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

Mesh Charts

Click for Mesh Charts

Wireless Performance

The WZH-1167DHP is not Wi-Fi certified. It defaulted to Auto channel mode on both 2.4 and 5 GHz radios upon power-up. The 2.4 GHz radio defaulted to Auto 20/40 MHz Channel width, while the 5 GHz radio defaulted to 80 MHz. The router comes with different 2.4 and 5 GHz SSIDs set, so you'll be able to connect to your desired band without having to change router settings.

The WZR-1166DHP successfully ran the WPS pushbutton session resulting in a WPA2/AES connection on the first band we connected to. But once connected, our Windows test client did not prompt for a WPS session when we attempted to connect to the second band.

The WZR-1166DHP failed both the Fat Channel Intolerant test as well as the 40 MHz co-existence test. For the Fat Channel test, it stayed at 40 MHz bandwidth link rates. Similarly for the 40 MHz coexistence test, it stayed at 40 MHz bandwidth link rates even when we moved the router to Channel 9.

For throughput testing, all tests were run using our standard wireless test process and 2.09 version firmware loaded. The router was first reset to factory defaults and Channel 6 was set for 2.4 GHz and Channel 153 for 5 GHz. 20 MHz B/W mode was set for 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz was set in 80 MHz bandwidth mode. The closest surface of the router was positioned 8" from the chamber antennas in all test positions. The 0° position had the front of the router facing the chamber antennas.

The Benchmark Summary below shows the average of throughput measurements made in all test locations.

Buffalo WZR-1166DHP Benchmark Summary

Buffalo WZR-1166DHP Benchmark Summary

We have tested eight AC1200 class routers so far. When looking at the 2.4 GHz average downlink chart filtered to show only AC1200 class routers, the WZR-1166DHP ranked fourth. For both the 2.4 GHz and the 5 GHz average uplink performance, it came in at #6.

The best average performance was seen on the 5 GHz average downlink test, where it came in #3 (108.9 Mpbs), bested only by the top-ranked ASUS RT-AC56U (150Mbps) and the #6 overall rated router, the TRENDnet TEW-811DRU (134.3 Mbps). The chart below summarizes the ranking for Maximum Wireless Throughput.

Buffalo WZR-1166DHP Maximum Wireless Thoughput rankings

Buffalo WZR-1166DHP Maximum Wireless Thoughput rankings

The Throughput vs. Attenuation plots provide a better idea about how the router is going to perform throughout its entire range. Tests are run with 3 dB of attenuation added for each data point. More attenuation simulates more distance from the router. Routers performing well with higher attenuation are more likely to provide you with better coverage for your environment.

For these tests, I decided that it would be interesting to compare the WZR-1166DHP with the other three top ranking AC1200 class routers - ASUS's RT-AC56U (#1), Edimax's BR-6478AC (#2) and D-Link's DIR-860L (#4). As you might have guessed, the Buffalo WZR-1166DHP edged out D-Link's DIR-860L to claim the #3 overall router ranking.

For the 2.4 GHz downlink test, the WZR-1166DHP starts out tracking the top performers. At 36 dB, the lines for the top three start to diverge with the Buffalo router's throughput falling off sooner than the ASUS and Edimax. The Buffalo dropped below the other three routers at 51 dB and stayed there until it lost connection at 54 dB. The top two performing routers still had connections at the maximum attenuation of 63 dB.

What all this means is that for 2.4 GHz downlink, the Buffalo should produce similar throughput to higher-ranked routers with strong to moderate signal strength, but have somewhat shorter range.

2.4 GHz Downlink Throughput vs. Attenuation

2.4 GHz Downlink Throughput vs. Attenuation

The 2.4 GHz uplink plot clearly shows two groups: the higher-performing ASUS and Edimax and lower-performing D-Link and Buffalo. Bottom line is that 2.4 uplink range will be much shorter than downlink, which essentially means low 2.4 GHz range.

2.4 GHz Uplink Throughput vs. Attenuation

2.4 GHz Uplink Throughput vs. Attenuation

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!

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2