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

Storage Performance

The standard router storage test procedure was used to measure file copy throughput for FAT32 and NTFS volumes connected via USB 2.0 & 3.0. All the data is in the Router Charts; I'll be comparing USB 3.0/NTFS results only.

The P's more powerful processor propelled it to the top of both write and read charts. The R8000's 39 MB/s write and 74 MB/s read for the same benchmarks pale in comparison. Note the R8000 was not retested; the results shown were just copied from the original test. I spot-checked NTFS/USB3.0 performance and found it about the same as before, if not a bit lower.

USB 3.0/NTFS storage performance comparison

USB 3.0/NTFS storage performance comparison

Routing Performance

The R8000P was loaded with V1.1.3.2_1.1.74 firmware and tested with our V10 router test process.

Test Description NETGEAR R8000P

NETGEAR R8000

WAN - LAN Throughput (Mbps) 940 937
LAN - WAN Throughput (Mbps) 940 940
HTTP Score - WAN to LAN (%) 61 31
HTTP Score - LAN to WAN (%) 51 36
Bufferbloat Score- Down Avg. 617 478
Bufferbloat Score- Down Max. 372 113
Bufferbloat Score- Up Avg. 477 448
Bufferbloat Score- Up Max. 162 358
CTF Score (%) 59 42
Firmware Version V1.1.3.2_1.1.74 V1.0.3.54_1.1.37
Table 2: Routing throughput

Both routers show gigabit wirespeed routing using our simple iperf3-based test. But the tougher HTTP tests show a significant difference in download and upload average performance.

HTTP Score averages

HTTP Score averages

Looking at a plot of the benchmarks that make up the averages above, I added in the ASUS GT-AC5300 that sits at the top of both charts for comparison. The R8000P and ASUS are the same on WAN-to-LAN at the two largest filesizes tested. While neither NETGEAR equals the ASUS on the two smaller filesizes again on WAN-to-LAN, the gap significantly widens for LAN-to-WAN.

HTTP Score comparison

HTTP Score comparison
Plot key file size: [A] 2 KB, [B] 10 KB, [C] 108 KB and [D] 759 KB file

Comparing average Bufferbloat scores shows the P doing a bit better on average download than the 8000. But the table below with actual latency measurements added shows even the ASUS' relatively low uplink score equates to around 4 ms, not much to worry about.

Test Description NETGEAR R8000P NETGEAR R8000 ASUS GT-AC5300
Bufferbloat Average Downlink Score 617 478 450
Bufferbloat Average Downlink latency (ms) 1.6 2.1 2.2
Bufferbloat Average Uplink Score 477 448 227
Bufferbloat Average Uplink latency (ms) 2.1 2.2 4.4
Table 3: Bufferbloat performance

The Cut Through Forwarding tests look for throughput reduction when various router features are used. The P's CTF score of 59 means the router lost around 40% of its normal throughput when, in this case, either of its domain blocking or traffic meter features were enabled. The R8000 also suffered throughput loss when either of these features were used, but more like 60%. Interestingly, enabling QoS on the R8000 did not reduce throughput.

Wireless Performance

The R8000P is not Wi-Fi Certified. It was loaded with V1.1.3.2_1.1.74 firmware and tested with the Revision 10 wireless test process . The router was reset to factory default, then set to Channel 6 and auto 20/40 MHz bandwidth for 2.4 GHz and Channel 40 and 80 MHz bandwidth for the low band 5 GHz radio. The high band radio was shut off and not tested. WPA2/AES encryption was used for all connections. The Revision 10 process still uses 20 MHz bandwidth for 2.4 GHz tests for throughput vs. range, but uses 40 MHz for peak throughput tests. These settings are enforced by the octoScope Pal test client.

The router body was centered on the test chamber turntable with all antennas vertical as shown in the photo below. The 0° position for the router had the front facing the chamber antennas. Although you see four chamber antennas in the photo, only the center two are used for throughput vs. attenuation testing, which is done with the Pal set to operate as a 2x2 AC device.

NETGEAR R8000P in test chamber

NETGEAR R8000P in test chamber

We'll start by comparing average throughput to get an initial feel for how the R8000P measures up. Average 2.4 GHz throughput was in the lower half of the charts for both up and downlink.

2.4 GHz average throughput comparison

2.4 GHz average throughput comparison

The 5 GHz average plots show much poorer downlink than uplink throughput. But 5 GHz downlink was also an R8000 weakness.

5 GHz average throughput comparison

5 GHz average throughput comparison

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

Hi all - looking to upgrade my WiFi situation. Here are some specifics:* Currently run an Apple Extreme which is fine, but a bit long in the tooth and...
I presume it does something more than set the nvram ntp_ready to 1? I noticed the firmware calls it when it launches ntpd (and apparently every 11 min...
Hey all,I am struggling with the AC3100 I bought a month ago, and I can still return until mid-January. I get a lot of wifi drops, weird DNS lookup de...
If I were to add a MoCA adapter to my router and to the coax I realize I would use another bonded MoCA adapter somewhere else in the house.1. I also a...
My clients are not able to connect to the internet, nor able to RDP to pc's after getting connected to my openvpn server on rt-ac3100 running 384.13. ...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3