4x4 Wifi Router Recommendation

[patrickjp93]

Well we're finally replacing the 6-year-old Cisco Wireless router in our house, and we're looking for great range/reliability due to the layout of the house. We have 4 internet users generally working simultaneously.

 

We were looking at the following only to find out it only supports 3 streams, and that recently people are having bricking issues (more than usual). We have 4 users in the house which tend to be gaming or streaming movies simultaneously, so the 4x4 functionality would be highly desirable.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124531

 

Can anyone recommend a good 4x4 AC or N router with GREAT range to deal with a floor and two walls?

[Enderman]

???

Who told you that about "3 streams"?

 

All wifi routers can do infinite amounts of devices as long as there is enough bandwidth for all of them...

[patrickjp93]

???

Who told you that about "3 streams"?

 

All wifi routers can do infinite amounts of devices as long as there is enough bandwidth for all of them...

That would be in the CNET review for it.

http://www.cnet.com/products/linksys-wrt1900ac-wireless-router/

[Enderman]

That would be in the CNET review for it.

http://www.cnet.com/products/linksys-wrt1900ac-wireless-router/

Streams are the concurrent data streams emitted from the router. This does not mean that only 3 people can connect to it at a time. It means that it will be broadcasting signal on 3 bands and you will be connected to the one with the strongest signal. You can have more than one person connected to a stream, they will just be sharing it. This will not affect performance though unless you have 1Gbps internet.

[patrickjp93]

Streams are the concurrent data streams emitted from the router. This does not mean that only 3 people can connect to it at a time. It means that it will be broadcasting signal on 3 bands and you will be connected to the one with the strongest signal. You can have more than one person connected to a stream, they will just be sharing it. This will not affect performance though unless you have 1Gbps internet.

This is the unfortunate part of networking not covered in college classes. We learn all the protocols, topologies, and algorithms, but not the tech, unless you want to take the graduate-level course with the school's chief network architect (nice guy) and 2 snobs from IBM. It's the only class he has the time to teach, and he does it well, but good lord IBM's engineers exude arrogance like few others I've ever seen.

[Enderman]

This is the unfortunate part of networking not covered in college classes. We learn all the protocols, topologies, and algorithms, but not the tech, unless you want to take the graduate-level course with the school's chief network architect (nice guy) and 2 snobs from IBM. It's the only class he has the time to teach, and he does it well, but good lord IBM's engineers exude arrogance like few others I've ever seen.

I have no idea what you're talking about I'm still in high school...

[patrickjp93]

I have no idea what you're talking about I'm still in high school...

It's not that I think only 3 people can connect. I just thought having 4 streams meant each person could have 1 without stealing any performance from anyone else at least on the way to/from the router.

[Enderman]

It's not that I think only 3 people can connect. I just thought having 4 streams meant each person could have 1 without stealing any performance from anyone else at least on the way to/from the router.

It will not impact performance since each stream can carry the full 1Gbps, 1Gb/4=250Mbps if all 4 people were on the same stream and you had google fiber.

Really it will not make any difference since a lot of times the router will connect multiple people to one band because it has better reception on that antenna. Unless you have 250Mbps internet or greater you shouldnt worry about it only having 3 bands. It is one of the best performing routers, and I highly doubt you can find something much better without spending thousands of $ on professional grade equipment...

[skywake]

It's not that I think only 3 people can connect. I just thought having 4 streams meant each person could have 1 without stealing any performance from anyone else at least on the way to/from the router.

The easiest way to do this would be to add a second AP in another part of the area you want covered. That way the data being transferred in one location won't interfere with data being transferred in another location. Doing this should improve both range AND total throughput but you'll probably only notice the boost in range.

 

It will not impact performance since each stream can carry the full 1Gbps, 1Gb/4=250Mbps if all 4 people were on the same stream and you had google fiber.

It doesn't work anything like that. If you had one dual-band AP and lets say they were high end AC class you'd get something more like: 80Mbps + 400Mbps. That's in a fairly ideal world with the perfect mix of clients. In reality you could easily have some slower 5Ghz devices hammering the wireless which might slow one of the 5Ghz radios down to something like 100Mbps total. Maybe you have a laptop uploading a video file to your NAS using N150 on the 5G band. All of a sudden the 5G band is being hogged.

 

That's what this "tri-band" thing is all about. They have two 5G radios and then optimise performance by moving clients to the "better" radio for what they're doing. And unlike adding a second AP you don't have to move to a different location to get that extra bandwidth. Also you can get the advantage without needing really fast internets because people are getting all NASed up these days or going all NVidia Shield game-streamey. Especially on a tech forum. Still IMO getting multiple APs, running gigabit between them, placing them well and having a separate wireless network for each location? Will always be better than clever client management on the AP side. And it's probably cheaper..... but still probably overkill for just four users.... especially if the house isn't that big...

