Would I get a better connection? Help please!

[Sharp_3yE]

I have the Linksys EA8500 router. It is an AC2600 dual band router meaning it gets "Up To" 800 Mbps on 2.4ghz band and 1733 Mbps on the 5Ghz band. In my PC I have the TP-Link acher T8E wifi adapter, which is an AC1750 adapter. I only use my PC with the 5Ghz band, so it gets "Up To" 1300 Mbps on the 5Ghz band. BUT, the best I get rn is 468 Mbps (sometimes above 500). So, now my question. Do you think getting THIS better wifi adapter that is an AC3167 Dual Band adapter that can go up to 2167 Mbps on 5Ghz band would help at all in getting a faster connection to the router or would it not provide any more "power" and still be able the same?

 

FYI I am not to far away from the router, just about 18 feet but with one full wall, and like another half a wall in my way (I am in my room). I also have a Directional Antenna pointed towards the router. 

 

Tell me what you think. Could an even better wireless adapter help give me more speed or would it be about the same?

 

BTW This is part of a picture from the app Wifi Analyzer <-- Click that link if you want to try the app. It's nice. 

[goto10]

2.4ghz frequencies offer less problems crossing walls and covering distances longer than what you describe

 

ac depends on 5ghz that if you see a fly pass by near the antenma and you have problems with speed or stability

 

linksys is famous for giving problems on some of their internal antenma models, i will mot buy another tp link product, ever

 

having said that, if you cant use ethernet, your best bet is replacing the router, or buying a repeater to put inside your room, connected via ethernet to the router you have

 

the speed you mention only matters for local connections, a 1000megabit connection will not improve anything if your internet connection is just 20 megabits, the speeds you .ention are nice to have to copy files or read files o  your local resources like nas, file servers, desktops sharing, pc streaming content and similar stuff

[jj9987]

Routers often advertise their maximum theoretical speeds that can be achieved. In case of WiFi, that first needs to be cut in half (because WiFi is half-duplex). Secondly, this is combined bandwidth it can handle over all devices. It does not mean it can give out those numbers with one device.

[Sharp_3yE]

13 minutes ago, goto10 said:

2.4ghz frequencies offer less problems crossing walls and covering distances longer than what you describe

 

ac depends on 5ghz that if you see a fly pass by near the antenma and you have problems with speed or stability

 

linksys is famous for giving problems on some of their internal antenma models, i will mot buy another tp link product, ever

 

having said that, if you cant use ethernet, your best bet is replacing the router, or buying a repeater to put inside your room, connected via ethernet to the router you have

 

the speed you mention only matters for local connections, a 1000megabit connection will not improve anything if your internet connection is just 20 megabits, the speeds you .ention are nice to have to copy files or read files o  your local resources like nas, file servers, desktops sharing, pc streaming content and similar stuff

There is nothing wrong with the router. I am looking for speed so I ONLY want to do 5Ghz band. A 2.4 Ghz band is slower at the same distance. I do not know if I can move it closer. I might try and find that out. Sooo, assuming I can't move it closer, I am asking if a new/better network card could perform better? There are ONLY 2 cards that are technically better then what I already have (From what I've seen).

https://www.newegg.com/asus-pce-ac88-pci-express/p/N82E16833320313

and the TP-Link https://www.newegg.com/tp-link-tl-wdn8280-pci-express/p/0XM-001R-000F4 The TP-Link one actually has better ratings as well. 

[goto10]

i already said that i will never buy tp link again, that is my opinion about those adapters

 

if you want pure speed, removong the distance, you need the repeater i mentioned too, but not knowing distance or device where you will conect those adapters, i will repeat the ethernet way, that most times is the most stable, cheaper and simple way

[Sharp_3yE]

14 minutes ago, goto10 said:

i already said that i will never buy tp link again, that is my opinion about those adapters

 

if you want pure speed, removong the distance, you need the repeater i mentioned too, but not knowing distance or device where you will conect those adapters, i will repeat the ethernet way, that most times is the most stable, cheaper and simple way

I am only 20 ft away. I don't think an extender would be needed. It's like 13 regular steps to the next room. The only way an extender would work is if it could get a better connection then my current antennas, which it wont.

