$500 for networking

[AMD Lover]

Would you be willing or think it wise/logical to spend $400-500 on a Ubiquiti home network setup that would allow me a AP-AC (1300Mbps, 400ft) off the start. A dedicated PoE switch and dedicated modem. With later in the year or early next year networked cameras, more access points, and mFi accessories (Power strips, outlets and switches) that report watts and amperage along with allowing me to remotely turn of any device that is plugged into those devices?

 

 

So the $400-500 would include a modem, router, AC Access point, and patch cables. 

 

 

If you look at the link for the modem you'll notice its ADSL2+, this infrastructure is not for the internet I have now but rather for fiber in the near future and to better support my Chromecasts, Xbox's, and Steam In-Home servers currently.

 

 

Would you be willing to lay down this much for a tightly integrated, high quality, almost worry free, up-gradable solution?

[AMD Lover]

Nobody apparently is able to give opinions because thats what I'm asking for. Not hard to read and vote my friends

[KTFO|SGTmoody]

I think the bigest question you should ask your self is.  If i went with something lower end would you be disappointed and wished you used that cash to get the better device?

 

In my case that would be a yes. 

and if it would allow you to  do that extra stuff latter on then a bigger yes.  but it all comes down to if you are willing to drop that kind of money on a project like this?

 

but then this all depends on how many devices you want to connect to wifi and how many will be talking at once. if its going to be alot then probably the higher end solution.

 

but ultimatly part of me doesnt want to say much because its not my money......   if you know what i mean

[skywake]

I'd spend that much but I wouldn't spend it in that way. I'd probably go with a cheap modem and router, whether they're a combo unit or not I wouldn't care because they'd be cheap. As long as it works, especially on ADSL because you're not going to get high speeds anyway. Then I wouldn't go with that expensive AP and I'd instead get a cheaper one for $100 or so and a larger switch for upto ~$100 again. The extra money (we're talking ~$250 now) I'd put towards running Ethernet through the walls. Depending on how you go about it, whether you DIY or not, you may need a little bit more.

 

At that point, with network points to most of the places you'll need them, you won't care that your wireless isn't via a $300 AP because you'll barely ever be relying on wireless.

[skywake]

 

For home use you're not going to need expensive gear as much as you would in an enterprise environment. Purely because there won't be the sheer number of people and you're not going to be as susceptible to failure. Plus when you can walk down to a local retailer and get a 16 port Gigabit switch for under $100? Spending much more than that for home use seems a bit stupid. What are you doing that needs more than that? Fair enough if you want to spend money to play around with cool features but for actual use? The most intensive thing the average home user may do is in-home-streaming where you may sustain upto ~30Mbps while someone else might want to run a backup between two other ports. Even the cheapest gigabit switch will handle that with ease. Plus if it does die in five to ten years odds are you may be able to get a cheap 10Gbps switch by then.

 

Even moreso for wireless gear. Ten years ago you may have thought that 802.11g was where it was at and spent hundreds of dollars on high end enterprise wireless gear. Even five years ago you could have done the same with 802.11n and while that would still make sense you'd still be looking at the new ac gear pretty enviously. I don't think spending big on hardware like that which you know will become less appealing over time makes much sense. Unless you have a reason for it now it's just a waste of money.

 

However spending money on wires in the wall? Spending money on hardware you will use now? That makes sense. Which is why I said to the OP that they should spend that sort of money but not on network hardware. Spend that money getting upto a certain level of performance on wireless and then spend the rest moving all of your gear off wireless and onto ethernet. Because wireless sucks and will never be as good as wired even if you buy really high end enterprise grade wireless.

[skywake]

 

Well everyone has something that they spend more money on then they could probably get away with, it's called being an enthusiast. It could be cars, games, movies, gardening, really high end GPUs and for some people it's network hardware. I also have no doubt that you use all of that gear because that's what an enthusiast does. However for the average user, even the average tech-lover? Especially one who's stuck on ADSL2 and will, if they're lucky, be getting around 10Mbps 'nets. They won't see any benefit from higher end gear.

 

If the OP wants to spend this sort of money on network hardware they should low-ball it on wireless, get a cheap Gigabit switch and then run Ethernet through the walls. Odds are most of the things they use on a daily basis can be wired, don't move and barely use a tiny fraction of 1Gbps even at peak usage. Having even a solid, low latency, reliable 100Mbps running to the back of your TV and all your gear? That's more than enough for what the OP is likely to be doing today. Doing just that rather than pouring money into higher end hardware will deliver the same sort of experience for their use. You're not really compromising by going for "just Gigabit".

 

Also thinking about the most I could hammer my network at once even theoretically. If I really pushed it without pushing it for the sake of pushing it? With the number of "video viewing" devices I have floating around and maybe if I had a family gathering where we all went into different rooms to watch a 1080p video for some reason. Usually even with that many people around it's just music and maybe one video for my Niece but still. Even in that ridiculous scenario I could maybe push it above 100Mbps average throughput from my NAS with peaks upto maybe 200Mbps or so. Of which with my setup only 30Mbps of the av would be over wireless. But I suspect my NAS' DLNA server with it's 1.2Ghz Marvel CPU would give up before any part of the rest of my network was a bottleneck. And I do have backups which do in theory hammer the network more than that but even then the ones that aren't scheduled to the NAS for different prime #ed days at a random time are with Bittorent sync and are nice enough to spread out the load.

 

tl;dr

It's nice to be an enthusiast and I get it... but for the average end user even if they're an enthusiast? Off the shelf network hardware, particularly for wired gear, is good enough.

[rockking1379]

i will vote for doing it yourself. AIO units like 1900AC are great because they are easy but what happens when hardware fails, whole network fails. do it yourself, then say the router fails, well internal static routing should still work. when you feel like adding to the entire thing say a new server, you can have prebuilt the capacity into it to begin with. so say right now you only need 10 ports on a switch, you can over buy and get a 24 port. then you go to add a couple new systems and all you gotta do is plug them in. no dealing with how you are gonna fit it all on the router or anything like that.

[Broseephus]

 

tl;dr

It's nice to be an enthusiast and I get it... but for the average end user even if they're an enthusiast? Off the shelf network hardware, particularly for wired gear, is good enough.

 

 

This.