[ygohome]

I wonder if @LinusTech has an "as fast as possible" video explanation on the way about 4x4 (ie quadstream) wifi.

 

Because to me, it sounds kindof like Enderman and Skywake are saying the same thing, just wording differently.  I think I kindof understand quadstream at the simplest level, but I don't feel I know enough to explain it to someone like my dad.

[skywake]

I wonder if @LinusTech has an "as fast as possible" video explanation on the way about 4x4 (ie quadstream) wifi.

 

Because to me, it sounds kindof like Enderman and Skywake are saying the same thing, just wording differently.  I think I kindof understand quadstream at the simplest level, but I don't feel I know enough to explain it to someone like my dad.

 

Well I believe that Enderman was claiming that because it was a "Gigabit router" that the total throughput was "Gigabit" and that you don't need "more streams" because 250Mbps is plenty for each user. To put it bluntly, this is a load of BS. Well, not the "you prob don't need it" but just the explanation. Because that's not what's happening. For a very simple explanation let me put it this way.

 

Think of WiFi as a road with lanes. At the higher end AC1900 (600 + 1300) a single AP looks something like this, two "lanes" of data:

2.4Ghz -> "600Mbps" @ 110Mbps IRL

5Ghz -> "1300Mbps" @ 400Mbps IRL

 

Now the traffic, like the traffic on a road, can run on either lane. The more traffic on that lane the slower the lane runs for everyone else. If you have a slow client on one of the lanes then everything on that lane slows down. Usually your wireless client is smart enough to jump on the one with the best signal but this doesn't help when one of the channels is being hammered, particularly if it's the fast one. So this is where their new products come in. Products with an additional 5Ghz "fast" lane (600 + 1300 + 1300). Like a truck on a freeway if there's a "lane hog" on 5Ghz then the AP will divert other clients to the "fast" 5Ghz lane. This is what the new triple-band APs can do, it's kinda like Link Aggregation for WiFi. You don't get higher speed to a single client but you do get better overall performance with a large number of clients.

 

What I was saying was that instead of one of those a high end APs you could just add more APs into different locations. So if someone's hammering the Wifi in one part of the building it doesn't really matter because you're connected to an entirely different AP in a different location. Also for some perspective Netgear's shiny new AC3200 router (600 + 1300 + 1300, ~900Mbps total throughput best case) costs $400AU, you could get 2x AC1200 APs for that price (300 + 867 + 300 + 867, ~750Mbps total throughput best case) with ~$130AU change. Boom, "four lanes" of WiFi.... just make sure they're a fair distance apart....

[ygohome]

@skywake

 

that makes sense to me.  thanks.

[skywake]

I thought I'd add a little bit here given that smallnetbuilder has now benchmarked one of the first of these new class of AC APs. First they tested it with the extra radio disabled, then they tested it with it enabled. This isn't 4x4 and I'll be the first to point out that I went a bit off track with my responses in this thread. It is however in the same boat as "4x4" and it is the approach to this that I think is more valuable. Mostly because you don't need special clients to get the improved performance, it's more about improving total throughput with your existing gear. Anyways, thing is here: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32474-netgear-r8000-nighthawk-x6-first-look

 

There's a lot of detail in that article so go read it. But the important thing is that the average speed over four devices when the thing was hammered.

First with just 1 radio, basically reverting to AC1900:

- AC1900 Router: 13Mbps

- MotoX: 4Mbps

- iPod Touch: 25Mbps

- iPad 2: 22Mbps

- Total: 63Mbps

 

Then with the second radio enabled with "SmartConnect":

- AC1900 Router: 197Mbps

- MotoX: 20Mbps

- iPod Touch: 17Mbps

- iPad 2: 25Mbps

- Total: 258Mbps

[d33g33]

all reviews of the WRT1900AC have said the hardware is impressive but the software is sub par.

 

Have a look at the Asus Nighthawk. EDIT: Netgear Nighthawk, what Travis said.

[Travis]

all reviews of the WRT1900AC have said the hardware is impressive but the software is sub par.

 

Have a look at the Asus Nighthawk.

That would be the Netgear Nighthawk.

And Asus' new RT-AC87U does 4x4 MU-MIMO so if you are pretty set on 4x4, I'd get that. I'd like to see someone bog that thing down.

[d33g33]

That would be the Netgear Nighthawk.

And Asus' new RT-AC87U does 4x4 MU-MIMO so if you are pretty set on 4x4, I'd get that. I'd like to see someone bog that thing down.

Indeed you are right sir! My bad