Which router has the most output power?

[philmiami]

I am probably going to send this RT-AC68U back.
Had the Linksys WRT-1900AC and had problems, sent it back to Amazon and got the Asus but I am just not keen on it.
I am looking and looking and in Merlin's build the output is at 200mW MILLIWATTS?
I read Amped wireless is at 600Mw and one at 700mW
Googled and a old 2.4Ghz was at 1 WATT/1000mW
So I want to find something, can be JUST dual band (I don't have any AC and I don't like the marketing hype by anyway) I am looking for 2.4Ghz N and 5Ghz.
It just needs to be able to handle 30+ devices at once.
I mean the only thing I see is going to a Ubiquiti Edge Router Lite and a Ubiquiti AP-Pro, which would make the setup around $325, and climbing up in the attic and running a cat6 for the PoE AP in the ceiling, but the router can handle 1 million Pps (Packets per second).
So is there a 1 WATT/1000mW radio output 2.4Ghz/5Ghz all in one router?

 

[jfdramis]

Here is an interesting article about "high power" routers :
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...516-why-high-power-routers-dont-improve-range

The Asus RT-AC68U is one of the best routers on the market at the moment. You should do a bit more troubleshooting and reading before "blaming" the router and trying multiple makes and models!

 

[philmiami]

I am not going to try multiple brands
I am really trying to decide if I want to go with AP's and a true router or keep this Asus I got right now.
Nothing can beat being wired into a switch/router @ 1Gb but I am looking at reliability.
A AP you set and forget and I am thinking of just going to commercial (poE), so I will not have to think about it for a long time to come (everything is on multiple UPS'es)
In my townhouse I am not getting what I think I could by using a AP.
The output of the Asus is only 200 mW and even if the AP was only 200 mW it would be closer (less walls/pipes/electrical) so the speed could be better (in theory) and wired to a true full duplex 10/100/1000 PoE manageable switch.
So just thinking out loud.
I know both ends have to have equal Tx/Rx power to "gain" more
I know wireless is TX-ACK/RX-ACK too.

 

[jfdramis]

Router and hard-wires AP(s) is the way to go when possible. As far as transmit power, it doesn't mean much (like mentionned in the article)... It's mainly about placement and interference. I set-up countless wireless networks in all kinds of different homes, at some point i got caught in trying all those "super range", "super power"... stuff to realise it doesn't change anything (or barely). It's a matter of correct router/extender/AP setup and placement (channel, frequency...). Of course before buying/exchanging anything i would do a site survey with inssider to chose the best channel.

 

[KGB7]

If you want something better, a lot better, then get your self a second credit card and get ready to cough up a grand or few for a commercial grade AP or wifi/router. Cause thats where real power is.


Other wise youll be neat picking for a while till you find what you want.... and most likely you never will.

 

[RMerlin]

Router output power is just half of the equation. It won't do any good if your router outputs at 500 mW, but your clients still tries to send back at 50-75 mW.

That's why I personally consider these output power adjustments to be mostly placebo.

 

[TonyH]

Hi,
On pure simplified theory it takes power of 100 times to double the signal strength. So 200mW x 100 = 20,000mW = 20W. Even at that in real world environment I wouldn't know until it is tried. Poe wired AP might be a better deal for sure. Also on client end, don't forget it's TX has flea power level. Like a coin has two sides. Sounds like your place is pretty big in size. In my modest 2 story house, I do OK for whole house coverage and in the garage, at the patio in the back yard with a router located on top floor at specific spot.

 

[stevech]

Go with an AP to improve coverage.
Your router could be a 1,000 watts but the client device's transmitter is what it is.

Due to attenuation in free space and walls, floors, there's no substitute for shortening the path from the client to the access device.

 

[KGB7]

Router output power is just half of the equation. It won't do any good if your router outputs at 500 mW, but your clients still tries to send back at 50-75 mW.

That's why I personally consider these output power adjustments to be mostly placebo.

I'm having hard time finding info on this. Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

 

[stevech]

I'm having hard time finding info on this. Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

It's just the classic "unbalanced link" in communications.
Unbalanced if one end of the link uses much more power than the other end.

Police/fire radio systems are often badly unbalanced: 200watt hilltop transmitter but the handheld radio is 5W. I can hear you but you can't hear me. Works OK in broadcast situations: one-to-many. But when the handheld has to respond to dispatcher and is indoors, etc., often can't work. In public safety radio, the work-around for unbalanced systems is the placement of receive-only radios at many places within the coverage of that one high spot 200W base station. These disbursed receivers send their audio back home via phone lines or some such. The one with the best signal (least noise) is chosen.

