150 Mbps vs 300 Mbps USB wireless internet adapter

[DeViLzzz]

If a person games online and watches 1080p HD content do they really need a 300 Mbps USB wireless internet adapter ?  I tried searching for information and didn't get anything really helpful so far from the net.  The person I would be buying this doesn't have an internet connection higher than 5 Mbps nor do I expect them to move to a new internet provider anytime soon.  What is the deal here ? 

[JCQ]

No, even an old wireless G 56Mbps can do the job, you only will benefit when you transfer files from or to another computer (If the network supports 300 or more Mbps)

[Christian]

No, even an old wireless G 56Mbps can do the job, you only will benefit when you transfer files from or to another computer (If the network supports 300 or more Mbps)

Well, if you're right near the router. Range is a huge factor. A 150Mbps will most likely not perform as well as a 300Mbps at a decent range

[SteepGnomeKing]

If they only have a 5Mbps connection you would be better off with the 150Mbps adapter. The 300 just has a second antenna so twice the bandwidth. You would only see any difference if the router was also dual band so it can transfer 300Mbps but not at 5Mbps internet connection. You would notice no difference at all between the 2 adapters.

[JCQ]

I agree with you guys  B)

[IAmAndre]

If they only have a 5Mbps connection you would be better off with the 150Mbps adapter. The 300 just has a second antenna so twice the bandwidth. You would only see any difference if the router was also dual band so it can transfer 300Mbps but not at 5Mbps internet connection. You would notice no difference at all between the 2 adapters.

 

So I'm bumping this old topic because my question is very related to it. I'm buying a new router and I currently have a 150 mbps receiver that I may upgrade later. However I have a 2 mbps internet connection from my ISP, so is it pointless to buy a 300 mbps router?

[skywake]

Such wrong, very misinformation, wow. The actual real world performance doesn't really relate to the number on the box much at all. Linus should do a video on this methinks....

 

For the tl;dr real world max single client performance you'll get from each class (via smallnetbuilder):

54g -> 24Mbps

N150 -> 45Mbps

N300 -> 80Mbps

N600 -> 80Mbps on 2.4Ghz + 80Mbps on 5Ghz

AC1200 -> 90Mbps on 2.4Ghz + 300Mbps on 5Ghz

AC1900 -> 120Mbps on 2.4Ghz + 450Mbps on 5Ghz

AC3200 -> Same as AC1900 but with a second 5Ghz band. It's complicated

 

As for the "is it a waste with slow nets" question. Well in theory maybe. In reality though there are more things than just the throughput of your 'nets to take into account. A lower class router will be less able to handle a higher number of devices for a start. Ontop of that you can do more than just "share internet" on your wireless. Network storage of some kind is something a lot of people use even if it's just a HDD plugged into the USB port of your router. It's also not uncommon to have a networked printer these days. Plus you have to remember that performance degrades over distance, the numbers above are the "standing next to router" scenario.

[LAwLz]

If they only have a 5Mbps connection you would be better off with the 150Mbps adapter. The 300 just has a second antenna so twice the bandwidth. You would only see any difference if the router was also dual band so it can transfer 300Mbps but not at 5Mbps internet connection. You would notice no difference at all between the 2 adapters.

That's not true. Dual band does not really have anything to do with what kind of speed you can get on a single device. It's a bit more complicated that that. Check the FAQ for a more detailed explanation of what benefits it has.

 

So I'm bumping this old topic because my question is very related to it. I'm buying a new router and I currently have a 150 mbps receiver that I may upgrade later. However I have a 2 mbps internet connection from my ISP, so is it pointless to buy a 300 mbps router?

It depends on a lot of things.

For example the speed advertised on the box is not the only factor in what you will actually get. Which router is best for you depends on what you will use it for and how your house looks.

If you are only going to access the Internet then 150Mbps will probably be fine. If you are going to send files between two computers in the same house then you want far more than 150Mbps.

Lower end ~150Mbps wireless stuff are also fairly poor in terms of reception. Getting something higher end might help with stability and performance over longer distances. That varies from product to product though.

 

You also have to remember that the "150Mbps" is shared between all devices on the network (not to mention you won't get 150Mbps of actual throughput with a 150Mbps device).

