Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

Wireless Reviews

Throughput vs. Path Loss - Product Comparison

Moving on to some product-to-product performance comparison, Figures 28 and 29 pit the Extreme against the three next-best performing products that we've tested: The Netgear WNR854T (Marvell-based), Buffalo WZR-AG300NH dual-band (Marvell), and D-Link DIR-655 (Atheros). Note that all have gigabit WAN and LAN ports.

Since the Extreme doesn't support 40 MHz bandwidth mode in the 2.4 GHz band, those plots show only 20 MHz bandwidth mode performance. The Extreme leads the pack for downlink, followed by the D-Link DIR-655, which is also based on Atheros XSPAN silicon.

Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 2.4 GHz downlink
Click to enlarge image

Figure 28: Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 2.4 GHz downlink

The uplink comparison is less clear, with only a clear laggard, the Marvell-based Netgear WNR854T, which falls off faster than the others.

Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 2.4 GHz uplink
Click to enlarge image

Figure 29: Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 2.4 GHz uplink

For comparison in the 5 GHz band (Figures 30 and 31), there is only the Buffalo Nfiniti dual-band, which does better than the Extreme in downlink and 40 MHz bandwidth mode.

Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 5 GHz downlink
Click to enlarge image

Figure 30: Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 5 GHz downlink

The last plot (Figure 31), which shows 5 GHz uplink is pretty interesting. The Buffalo quits pretty early on and doesn't even hit the "waterfall" portion of its curve. I suspect that this is due to a link rate adjustment problem that caused the Buffalo client to disassociate, ending the test.

Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 5 GHz uplink
Click to enlarge image

Figure 31: Throughput vs. Path Loss product comparison - 5 GHz downlink

The Extreme's relatively poor showing, compared to the tests made with the MacBook, is probably due to the mix of Atheros and Marvell chipsets. While manufacturers have made advancements in interoperability, the results show that you're still better off using "matched" products for maximum performance.

If you don't like these comparisons, you can run your own using the Wireless Charts tools!

More Wireless

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

I have attached a 2TB WD elements and partitioned it for 1.8TB for network share and 200GB for use with jffs partition on a RTAC88U with Merlin 384.18...
Suricata is a free and open source, mature, fast and robust network threat detection engine.The Suricata engine is capable of real time intrusion dete...
Hello guys.Right now I'm using that line to make a backup of my entire jffs in shell:Bash: tar -cf some_folder/jffs_"$FWVER".tar /jffs >/dev/null 2>&...
This is FlexQoS, a fork of the original, groundbreaking FreshJR_QOS script written by @FreshJR.FlexQoS provides a fully customizable Adaptive QoS expe...
Supermicro SuperServer E302-9D Review: A Fanless 10G pfSense Powerhouse www.anandtech.com With this piece of kit, I could see myself wadin...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3