BUT you didn't answer the question. Do you think a better network card can improve speeds? That's the question. If not, then I'd have to do something else like try and move the router closer. 

 

Of course an ethernet cable would be better but I'm asking a specific question. 

[Sharp_3yE]

2 hours ago, jj9987 said:

Routers often advertise their maximum theoretical speeds that can be achieved. In case of WiFi, that first needs to be cut in half (because WiFi is half-duplex). Secondly, this is combined bandwidth it can handle over all devices. It does not mean it can give out those numbers with one device.

My PC is the only device on the 5Ghz band. Yes, I know it's "advertised" speeds, as in the maximum which you won't get. But I want to know if a better adapter. Cuz it's very possible to get 600, 800, or 1000 Mbps. 

[goto10]

5 hours ago, TheCMan said:

I am only 20 ft away. I don't think an extender would be needed. It's like 13 regular steps to the next room. The only way an extender would work is if it could get a better connection then my current antennas, which it wont.

BUT you didn't answer the question. Do you think a better network card can improve speeds? That's the question. If not, then I'd have to do something else like try and move the router closer. 

 

Of course an ethernet cable would be better but I'm asking a specific question. 

the wifi coverage on 5g decreases drastically after 6 meters, around 20 feet, so that is why i mentipn the repeater, i already gave ypu the answer

 

you can check by yourself using wifi analyzer, if signal is weaker than  -60db, there you should put tbe wifi repeater but again, you never answered my question about the use it gets, if it is for fast local file transfer or for internet acces

[Alex Atkin UK]

WiFi 5 (AC) on 5Ghz tops out at around 600Mbit on 2x2 MIMO with 80Mhz channel width, which is the most common client configuration.  So I'd say your speed is actually pretty good as actually hitting 600Mbit is very rare.

 

The only way to get higher is 3x3 or 4x4 MIMO (the EA8500 supports this) and/or 160Mhz channel width (can't see any mention of what channel width your router supports).  I have to admit, I haven't seen any reports on what performance you can actually get with those as its right at the high-end of AC devices.  Finding a 4x4 client in particular could be tricky, although 3x3 PCIe cards are available.

[schizznick]

9 hours ago, goto10 said:

the wifi coverage on 5g decreases drastically after 6 meters, around 20 feet, so that is why i mentipn the repeater, i already gave ypu the answer

 

you can check by yourself using wifi analyzer, if signal is weaker than  -60db, there you should put tbe wifi repeater but again, you never answered my question about the use it gets, if it is for fast local file transfer or for internet acces

A repeater is a terrible idea, all that will do is cut airtime in half and reduce throughput even further. Repeater's should never be used unless you have no other option to get wireless to an area, then you should use one with a dedicated transport radio operating separate from the client radios. 

 

For the OP:

As was already stated advertised speeds are a far cry from reality. Often they are advertised based on both bands together and in an ideal no interference location. I will let you know that even with high end equipment in ideal circumstances I've rarely seen speeds above 600. I think your money would be better spent running a wire and getting your gig If you need those speeds. 

[Donut417]

18 hours ago, TheCMan said:

I am asking if a new/better network card could perform better?

No one really cant answer that. Wireless is different for everybody. The fact is even if your close 5 Ghz still has short range and not as much penetration power. The fact is distance isnt the the only factor. What materials that signal has to pass thru makes a difference. Without knowing the internal structure of your home and what its made out of, we can even really say if a better card will help. On top of that you could have interference from other sources. While its a small chance, if any networks are in range on the same channel that can cause issues, ALSO parts of the 5 Ghz band is use for Weather Radar, at least here in the US. 

