Buyer Beware: TP-Link Archer A5 speed claims misleading.

[RGProductions]

I just bought this router for a friend, but I returned it less than 25 minutes after opening the box.

 

This router advertises itself as capable of wireless AC and speeds in excess of 867 mb/s. I have a gigabit connection and I routinely get ~500mb/s throughout my whole house on wifi. I bought this router for a friend, but I thought it would be good to set it up at my house and give it a test. To my shock, even 5 feet away from the router I could not get speeds in excess of 90 mb/s. I knew the LAN ports on this router were only 10/100, but I assumed that a router that advertised itself as capable of wireless AC (1200mb/s claim on box) speeds SURELY wouldn't have a WAN port only capable of 10/100, right? Wrong. This router doesn't even have a gigabit WAN port. This product should not exist. If it were capable of gigabit WAN this would easily be a 4 or even 5 star product. The only scenario where it is even possible to get anywhere near the advertised throughput on this router is a direct wifi to wifi transfer, such as using this product as a repeater (which I could not seem to figure out despite my knowledge) or a local file transfer across wifi on both ends. I guess this is on me for not reading the specs first, but it seems so odd, especially when better routers with gigabit WAN are only $5-10 more. I was able to return it but I'm leaving this here to hopefully dissuade anyone from buying this router who stumbles across this post. 

[tkitch]

The product is fine.

 

Most people don't have 100mbit internet, as most base packages are still 50mbps or less, so for them?  Whatever, it'll work fine.

 

Is it actually AC Wifi?  Theoretically yes.  You'd have to test data copies across two wifi devices to find out.   

[RGProductions]

9 minutes ago, tkitch said:

The product is fine.

 

Most people don't have 100mbit internet, as most base packages are still 50mbps or less, so for them?  Whatever, it'll work fine.

 

Is it actually AC Wifi?  Theoretically yes.  You'd have to test data copies across two wifi devices to find out.   

You're totally right that it functions, but it wasn't advertised anywhere except deep into the product page on the TP link website that this only had 10/100 WAN and a router with gigabit WAN (and more features) is only about $10 more. Also, I disagree on your claim that average internet speeds are so slow. At least where I am, even on copper to get a new connection slower than 150/20 you have to specifically ask for it and it is not much cheaper than 500/50. I know this isn't the case everywhere but in a lot of places it's becoming the norm. I would avoid this router out of the principle because of the misleading claim even if my internet speeds were under 100mb/s, especially because significantly better options exist within its price bracket. 

[OhioYJ]

3 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

At least where I am, even on copper to get a new connection slower than 150/20 you have to specifically ask for it and it is not much cheaper than 500/50. I know this isn't the case everywhere but in a lot of places it's becoming the norm. 

 

Haha,  Norm, no. I'm also in the US, and judging by what you say you have for options I'm guessing you must live closer to a large or larger city? 

[helfisk]

17 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

I just bought this router for a friend, but I returned it less than 25 minutes after opening the box.

 

This router advertises itself as capable of wireless AC and speeds in excess of 867 mb/s. I have a gigabit connection and I routinely get ~500mb/s throughout my whole house on wifi. I bought this router for a friend, but I thought it would be good to set it up at my house and give it a test. To my shock, even 5 feet away from the router I could not get speeds in excess of 90 mb/s. I knew the LAN ports on this router were only 10/100, but I assumed that a router that advertised itself as capable of wireless AC (1200mb/s claim on box) speeds SURELY wouldn't have a WAN port only capable of 10/100, right? Wrong. This router doesn't even have a gigabit WAN port. This product should not exist. If it were capable of gigabit WAN this would easily be a 4 or even 5 star product. The only scenario where it is even possible to get anywhere near the advertised throughput on this router is a direct wifi to wifi transfer, such as using this product as a repeater (which I could not seem to figure out despite my knowledge) or a local file transfer across wifi on both ends. I guess this is on me for not reading the specs first, but it seems so odd, especially when better routers with gigabit WAN are only $5-10 more. I was able to return it but I'm leaving this here to hopefully dissuade anyone from buying this router who stumbles across this post. 

