree that Intel stability is very good. Broadcom was also pretty nice in older Apple products.

 

[sfx2000]

So putting 160mhz clients in a product is kind of redundant.

Should also note that 160MHz channels - it's 3 dB reciprocal hit on the link budget for Tx/Rx compared to 80MHz - so close in it might be fine, but put some distance on things, and it will fall off faster...

 

[mstar]

Should also note that 160MHz channels - it's 3 dB reciprocal hit on the link budget for Tx/Rx compared to 80MHz - so close in it might be fine, but put some distance on things, and it will fall off faster...

When you said "fall of faster" did you mean lose range quicker than 80mhz?

I have since yesterday put my network on 160mhz and not noticed a difference in range BUT in speed saw a jump (it's not a real test tbh so nothing to get excited about, I am only messing about, evaluating 160mhz).

 

[jsz]

Should also note that 160MHz channels - it's 3 dB reciprocal hit on the link budget for Tx/Rx compared to 80MHz - so close in it might be fine, but put some distance on things, and it will fall off faster...

I've had the opposite experience with intel AX2XX cards. It usually improves performance as the DFS channels are uninhibited and signal is being pulled from a larger 36-64 block.

If I force 80mhz at my specific fixed distance, throughput and max speed end up worse via AX2XX. Native 80mhz client's do perform worse with 160mhz enabled at same distance due to the SNR hit.

I'd argue it's a trade off that only really benefits 160mhz wifi cards. Everything else generally prefers 80mhz bonding.