Range of Wifi 5 vs 6 vs 6e given max transmit power

[NobleGamer]

It is my understanding that at least in the USA, consumer wifi access points & routers have used maximum allowed transmission power (as regulated by the FCC) for many years. This is what has made me skeptical of any single router or AP claiming 2000+ square feet of WiFi coverage.

 

So given this fact and the fact that Wifi 5 and Wifi 6 both use the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, how much farther of an effective range can WiFi 6 (802.11ax) have relative to WiFi 5 (802.11ac)?

 

If I need to define "effective range" and the type of network, let's assume:

• Wifi is mesh
• Ethernet backhauls
• Packet loss/errors due to range are minimal to none
• No external interference (not even from other networks)
• Lets say that minimum device transmit speed goal is 50 mbps or higher, so...
• 5 GHz connectivity is not required, as that reaches shorter distances than 2.4 GHz

 

I've had a really hard time finding conclusive information around effective range of wifi 5 vs 6, and the one test I found is something I take with a grain of salt since it uses very different hardware when comparing Wifi 5 mesh vs Wifi 6 mesh.

 

Bonus question: What about Wifi 6 versus Wifi 6e? Does it push more data at non-6 GHz bands such that it allows for further effective ranges?

 

Why does it matter? Well if anyone like me ends up relocating and their existing Wifi 5 mesh network doesn't provide the range needed, we're faced with a choice like "buy another Wifi 5 node" or "replace network with a newer Wifi protocol". But how can we make an informed decision, or make such recommendation to someone else, without knowing whether newer Wifi standards do in fact provide a better range?

[Eigenvektor]

In general, higher frequency = lower range, and more easily blocked by walls and other obstacles. The reason Wi-Fi 6 can have longer range is because it can also use 2.4 GHz (lower bandwidth, higher range, roughly on par with Wi-Fi 4). The primary reason to get 6E would be the 6 GHz band that allows for higher bandwidth (at shorter ranges).

 

The effective range depends a lot on how your home is built, e.g. how many walls, are they made of wood, do they contain metal, are there wires in the walls etc. Range and optimal placement for each router is something best assessed on site. You may want to read https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/02/the-ars-technica-semi-scientific-guide-to-wi-fi-access-point-placement/

[seanondemand]

Long answer short - you’re not really going to see a range difference going from wifi 5 to wifi 6. 
 

The way wifi 6 devices use the 2.4 GHz band hasn’t really changed and as you pointed out, the 5 GHz (and now 6ghz band on wifi 6e) don’t penetrate as far as the 2.4. Wifi 6 was really about allowing more streams (mostly 5ghz) and organizing traffic in busy network environments for better throughout. 

[kirashi]

4 hours ago, NobleGamer said:

It is my understanding that at least in the USA, consumer wifi access points & routers have used maximum allowed transmission power (as regulated by the FCC) for many years. This is what has made me skeptical of any single router or AP claiming 2000+ square feet of WiFi coverage.

 

So given this fact and the fact that Wifi 5 and Wifi 6 both use the 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, how much farther of an effective range can WiFi 6 (802.11ax) have relative to WiFi 5 (802.11ac)?

 

If I need to define "effective range" and the type of network, let's assume:

• Wifi is mesh
• Ethernet backhauls
• Packet loss/errors due to range are minimal to none
• No external interference (not even from other networks)
• Lets say that minimum device transmit speed goal is 50 mbps or higher, so...
• 5 GHz connectivity is not required, as that reaches shorter distances than 2.4 GHz

 

I've had a really hard time finding conclusive information around effective range of wifi 5 vs 6, and the one test I found is something I take with a grain of salt since it uses very different hardware when comparing Wifi 5 mesh vs Wifi 6 mesh.

 

Bonus question: What about Wifi 6 versus Wifi 6e? Does it push more data at non-6 GHz bands such that it allows for further effective ranges?