First off - WIFI speed claims are always misleading, the speeds are based on theoretical max and not real-world examples.

Second - the wan port is definitely a bottleneck, but only if you have an internet connection >100mbit, and as stated by @tkitch - that's uncommon in many areas.
Third - this product could make a lot of sense for some customers, example; customer has <100mbit wan, but has a lot of LAN and WLAN activity, maybe a NAS they use for their totally legal BluRay rips

 

As with anything, a well-informed purchase is in the end the customers responsibility 

[RGProductions]

Just now, OhioYJ said:

 

Haha,  Norm, no. I'm also in the US, and judging by what you say you have for options I'm guessing you must live closer to a large or larger city? 

I'm not super close to a city but I'm definitely not far. I am on the west coast though so with the industry around here I do know that we have significantly better internet infrastructure than average

[helfisk]

1 minute ago, OhioYJ said:

 

Haha,  Norm, no. I'm also in the US, and judging by what you say you have for options I'm guessing you must live closer to a large or larger city? 

Never been to the US - but I do know internet connectivity ranges from poor to non-existing in some rural areas.

One of the business reasons for google's attempt providing affordable internet using balloons - not to mention the insane amount of "mesh" satellites put in low orbit by SpaceX 

[YoungBlade]

It says that the WAN port is only 10/100 right on the side of the box and even in the title of the Amazon listing. This is not something that TP-Link is hiding. I don't know how they could have made it much clearer. Were you expecting a big warning label?

 

Those WiFi speeds are always the theoretical maximum LAN speeds, just like how the LAN port speeds are always the LAN speeds. Just because my TP-Link Archer A6 router does have a 1 Gbps WAN port, that doesn't mean my Internet will be 1 Gbps. It's still 50 Mbps whether connected by wire or wireless. So in my use case, and in the use cases of most people in the US, there is no difference. According to FastMetrics, not a single state has an average Internet speed above 100 Mbps. The best is Virginia with 76 Mbps.

 

The 10/100 LAN ports are what I find disappointing, because it means that your LAN speeds are limited to wired devices, which is generally where you want the most bandwidth for LAN transfers, but if all your devices happen to be wireless, and your Internet speed is not above 100 Mbps, then this product is fine.

[RGProductions]

1 minute ago, helfisk said:

First off - WIFI speed claims are always misleading, the speeds are based on theoretical max and not real-world examples.

Second - the wan port is definitely a bottleneck, but only if you have an internet connection >100mbit, and as stated by @tkitch - that's uncommon in many areas.
Third - this product could make a lot of sense for some customers, example; customer has <100mbit wan, but has a lot of LAN and WLAN activity, maybe a NAS they use for their totally legal BluRay rips

 

As with anything, a well-informed purchase is in the end the customers responsibility 

Agreed completely. I would have no problems with this product if they were upfront about the fact that it only has 10/100 wan but it's obvious they want to hide it. Maybe my beef lies with amazon (or whoever created the amazon listing), because it actually does not state anywhere on that page what kind of WAN speed it has, and graphics like this (created by TP-link themselves), strongly imply it is possible to get an external internet connection of speeds in excess of 100 mb/s. To tp-link's credit it does say on the box that it only has 10/100 WAN.

[RGProductions]

Just now, YoungBlade said:

-snip-

It only specifies 10/100 LAN, I have seen a few routers that have had gigabit WAN and only 10/100 LAN. I definitely should have done my due diligence before buying this product and that is on me, but someone less technically inclined than I am would probably not have been able to tell. 

[RGProductions]

I should also add that I am only upset because significantly better products exist in the same price bracket. For an extra $8 you can get a router with similar features from a reputable brand but with gigabit WAN and LAN

[helfisk]

5 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

The 10/100 LAN ports are what I find disappointing, because it means that your LAN speeds are limited to wired devices, which is generally where you want the most bandwidth for LAN transfers, but if all your devices happen to be wireless, and your Internet speed is not above 100 Mbps, then this product is fine.