[Sharp_3yE]

On 7/11/2019 at 2:24 PM, schizznick said:

I will let you know that even with high end equipment in ideal circumstances I've rarely seen speeds above 600. I think your money would be better spent running a wire and getting your gig If you need those speeds. 

 

Thanks for that info. I do already know about distance, walls, the advertised speeds, ECT.... I just didn't know if I could get my speeds higher. I've tried moving a few feet and having a clearer path to my antenas without walls in the way and it didn't really seem to do anything. That's why I was wondering if a different card would do better. Maybe there is some settings I can change or maybe this is what I get. It works fine I just want to try and see if it can get better. 

On 7/11/2019 at 10:30 AM, Alex Atkin UK said:

WiFi 5 (AC) on 5Ghz tops out at around 600Mbit on 2x2 MIMO with 80Mhz channel width, which is the most common client configuration.  So I'd say your speed is actually pretty good as actually hitting 600Mbit is very rare.

 

The only way to get higher is 3x3 or 4x4 MIMO (the EA8500 supports this) and/or 160Mhz channel width (can't see any mention of what channel width your router supports).  I have to admit, I haven't seen any reports on what performance you can actually get with those as its right at the high-end of AC devices.  Finding a 4x4 client in particular could be tricky, although 3x3 PCIe cards are available.

 

Thanks a lot for the details.

Well, the fastest channel width I can select is 80Mhz. 160Mhz isn't an option in the drop down menu. But, I would think this router would support it. So maybe that is actually my issue. I need to figure this out.

[Sharp_3yE]

On 7/11/2019 at 10:30 AM, Alex Atkin UK said:

WiFi 5 (AC) on 5Ghz tops out at around 600Mbit on 2x2 MIMO with 80Mhz channel width, which is the most common client configuration.  So I'd say your speed is actually pretty good as actually hitting 600Mbit is very rare.

 

The only way to get higher is 3x3 or 4x4 MIMO (the EA8500 supports this) and/or 160Mhz channel width (can't see any mention of what channel width your router supports).  I have to admit, I haven't seen any reports on what performance you can actually get with those as its right at the high-end of AC devices.  Finding a 4x4 client in particular could be tricky, although 3x3 PCIe cards are available.

 

OHHHHHHHHHHHH My router doesn't support 160MHz channel width cuz it doesn't support DFS. So that was my problem. Thanks for the comment that allowed me to look more into this. BUT while messing around with the channels I found some channels can give faster speeds and stuff. SO, ill mess with that and figure out which channel I'll use. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

16 hours ago, TheCMan said:

OHHHHHHHHHHHH My router doesn't support 160MHz channel width cuz it doesn't support DFS. So that was my problem. Thanks for the comment that allowed me to look more into this. BUT while messing around with the channels I found some channels can give faster speeds and stuff. SO, ill mess with that and figure out which channel I'll use. 

Ah yes, that is sadly common and it really limits your channels too.

That said I just realised the adapter you were looking at DOES look like it might be 4x4 MIMO so should indeed perform faster, if your router supports it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgdtoMnzOk

[Sharp_3yE]

11 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Ah yes, that is sadly common and it really limits your channels too.

That said I just realised the adapter you were looking at DOES look like it might be 4x4 MIMO so should indeed perform faster, if your router supports it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgdtoMnzOk

Yup, it does support 4x4 MIMO. That adapter and an Asus one support it and the fastest 5ghz speeds. 

In that video, that Archer c4000 has similar speed capability so that was a good example of potentially what I could get. In that video he was getting 1.3 Gbps. Maybe it won't be that high but potentially it could be pretty good. 

It's fine how it is rn but better is, well better. 

I guess I'm glad I only spend I think $60 for this router. It's pretty good but doesn't have just a couple features that ones that are over $100 bucks are. So for the price, it's pretty dang good. Someday ill get a better one but the one I have rn is pretty dang good.