 

Why does it matter? Well if anyone like me ends up relocating and their existing Wifi 5 mesh network doesn't provide the range needed, we're faced with a choice like "buy another Wifi 5 node" or "replace network with a newer Wifi protocol". But how can we make an informed decision, or make such recommendation to someone else, without knowing whether newer Wifi standards do in fact provide a better range?

Everything most consumers need to know about WiFi networks within the consumer networking space is available on https://www.duckware.com/wifi

 

TL;DR: My understanding is what @seanondemand noted above - while WiFi 6E offers more throughput over the 6GHz band (when using a client device that also supports WiFi 6E), both WiFi 6 & 6E aim to improve the reliability of the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands compared to WiFi 4/5 networks.

[Alex Atkin UK]

8 hours ago, seanondemand said:

Long answer short - you’re not really going to see a range difference going from wifi 5 to wifi 6. 
 

The way wifi 6 devices use the 2.4 GHz band hasn’t really changed and as you pointed out, the 5 GHz (and now 6ghz band on wifi 6e) don’t penetrate as far as the 2.4. Wifi 6 was really about allowing more streams (mostly 5ghz) and organizing traffic in busy network environments for better throughout. 

It does at least make 2.4Ghz usable again, my speed on the band went up from 25Mbit to 120Mbit as it seems to cope with all the interference we now have on that band better.

[NobleGamer]

TL;DR: At best it appears that Wifi 6/6E might increase reliability of networks which could be meaningful at longer ranges, but at worst it they may provide no tangible effect on effective range compared to Wifi 5.

 

9 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

In general, higher frequency = lower range, and more easily blocked by walls and other obstacles. The reason Wi-Fi 6 can have longer range is because it can also use 2.4 GHz (lower bandwidth, higher range, roughly on par with Wi-Fi 4). The primary reason to get 6E would be the 6 GHz band that allows for higher bandwidth (at shorter ranges).

 

The effective range depends a lot on how your home is built, e.g. how many walls, are they made of wood, do they contain metal, are there wires in the walls etc. Range and optimal placement for each router is something best assessed on site. You may want to read https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/02/the-ars-technica-semi-scientific-guide-to-wi-fi-access-point-placement/

I understand that effective range depends on a home's build.  Just trying to confirm if home and all such variables were constant, whether an upgrade between the Wifi standards that I mentioned would in fact increase the effective range.  That's a very helpful guide for AP placement that I've bookmarked, though tangential to my main questions.

 

8 hours ago, seanondemand said:

Long answer short - you’re not really going to see a range difference going from wifi 5 to wifi 6. 
 

The way wifi 6 devices use the 2.4 GHz band hasn’t really changed and as you pointed out, the 5 GHz (and now 6ghz band on wifi 6e) don’t penetrate as far as the 2.4. Wifi 6 was really about allowing more streams (mostly 5ghz) and organizing traffic in busy network environments for better throughout. 

I was leaning toward this as well, unless 2.4 GHz speeds were somehow increased under wifi 6, which it sounds like they aren't.

 

6 hours ago, kirashi said:

Everything most consumers need to know about WiFi networks within the consumer networking space is available on https://www.duckware.com/wifi

 

TL;DR: My understanding is what @seanondemand noted above - while WiFi 6E offers more throughput over the 6GHz band (when using a client device that also supports WiFi 6E), both WiFi 6 & 6E aim to improve the reliability of the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands compared to WiFi 4/5 networks.

Wow, very detailed and informative info at duckware.  They do a great job of breaking down max theoretical speed and why clients' MIMO counts are so important.  It is interesting that Wifi 5 lists no improvements to 2.4 GHz handling compared to Wifi 4, whereas Wifi 6 at least has this vague seemingly band-agnostic improvement:

 

Quote

Works better outdoors: 802.11ax changed symbol timings (from 3.2µs to 12.8µs; and increased GI times), which allows for wifi to operate much better in outdoor environments, where signal reflections take more time and can cause problems. The increased timings account for these reflections.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

It does at least make 2.4Ghz usable again, my speed on the band went up from 25Mbit to 120Mbit as it seems to cope with all the interference we now have on that band better.