In WiFi we can't do the above because of the nature of IEEE 802.11. So an unbalanced WiFi system, where the router has far more power than the client devices, leads to bad speeds, lots of retransmissions due to weak client-to-router signals, etc.

Another analogy is the rock-band concert's public address amplifiers and speakers. You can REALLY hear them. Can they hear Joe Schmoe in row 75?

Access points in WiFi are the cure.
Access points connect to the router via cat5 cable, IP on power wires (HomePlug/HPNA) or MoCA (existing TV coax cables), or second-radio backhaul.

 

[azazel1024]

Hi,
On pure simplified theory it takes power of 100 times to double the signal strength. So 200mW x 100 = 20,000mW = 20W. Even at that in real world environment I wouldn't know until it is tried. Poe wired AP might be a better deal for sure. Also on client end, don't forget it's TX has flea power level. Like a coin has two sides. Sounds like your place is pretty big in size. In my modest 2 story house, I do OK for whole house coverage and in the garage, at the patio in the back yard with a router located on top floor at specific spot.

Errr, unless I have missed something over the years, no, not true at all. A doubling in power = a doubling of signal strength. In DECIBLE terms, that is an increase of 3dB. It is not a doubling in range though. Since range is an inverse square funtion, it takes an increase of four fold to double open air range, or 4 times the power or 6dB increase in signal strength.

High output routers are generally only to for use as a bridge to a similar high output router or in rare circumstances where range is pushing the limits for the CLIENT, in which case the router can still hear the client and the client can then easily hear the router.

This leads to highly unbalanced speeds, but it does mean that near the edge of reception, the client may Tx, say, 10Mbps to the router because it is so quiet, but because the router is broadcasting so loud, it might hit 80Mbps to the client.

Generally not ideal though. If you need better reception, get bigger antennas and/or place the router in a more ideal location. Or get multiple access points to cover the area.

High power is generally only a good idea in bridge situations because then it is easier to setup equal high power bridges.

 

[AcostaJA]

In addition to stevech statements, there is an misconception on TX Power, and what really worth: COVERAGE, what you need is have enugh bandwidth at certain range, not to cook with your routers microwaves.

Here is the antennae balance issue, TX Beam power must be enought to reach with low noise and good bandwith the realtive very small gains antennae on mobile devices,

RX gain must be enough to catch the little power from your devices radios.

Interference is another thing to overcome, a clean channel wil provide you much more range than a busy one.

on the chinese market (and ebay) you can find upto 2500mw Amplifier for 2.4ghz, you may think coupling it with an 20db Anntenae will give you a lot of range, keep thinking, more power means more noise, more RX Gain means more interferce to filter. so its the cat and mouse catch game, unless youre on a remote area, dismiss power amplifier and high gain antennae.

If you have problems with coverage (due a big area or dense walls) the smartest way to overcome it is adding an 2nd AP to your network bridged thru wire (cat5/6 or powerline), ad of course set statc channels to avoid self interference, use the same SSID (if your master router is on ch 1, 2nd must be at leas 5 channels away at 6 and so, try free or less congested channels, with an android phone an app called WIFI ANALIZER lets you know the power on each SSID/CHANNEL on your location use it to find the cleanest channel -with less ssid an also less rival ssit total power-).

To setup the same SSID with multiple AP, you need to have only one DHCP server (on the master unit) and all the satellite AP must be on a diffferent and widely spaced as possible channel, with network bridged and connected thru WAN port to mastert' LAN ports, account your MASTER router may face with increased traffic because need to handle all STATIONS TRAFFIC as if where close, plus some protocol overload bridging packages.

 

[stevech]

Unbalanced signal strength at each end of the link to a client...

This leads to highly unbalanced speeds, but it does mean that near the edge of reception, the client may Tx, say, 10Mbps to the router because it is so quiet, but because the router is broadcasting so loud, it might hit 80Mbps to the client.

At 802.11n and older, the Standard says that the modulation mode (speed) must be identical to and from each device. So, for any one frame, the router and the client must use the same speed. The speed in all 802.11 is dynamic according to conditions that affect the bit error rate (noise, interference, etc.).