So to make it simple let's say you got a 100Mbps wireless router. About half of that disappears because of interference and just losses in general (unavoidable). Now you're down to 50Mbps that all devices has to share. If you got four devices on the network then each device can in theory only get a maximum of 25Mbps when each device is trying to talk. So the 100Mbps router can only give each device 25Mbps (best case scenario with 4 devices competing for bandwidth).

 

 

 

Such wrong, very misinformation, wow. The actual real world performance doesn't really relate to the number on the box much at all. Linus should do a video on this methinks....

 

For the tl;dr real world max single client performance you'll get from each class (via smallnetbuilder):

54g -> 24Mbps

N150 -> 45Mbps

N300 -> 80Mbps

N600 -> 80Mbps on 2.4Ghz + 80Mbps on 5Ghz

AC1200 -> 90Mbps on 2.4Ghz + 300Mbps on 5Ghz

AC1900 -> 120Mbps on 2.4Ghz + 450Mbps on 5Ghz

You should be able to get more than that in the right conditions but yeah, the number on the box is very misleading.

[skywake]

You should be able to get more than that in the right conditions but yeah, the number on the box is very misleading.

I grabbed those numbers mostly from the best speed measured on reviews smallnebuilder did from their highest performing routers for each class. But it is just for the single client tests and just the download performance with no other traffic. I wouldn't be surprised if the total throughput was higher if they had multiple decent clients transferring data in both directions. Or if they were using non-consumer gear. On their site though those were about the best numbers they had for those classes.... and I don't know a better source

[IAmAndre]

That's not true. Dual band does not really have anything to do with what kind of speed you can get on a single device. It's a bit more complicated that that. Check the FAQ for a more detailed explanation of what benefits it has.

 

It depends on a lot of things.

For example the speed advertised on the box is not the only factor in what you will actually get. Which router is best for you depends on what you will use it for and how your house looks.

If you are only going to access the Internet then 150Mbps will probably be fine. If you are going to send files between two computers in the same house then you want far more than 150Mbps.

Lower end ~150Mbps wireless stuff are also fairly poor in terms of reception. Getting something higher end might help with stability and performance over longer distances. That varies from product to product though.

 

You also have to remember that the "150Mbps" is shared between all devices on the network (not to mention you won't get 150Mbps of actual throughput with a 150Mbps device).

So to make it simple let's say you got a 100Mbps wireless router. About half of that disappears because of interference and just losses in general (unavoidable). Now you're down to 50Mbps that all devices has to share. If you got four devices on the network then each device can in theory only get a maximum of 25Mbps when each device is trying to talk. So the 100Mbps router can only give each device 25Mbps (best case scenario with 4 devices competing for bandwidth).

 

 

 

You should be able to get more than that in the right conditions but yeah, the number on the box is very misleading.

 

Thank you all for your replies. Actually I have to choose between a used 300 Mbps router and a new 150 Mbps one.

I live in a small apartment, and the furthest device will be at less than 10 meters from the router. However my sister and I both have a lot of devices. She has 2 computers, a smartphone and a tablet and so do I, and we're not alone so there can be up to 10 devices connected at the same time but not doing intensive tasks. We're not sharing files remotely, just surfing on the internet, playing online and watching videos.

However, as I have a "slow" internet connection (2 mbps), is it a good idea to pay the extra money for a 300 mbps router? What is more important between the internet speed and the "power" of the router?

[LAwLz]

Thank you all for your replies. Actually I have to choose between a used 300 Mbps router and a new 150 Mbps one.

I live in a small apartment, and the furthest device will be at less than 10 meters from the router. However my sister and I both have a lot of devices. She has 2 computers, a smartphone and a tablet and so do I, and we're not alone so there can be up to 10 devices connected at the same time but not doing intensive tasks. We're not sharing files remotely, just surfing on the internet, playing online and watching videos.

However, as I have a "slow" internet connection (2 mbps), is it a good idea to pay the extra money for a 300 mbps router? What is more important between the internet speed and the "power" of the router?

For that you probably won't notice any difference between the 150Mbps and 300Mbps router.