Perhaps that's the "organizing traffic in busy network environments" improvement someone mentioned in Wifi 6 over 5, and not so much a direct boost to bandwidth or range.

[Alex Atkin UK]

40 minutes ago, NobleGamer said:

Perhaps that's the "organizing traffic in busy network environments" improvement someone mentioned in Wifi 6 over 5, and not so much a direct boost to bandwidth or range.

I believe that only works if ALL traffic is WiFi 6, its going to be years before we see those benefits and I don't think all devices support this.  WiFi is another one of those annoying things where not all Access Points HAVE to support all features, so some of the things that benefit dense deployments (enterprise) often get left out of consumer hardware.

 

WiFi 6 improves bandwidth on 2.4Ghz as it supports 1024-QAM (just make sure your router/AP has WiFi 6 on 2.4Ghz, there's plenty that cheaped out and used WiFi 4 again) so can fit more data in the same spectrum, its the first upgrade to 2.4Ghz since WiFi 4 which only supported 64-QAM.  WiFi 5 was only for 5Ghz and supported 256-QAM. WiFi 7 is supposed to go even further to 4096-QAM and can use multiple frequency bands at the same time and seamless switch between them, so should be a huge improvement for roaming as (in theory) you wont lose connection when switching frequencies. 

QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation) is to do with how many bits of data you can squeeze into a particular amount of radio spectrum.  MIMO is how many different signals you can send/receive at the same time over the same spectrum.  They combine to increase the usable bandwidth, although MIMO may also increase range due to having multiple antennas in different positions and potentially polarisations.

 

QAM is what tends to decrease rapidly over range, you have to drop down to less and less efficient modulation modes.

 

Bottom line, you absolutely should get a speed boost on 2.4Ghz moving to WiFi 6, but it can never reach 5Ghz speeds as it only usually has 20Mhz of spectrum per channel, when 5/6Ghz can use 160Mhz (most devices only use 80Mhz).

[NobleGamer]

3 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

WiFi 6 improves bandwidth on 2.4Ghz as it supports 1024-QAM (just make sure your router/AP has WiFi 6 on 2.4Ghz, there's plenty that cheaped out and used WiFi 4 again) so can fit more data in the same spectrum, its the first upgrade to 2.4Ghz since WiFi 4 which only supported 64-QAM.  WiFi 5 was only for 5Ghz and supported 256-QAM.

Makes sense that Wifi 6 speeds on 2.4 GHz would have faster potential throughput as a result of this. Worth noting that given that higher QAMs require shorter distances or more transmit power (~-55db @ 20 Mhz channel), this increase in speed would only be available really close to the wifi AP according to Duckware:

 

Quote

1024-QAM: This higher order QAM is now officially part of the standard, but you will need to be very close to the router/AP to get this QAM. Also, this modulation can only be used when a client is using an entire 20-MHz (or wider) channel -- so NOT available for small RU's. In order to achieve 1024-QAM, you will need an excellent signal (be very close to the router). Note that each time you double channel width, that there is a 3 dB 'penalty':

 

[Alex Atkin UK]

Very interesting, I never knew about the specifics but it makes sense that it will be packet size related as you don't want to waste spectrum padding smaller packets into a larger frame, or whatever they call this stuff in the WiFi realm.

 

I do recall that all broadcast traffic on WiFi has to go at the lowest data rate (again makes sense, that needs to have the longest range) which is why on some devices you can control the SSID broadcast frequency and modern devices seem to have it default fairly low.  Combined with clients scanning rate being quite low also to save power, I think this is why modern hardware can sometimes take quite a long time to detect 5Ghz WiFi networks.  Although DFS may also play a part in that.