Agree - but a case could be made that this product is intended for customers with primarily wireless use.
Nevertheless, there's a lot hinting towards a product favors the cost conscious more than performance

 

7 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

graphics like this (created by TP-link themselves), strongly imply it is possible to get an external internet connection of speeds in excess of 100 mb/s

I'll give you that - then again, if you don't understand those numbers and what they represent, it is doubtful that you would know or even need to know, what LAN and WAN speeds it's running.
However, if it turns out that the internal switching is unable to handle anything above ~100mbit on WLAN as well, the story changes significantly.

 

To most consumers, they just see a random number - the greater the number, the greater the product.
Technically they could advertise 100.000kbit wan and lan speeds, and not be misleading - while, yeah, smelling a bit fishy

[helfisk]

11 minutes ago, RGProductions said:

I should also add that I am only upset because significantly better products exist in the same price bracket. For an extra $8 you can get a router with similar features from a reputable brand but with gigabit WAN and LAN

That might actually be due to retailers pushing a higher markup on these products. In that case, they are the ones you should direct your frustration towards.

[RGProductions]

1 minute ago, helfisk said:

Agree - but a case could be made that this product is intended for customers with primarily wireless use.
Nevertheless, there's a lot hinting towards a product favors the cost conscious more than performance

 

I'll give you that - then again, if you don't understand those numbers and what they represent, it is doubtful that you would know or even need to know, what LAN and WAN speeds it's running.
However, if it turns out that the internal switching is unable to handle anything above ~100mbit on WLAN as well, the story changes significantly.

 

To most consumers, they just see a random number - the greater the number, the greater the product.
Technically they could advertise 100.000kbit wan and lan speeds, and not be misleading - while, yeah, smelling a bit fishy

totally. I would love to test the WLAN speeds, but I'm not sure this can even function as a repeater and I only own one computer lol

[RGProductions]

Just now, helfisk said:

That might actually be due to retailers pushing a higher markup on these products. In that case, they are the ones you should direct your frustration towards.

both products are at MSRP, I see where you're coming from though. The performance per dollar is good but the advertising is wack IMO 

[YoungBlade]

1 minute ago, RGProductions said:

I should also add that I am only upset because significantly better products exist in the same price bracket. For an extra $8 you can get a router with similar features from a reputable brand but with gigabit WAN and LAN

That's why I spent the extra $10 to get the Archer A6. I saw the 10/100 in the title of the A5 Amazon listing and said "I'm not touching that," and went with the A6 instead. Which has been an excellent router, I might add. I even bought one for my mom as a housewarming present so she could move off her 8 year old router, and it's been great for her, too.

 

To us enthusiasts, that makes perfect sense. Your price-to-performance is much better considering you get 10x more speed, but for some people, they'll never be able to take advantage of that speed, and that extra $8-10 is tough. That's a 22-28% increase in price to go from the $35 model up to a $43-45 one. And the sort of people shopping for a $35 router generally don't have gigabit Internet. The best Internet I can get right now is 75 Mbps and it would cost over $50 a month after taxes and fees. I would imagine you're paying over $100 a month on your gigabit Internet. (If not, kudos on having a great provider) But even for the $50 a month option, why would anyone ever pair that with a $35 router?

[helfisk]

1 minute ago, RGProductions said:

totally. I would love to test the WLAN speeds, but I'm not sure this can even function as a repeater and I only own one computer lol

You can use your phone as 2nd device. Create a big file, 1gb to make it easy
Windows CMD:

fsutil file createnew testfile.1gb 1073741824

 

Download the file on your phone, then reverse

 

[RGProductions]

Just now, YoungBlade said:

That's why I spent the extra $10 to get the Archer A6. I saw the 10/100 in the title of the A5 Amazon listing and said "I'm not touching that," and went with the A6 instead. Which has been an excellent router, I might add. I even bought one for my mom as a housewarming present so she could move off her 8 year old router, and it's been great for her, too.

 

To us enthusiasts, that makes perfect sense. Your price-to-performance is much better considering you get 10x more speed, but for some people, they'll never be able to take advantage of that speed, and that extra $8-10 is tough. That's a 22-28% increase in price to go from the $35 model up to a $43-45 one. And the sort of people shopping for a $35 router generally don't have gigabit Internet. The best Internet I can get right now is 75 Mbps and it would cost over $50 a month after taxes and fees. I would imagine you're paying over $100 a month on your gigabit Internet. (If not, kudos on having a great provider) But even for the $50 a month option, why would anyone ever pair that with a $35 router?