Maybe versions after 802.11n allow OPTIONS for "asymmetric" data rates - uplink vs. downlink by client device. The later the version, the more they are using optional features that are negotiated over the air: "do you support asymmetric rates" may be one such. I haven't kept up with this.

The requirement for use of symmetric data rates to/from a given client gave us the "weakest link" syndrome: the client's signal strength at the access device (AP/Router) then required that the to-client direction slow down to match.

Lack of asymmetric speeds was a big complaint in 802.11 from day one, due to the "internet experience" where the traffic is about 80% down and 20% up (relative to the WAN). It was too hard to fix for many years.

 

[azazel1024]

That might be true in principal, but I don't think that is true in practice. I've seen a lot of times near the edge of reception that I can get, say, 20-30Mbps down from my router, but up I am lucky to get 5-10Mbps, where as close to my router I can pull 180Mbps and push 170Mbps. The link speed might be symetrical, but there are a lot more retries from the client to the router than from the router to the client due to the difference in Tx power between the two of them, or at least that is what I suspect the issue is. The link speed might be symetrical even if the practical speed is not the same.

Multiple APs is the best way to overcome limited coverage, but depending on how you deploy it, higher gain antennas is also a good way to do this. If interference is an issue, depending on the location of the interference, a higher gain antenna might actually make the interference quieter while making your clients and the basestation louder to each other. This is especially true with a directional high gain antenna.

The biggest issue with high gain antennas is the fact that often you just aren't adding much in the way of listening or talking abilities in comparison to the signal attenuation that occurs inside of a building. In open air/line of sight, 6dB of gain leads to a doubling in range for the same signal strength. That is a LOT of extra range, that also probably means going from a small/medium sized antenna to a BIG antenna (like from a 3-5dBi 3-7" to a 9-11dBi 12-14"). However, inside of a building, a single 1/2" drywall and 2x4 wall can easily contribute 8-10dB of signal attenuation on 2.4GHz let alone 5GHz. Which means that slapping on much bigger antennas, if you had no signal strength to begin with it isn't going to get you anything.

If you had weak signal strength before, it probably will be enough to increase your link budget and therefore increase speeds (if you were signal strength limited).

It can also have side benefits, like in an apartment building, depending on construction, a higher gain omni antenna has stronger gain, but in a narrower (vertical) band. That means your clients are louder to the router, the clients can hear the router better and your router is less likely to be able to hear clients/routers in apartments above or below you. Of course it can hear the clients/routers in the apartments next you better, which could be as bad (possibly).

In a multistory home highish gain omnidirecitonal anntenas can be used to more easily delineate floors for AP coverage providing robust coverage on just the floor that the AP exists on, without overlapping other floors much.

 

[stevech]

That might be true in principal, but I don't think that is true in practice.

Not principal.. its the IEEE standards up to at least 11n.
When you are downloading a lot, the only packets flowup upstream from the client are TCP ACKs if your download uses TCP. If a UDP variant, there maybe almost no packets going upstream other than some form of flow control. This is relevant because with very few upstream packets, the probability of a bit error is greatly reduced. And this leads to use of higher modulation order/speed. When up upload a lot from client, the opposite is true.

Unless you are using a version of 802.11 that's after '11n and supports asymmetric up/down modulation rates. I don't know what vendors are doing and if newer standards have that as mandatory or an over the air negotiated option.

 

[azazel1024]

I guess my point is that may be the standard, but the real world impact seems to be that actual transfer speeds tend to be very asymetrical towards the limits of wifi reception. Just look at a lot of SNBs router tests.

 

[philmiami]

I WISH my place was real big.....it's a single story townhouse 1083 SQ FT under air.
I know that it's all do to the DEVICE power in transmitting back to the router.
BUT, more output power would mean more sensitivity in hearing. The router can 'shout' louder so it could 'hear' better.
So the router could 'shout' thru the drywall better with more output power and then kinda like hearing a mouse fart @ 1000 yards, be able to get the ACK that the packet was received.
That's what my question was about.
I have 1 wall (drywall/wood frame/drywall) and basically 25 feet in a straight line between the router (RT-AC68U) and my 2010 Mac Mini in the bedroom.
Sometimes (5Ghz) it reads 300Mbps (in the menu bar hold down option and click on WiFi fan) and other times it will come up at like 185Mbps. The wall has not changed. Don't have the windows open and house is full of humidity. Not having massive solar flares on the sun. Power is regulated on router (in UPS) and Mac Mini (separate UPS) both giving 121 Volts/60 Hz.......
I KNOW environmental factors can affect WiFi speed. I know about electrical frequencies, sunspots, hair driers and the dark side of the moon can all affect it too...........but just wondering which router has the most output power and also this, I want to use CHANNEL 14 to be sure I am not getting any interference from cordless phone, cell phone,etc,etc.....why can't we use that channel? After all these are custom firmwares, so how hard would it be to make that channel available?

