upgrading network

[Nerykrugeer]

Hey guys, I have a few questions, Im planning on upgrading my network, I have 2 apple extrem gen 5, and apple express, so I could have full connections on all parts of the house. However lately I started to get some dead points around de house. And also I got the routers a while ago, around 2010/2011. Now since we got AC connection and all I started to look around. However if I change brands and have to extend all conections for no deadspots in the house, but better connections im open to do that. I was looking at something like the Asus2400 ac87u as the main router, and looking for something to extend the verypowerfull connection, or just upgrade both of my apple extreme, and just keep using what I have and upgrade little by little.

Any suggestions I'm open to that

[Altecice]

Are you devices AC capable? If they are not then you wont gain anything. 'a network is only as fast as the slowest device'

[Nerykrugeer]

Not all, only the cell phones are AC right now, my rig is hard wired to router, and all the rest has N connection, but even that they are newer 2013, N connection its very slower :/// i think the apple extreme only does 150 N, and the 5ghz connection its bad for some reason

[Nerykrugeer]

Are you devices AC capable? If they are not then you wont gain anything. 'a network is only as fast as the slowest device'

Forgot to quote

[Altecice]

Forgot to quote

 

well you would see the benefit on your phones, no change on the PC and your apple stuff you would see no change as they only support N. Really its probs not worth spending the money

[Nerykrugeer]

well you would see the benefit on your phones, no change on the PC and your apple stuff you would see no change as they only support N. Really its probs not worth spending the money

Will the N ones beneffit from the upgrade from 150mb to a 600mb rate, or not really?? And if I get a new laptop for school it will benefit from the AC

[Guest]

Will the N ones beneffit from the upgrade from 150mb to a 600mb rate, or not really?? And if I get a new laptop for school it will benefit from the AC

it depends on how many spatial streams the devices support. Higher speed wireless N routers achieve those higher speeds by using 40-80mhz channel width + multiple spatial streams.  For example a '300mbps' wireless N router achieves 300mbps by running two spatial streams, each carrying 75 Mbps of data per 20 MHz of spectrum, over a double-wide 40-MHz channel. The formula is 75 Mbps x 2 streams x 2 channels = 300 Mbps. Note that in order to support two spatial streams bi-directionally, a minimum of two MIMO transceivers is required at both ends of the link (access point and client). And a newer 450mbps n router would be: 75Mbps x 3 streams x 2 channels = 450 Mbps. Lower end devices usually only support 1-2 spatial streams. A device that only has a 1x1 radio would generally top out at ~72-144mbps (depending on whether 20 or 40mhz channel width is used) with wireless N.

 

It should be noted that in many scenarios the 2.4ghz is limited to 20mhz channel width. The amount of channels in the 2.4ghz spectrum is pretty limited, and using 40mhz on 2.4ghz uses nearly half of the available channels, which causes interference with neighboring 2.4ghz networks. Many 2.4ghz routers have a 'good neighbor' policy that limits them to 20mhz on 2.4ghz if any other networks are detected, and not all of them allow you to override this. For best speed with wireless N you want a 5ghz router + a 5ghz client that supports multiple streams.

 

Also it should be noted that dual band routers list their max speed as the speed of the 2.4 and 5ghz networks combined (for example 300mbps 2.4ghz + 300mbps 5ghz = a '600mbps' n router.)

[Nerykrugeer]

it depends on how many spatial streams the devices support. Higher speed wireless N routers achieve those higher speeds by using 40-80mhz channel width + multiple spatial streams.  For example a '300mbps' wireless N router achieves 300mbps by running two spatial streams, each carrying 75 Mbps of data per 20 MHz of spectrum, over a double-wide 40-MHz channel. The formula is 75 Mbps x 2 streams x 2 channels = 300 Mbps. Note that in order to support two spatial streams bi-directionally, a minimum of two MIMO transceivers is required at both ends of the link (access point and client). And a newer 450mbps n router would be: 75Mbps x 3 streams x 2 channels = 450 Mbps. Lower end devices usually only support 1-2 spatial streams. A device that only has a 1x1 radio would generally top out at ~72-144mbps (depending on whether 20 or 40mhz channel width is used) with wireless N.

 

It should be noted that in many scenarios the 2.4ghz is limited to 20mhz channel width. The amount of channels in the 2.4ghz spectrum is pretty limited, and using 40mhz on 2.4ghz uses nearly half of the available channels, which causes interference with neighboring 2.4ghz networks. Many 2.4ghz routers have a 'good neighbor' policy that limits them to 20mhz on 2.4ghz if any other networks are detected, and not all of them allow you to override this. For best speed with wireless N you want a 5ghz router + a 5ghz client that supports multiple streams.

 

Also it should be noted that dual band routers list their max speed as the speed of the 2.4 and 5ghz networks combined (for example 300mbps 2.4ghz + 300mbps 5ghz = a '600mbps' n router.)

Well I understand all you said, the one from Asus what I read was that is 3x3 N so I guess 3 Streams 3 Channels, so 600mbps on the 2.4ghz. However on the 5Ghz they claim a 4x4 that can reach up to something like a 1734mbps. However I believe its a for AC and not N. Also I would love to only use 5.0ghz on N and on AC, but its a bitch around walls. Since if I upgrade the router will be at the basement, I will have to get a few repeaters to actually have a nice 5ghz connection in my room (2 floors up). Do you think I can shut down the 2.4ghz and leave the 5.0ghz and get repeaters to keep the 5.0ghz at all time and not bother with the 2.4ghz? if that will make a improvement on my network.

[Guest]

Well I understand all you said, the one from Asus what I read was that is 3x3 N so I guess 3 Streams 3 Channels, so 600mbps on the 2.4ghz. However on the 5Ghz they claim a 4x4 that can reach up to something like a 1734mbps. However I believe its a for AC and not N. Also I would love to only use 5.0ghz on N and on AC, but its a bitch around walls. Since if I upgrade the router will be at the basement, I will have to get a few repeaters to actually have a nice 5ghz connection in my room (2 floors up). Do you think I can shut down the 2.4ghz and leave the 5.0ghz and get repeaters to keep the 5.0ghz at all time and not bother with the 2.4ghz? if that will make a improvement on my network.

It depends. A wireless repeater uses half of its internal antennae to receive a wireless signal and the other half to transmit a new signal, effectively halving the potential speed, so the 5ghz speed with several repeaters could potentially be not much better or even worse than 2.4ghz without repeaters, it would really depend on the quality of the repeaters (I don't have much experience with them, but higher end ones may have more radios which would reduce the negative impact they would have on the speeds).

 

Well placed Wireless AP's would provide better performance since they broadcast their own network rather than repeating it, but requires running ethernet to each of the ap's.

[Nerykrugeer]

It depends. A wireless repeater uses half of its internal antennae to receive a wireless signal and the other half to transmit a new signal, effectively halving the potential speed, so the 5ghz speed with several repeaters could potentially be not much better or even worse than 2.4ghz without repeaters, it would really depend on the quality of the repeaters (I don't have much experience with them, but higher end ones may have more radios which would reduce the negative impact they would have on the speeds).

 

Well placed Wireless AP's would provide better performance since they broadcast their own network rather than repeating it, but requires running ethernet to each of the ap's.

I got repeaters so I don't have to see the cables going around the house. I try to hide them as much as I can, but if I do AP's I would have to run some cat6 cables. I agree it would give me way more power, but it would give the work of finding a way to hide the cables. I was looking into a main router, then later I would start looking to good repeaters after that, since they may come with a big cost