What's the benefit of enabling the 160hz?

[sfx2000]

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

It can - it's always a trade off on the radio layer vs. the digital baseband - less power on the link, can make it up with coding gain (drop MCS rates in other words).

If you can use it - great, but just to level set - doubling the channel width doesn't double the number of bits - in real world, you might see 30 percent improvement...

It's the same story as it is with 2.4Ghz and 40MHz channels...

 

[mstar]

Thanks for fhe insight. I am just a newbie into home networking everything I know I learnt from here. As nobody has a network past channel 48 I been playing around seeing if I can get good reliability and speed using 160mhz. Still not sure what a router does if it detects a radar signal does it just disconnect and all my devices go offline? Maybe I should put it on 20/40/80/160?

 

[Tech Junky]

Thanks for fhe insight. I am just a newbie into home networking everything I know I learnt from here. As nobody has a network past channel 48 I been playing around seeing if I can get good reliability and speed using 160mhz. Still not sure what a router does if it detects a radar signal does it just disconnect and all my devices go offline? Maybe I should put it on 20/40/80/160?

It will just bump down to 80 and when the timer expires for interference it goes back to 160.

 

[mstar]

It will just bump down to 80 and when the timer expires for interference it goes back to 160.

thanks for confirming in the setting i only have Channel bandwidth - 160mhz so thats why i asked as it doesn;t give me an option of 80/160mhz
so hence the question i am not sure what will happen lol

 

[avtella]

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.

I think some of it may be placebo. I have also dealt with multiple modern Intel and AMD systems, either are fine, in regards to your claim “slow as molasses” not to sound rude but seems a bit exaggerated unless you had some steep differences (drives, WiFi card etc) in specs or speaking of specific use cases where one may be much better than the other but general use I’d doubt one would notice in a blind test with equivalent chips from either vendor…

 

[jsz]

I think some of it may be placebo. I have also dealt with multiple modern Intel and AMD systems, either are fine, your claims not be mean but they seem a bit exaggerated unless you had some steep differences (drives, WiFi card etc) in specs or speaking of specific use cases where one may be better than the other but general use I’d doubt one would notice in a blind test with equivalent chips from either vendor…

I would argue any issue between AMD/INTEL is due to OS/Windows optimizations for CPU architecture and or C-states.. Intel had a clear advantage for the longest time, but Win11 sort of fixed all the AMD shortcomings for me.

2020 win10 vs current win11 build feels completely different on my 5800x. Not sure what changed under the hood but it's much more "snappy" now.

IE: Typing text used to lag in certain programs.. or resuming from sleep would completely crash something else and need to be restarted.. all fixed in the current win11 build.

System also feels much more responsive to me.. It's like I upgraded my processor/PC without touching it.

 

[L&LD]

I think some of it may be placebo. I have also dealt with multiple modern Intel and AMD systems, either are fine, in regards to your claim “slow as molasses” not to sound rude but seems a bit exaggerated unless you had some steep differences (drives, WiFi card etc) in specs or speaking of specific use cases where one may be much better than the other but general use I’d doubt one would notice in a blind test with equivalent chips from either vendor…

No, you're welcome to question my statements. But I stand by them, and they are hardly exaggerated or placebo. When I can count seconds 'a thousand and one..., a thousand and two...' for the next page in an article to appear, that is hardly 'comparable' for a new system, let alone the one I'm comparing to that was 'current', years ago.

Low latency is not a given, even on a brand-new paper-spec system that would (should) be considered 'fast'.

 

[bdub76]

I would argue any issue between AMD/INTEL is due to OS/Windows optimizations for CPU architecture and or C-states.. Intel had a clear advantage for the longest time, but Win11 sort of fixed all the AMD shortcomings for me.

2020 win10 vs current win11 build feels completely different on my 5800x. Not sure what changed under the hood but it's much more "snappy" now.

IE: Typing text used to lag in certain programs.. or resuming from sleep would completely crash something else and need to be restarted.. all fixed in the current win11 build.

System also feels much more responsive to me.. It's like I upgraded my processor/PC without touching it.

I started using windows 11 this week on a new PC. Still getting used to the interface and tweaking the One Drive settings. I blew up my One Drive with a VMWare VM since by default documents is backed up, and that's where VMPlayer writes its VMs. I had to turn it off for documents and redo the install. 5GB is plenty for docs that I actually need to backup on the cloud.

For Internet, I still stand by running a local unbound DNS cache. I have verified its improvement over other DNS options with GRCs DNS Benchmark. I stand by this recommendation.

Here's the DNS benchmark tool, so you can see the actual improvement in numbers. I run this a couple of times a year and update my list of fail over servers.

GRC's | DNS Nameserver Performance Benchmark

DNS Nameserver Performance Benchmark

www.grc.com

and let me give you my unbound.conf DNS portion as a place to start.

and I did bump up my buffer size:

edns-buffer-size: 1480

I'm using DoT:

forward-zone:
name: "." # use for ALL queries
forward-tls-upstream: yes
forward-addr: 9.9.9.9@853#dns.quad9.net
forward-addr: 149.112.112.112@853#dns.quad9.net
forward-addr: 1.1.1.1@853#cloudflare-dns.com
forward-addr: 1.0.0.1@853#cloudflare-dns.com

 

[leerees]

160mhz has an obvious speed advantage. However, I've noticed lower pings under load on 80mhz. 80mhz also seems to offer higher throughput at further distances.

I suppose it depends on what your devices are used for. If you are regularly copying huge files, use 160mhz, else drop down to 80mhz for a snappier all round experience.

An 80mhz AX channel will give you around 600mbps. For typical home network devices such as phones, that's still more than you'll ever need.

 

[sfx2000]

I'd add one quick note...

160Mz channels make a lot of sense for 6Ghz - there's plenty of clear bandwidth without DFS, and it's greenfield - 6E is pure... 11ax only (for now) and WPA3 is the only security method (enterprise or personal shared keys) - no mixed mode stuff with backward compatibility to b/g/n/ac needs

if you have the client and AP's that support it, by all means explore it.

In 5GHz - for most, 160MHz means going into DFS on the lower channels, or up high into UNII-4 space, where client support is basically non-existent for the moment - UNII-4 may also be referred to as 5.9GHz

 

[drinkingbird]

160mhz has an obvious speed advantage. However, I've noticed lower pings under load on 80mhz. 80mhz also seems to offer higher throughput at further distances.

I suppose it depends on what your devices are used for. If you are regularly copying huge files, use 160mhz, else drop down to 80mhz for a snappier all round experience.

An 80mhz AX channel will give you around 600mbps. For typical home network devices such as phones, that's still more than you'll ever need.

I'd actually say "Try" 160 if you are doing lots of large transfers, and even then it is a big "maybe". Many here have found it actually suffers from worse throughput. At 800 to 900mbit on 80mhz, unless you are transferring to a wired device with >1G port, it won't really help. Between two wireless devices depends, if your router is up to the task it might be able to exceed 1G at 160, might actually be equal or lower than 80mhz speeds though. Honestly if you're doing a lot of large file transfers, should be wired anyway.

I liken it to 40mhz on 2.4. Not quite as bad but close.