That's the exact router I bought to replace it. We have xfinity and haven't had a terrible experience, and we pay around $70 a month IIRC. College is my use case, some dorms don't have wireless routers so you have to supply your own, but they do have a wired connection that can stretch up to gigabit speeds when demand is low. My perspective on internet speeds is definitely skewed, everyone I know now has speeds well in excess of 100 mb/s except people who are way out in the middle of nowhere that still only have DSL

[RGProductions]

1 minute ago, helfisk said:

You can use your phone as 2nd device. Create a big file, 1gb to make it easy
Windows CMD:

fsutil file createnew testfile.1gb 1073741824

 

Download the file on your phone, then reverse

 

I'll have to do that when my family gets home, I use Mac and iPhone so it's probably hideously complicated to try to do that on this combo

[helfisk]

Just now, RGProductions said:

I'll have to do that when my family gets home, I use Mac and iPhone so it's probably hideously complicated to try to do that on this combo

Oh yes - unless you have jailbroken it - or whatever it is called, and have some way to access NFS shares or whatever mac uses

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 hours ago, RGProductions said:

It only specifies 10/100 LAN, I have seen a few routers that have had gigabit WAN and only 10/100 LAN. I definitely should have done my due diligence before buying this product and that is on me, but someone less technically inclined than I am would probably not have been able to tell. 

The router market is a nightmare for people who ARE technically inclined, never mind those who aren't.

 

The vast majority of routers with a Gigabit WAN port, can't do Gigabit as their CPUs are too weak.

Some technically might be able to, but they only have a single Gigabit port into the SoC which is shared with the LAN and WAN using VLAN tagging on the internal switch, halving the speed.  NONE OF THIS IS ADVERTISED!

 

So honestly while this is a bad product, I'm not aware of a single consumer router that advertises its NAT speed, the ACTUAL speed it can handle between LAN and WAN.  Never mind the whole WiFi situation.

[RGProductions]

On 9/10/2021 at 6:20 PM, Alex Atkin UK said:

The router market is a nightmare for people who ARE technically inclined, never mind those who aren't.

 

The vast majority of routers with a Gigabit WAN port, can't do Gigabit as their CPUs are too weak.

Some technically might be able to, but they only have a single Gigabit port into the SoC which is shared with the LAN and WAN using VLAN tagging on the internal switch, halving the speed.  NONE OF THIS IS ADVERTISED!

 

So honestly while this is a bad product, I'm not aware of a single consumer router that advertises its NAT speed, the ACTUAL speed it can handle between LAN and WAN.  Never mind the whole WiFi situation.

Yeah it’s a whole mess I’m glad my provided router is able to deliver 7-800mbps through the whole house because figuring all this out for an actually fast connection sucks

[Alex Atkin UK]

13 hours ago, RGProductions said:

Yeah it’s a whole mess I’m glad my provided router is able to deliver 7-800mbps through the whole house because figuring all this out for an actually fast connection sucks

Its why I moved to using a PC as theres only smallnetbuilder I'm aware of that actually tests NAT speed.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

20 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Its why I moved to using a PC as theres only smallnetbuilder I'm aware of that actually tests NAT speed.

ITX j4005 board running pfSense and an AC68U used only as an AP. :V

Best part is, I'm one PCIE card from upgrading that to 2.5gbps in and out.

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 hours ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

ITX j4005 board running pfSense and an AC68U used only as an AP. :V

Best part is, I'm one PCIE card from upgrading that to 2.5gbps in and out.

That's the one drawback of me using an appliance, no upgrading the NICs.  But then I don't see needing more than Gigabit any time soon, though once I DO have Gigabit I will still have the 5G backup so its a shame to not do a test load balanced across both.

Will probably try either link aggregation or a USB 2.5Gbit adapter as I  THINK pfSense supports that as its driverless, I know it doesn't like my 5Gbit adapter though.

 

I'm not a fan of USB long term as it tends to have more latency and I believe more CPU overhead.