Not a lot of money for a commercial router
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CPRVF5K/?tag=snbforums-20
Access Point 2.4Ghz only (10/100 RJ45 PoE)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005H4CDF4/?tag=snbforums-20
Access Point 2.4Ghz/5Ghz (10/100/1000 RJ45 PoE)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0089QB1SC/?tag=snbforums-20
So I would not be spending a lot of money, just around the same as the RT-AC68U costs (now it's even cheaper......on Amazon)

 

[Razor512]

Higher transmit power can help with downloads even on 802.11ac

Even if rates are suppose to be symmetrical, if the wifi radios start having too many errors, then the rate drops. With a half high transmit power and a predominantly download task, it can hold a high speed without dropping the connection rate, while when an upload is done is done at a lower transmit power, it has a harder time maintaining the throughput

Overall while having a higher transmit power t the router may not do as much for range if the clients have a low transmit power, may routers are often able to better handle weak signals. On top of that a higher transmit power can improve download speeds whim the area it is covering.

I will try to post a few benchmarks showing the benefit of a higher transmit power on download performance.

 

[RogerSC]

I know that it's all do to the DEVICE power in transmitting back to the router.
BUT, more output power would mean more sensitivity in hearing. The router can 'shout' louder so it could 'hear' better.
So the router could 'shout' thru the drywall better with more output power and then kinda like hearing a mouse fart @ 1000 yards, be able to get the ACK that the packet was received.

Well, actually, that's not the case at all. If a router can transmit with more wireless power, that's all it means, that it can transmit using more wireless power. So the client devices will hear the router better. However, the router won't hear the client device any better, unless the router also has a better receiver as well as a higher-powered transmitter. The transmitter and receiver are different functions, the fact that more power is transmitted doesn't make the receiver any better...you can ask any amateur radio operator about that, and they'll give you the facts *smile*.

If you can put a better antenna on a router, that will improve both the transmitted and received signals, since it's used in both functions. However, more gain means more directionality one way or the other *smile*. So, if you can accommodate more directional signals (less signal in some directions, more signal in others), then you could do that. If you could find a higher gain antenna that works well with your router. That has proven to be an elusive goal for a lot of people that have gone down that road.

A better answer is to have a wireless AP that's hard-wired to your main router close enough to the client devices that you're having problems with, that's a guaranteed solution to your problems.

 

[azazel1024]

Simple solution, bigger antennas on your router. Your's has replaceable antennas and you are in a single story home, so switching to 7 or 9dBi omni antennas shouldn't cause any problems.

As for why it fluctuates, it can be as simple as where you are sitting relative to your computer and the router. If the signals have to pass through your body, you are a bunch of water basically and water attenuates 5GHz especially well, but also 2.4GHz (peak absorbtion is something like 27GHz for water). That also means that likely you are at the very edge of acceptable signal in ideal conditions for 300Mbps and a slight shift will bump it down to 185Mbps. Generally though, don't look at link speeds, look at ACTUAL throughput. I can tell you from long experience the difference between being at the edge of 300Mbps and a very slight change to bump it down to, say, 215Mbps on my laptop results in a practical difference in speeds of a few Megabits per second. It is not the ~25% drop that the link speed would tell you it is, as at 300Mbps it is already having to do a lot more retransmits at the edge of suitable 300Mbps reception than at a solid 185Mbps.

Channel 14 isn't available because it is in use by radar in the US. Channel 14 is Japan only and it is also 802.11g ONLY in Japan. Europe has 12 and 13 available which the US doesn't have, again, because radar in the US. For regulatory reasons the FCC requires wireless gear sold within the US to prohibit use of channels greater than 11 for 2.4GHz, which means that gear sold in the US has its region locked as US. You could maybe/possibly import a grey market European/Japanese router where you could use channels 12/13 or 14 with 11g, but it is no guarantee that your clients can talk on those channels if they are US clients (I don't think client locking of higher channels is generally a thing required by the FCC if I remember correctly, because you'd want to be able to use them if traveling overseas).