Does this ridiculous number of antennas even do anything or is it just marketing wank?
Technically, it does provide better connection speeds by enabling the router to avoid channel hopping, so it can talk to multiple devices (or the same devices if it has multiple antennae) at the same time. This is part of the recent wifi6 and wifi7 standards so more and more devices will start to gain speeds using this technique
Realistically computers have at best 2 antennae and this is largely marketing wank.
Sure, but this isn’t that. That requires actual work put in developing and simulating the product, these are just multiple antennae for multiple channels.
Source: trust me bro I work in semiconductors at a firm that creates RF chips
It does. Wifi uses MIMO (Multi-in, multi-out) to run multiple concurrent data streams over the same channel width, which overcomes individual channel bandwidth limitations (there’s only so much radio frequency space to go around). Each stream having its own antenna, and having larger antennas, gives stronger signal/noise ratios, less retransmitted packets, and overall better connections.
A lot of those high end “gaming” routers are often oversold though… MIMO improves throughput if you have an Internet link it can saturate; realistically even a midrange 2x2 802.11AC router will provide more wifi bandwidth than your internet does. And for gaming, they do nothing to improve latency no matter how many streams you run, as wifi’s inherent delay (5-15ms) is pretty much a fixed quantity due to its radio broadcast time-sharing nature. The meme is correct. A $6 ethernet cable beats any and all wifi routers and client adapters, and always will.
To be more precise it’s not each stream having it’s own antenna, you combine the signals from all antennas and then “spatially filter” it into separate streams, but the number of concurrent streams is limited by the minimum of the number of antennas at both ends of the connection, if your device has only one antenna and your access point has eight you can only have one data stream.
What fast of a WAN connection are you talking about?
I can’t see how a midrange 802.11AC AP could suffice for a decent WAN connection. IMO you need at least 802.11ax
2x2 AC on 5ghz has an 867mbps max PHY throughput, which after a 50% derate for signal quality and overhead is still a very comfortable 400mbps… typical cable internet is around 100 to 500mbps with a lot of places offering “1gbps” that it never actually reaches, so it’s certainly sufficient for 90% of people.
If you have a very heavy multi user (6+ devices always on) household you may find some benefit from an AX 2x2 or 3x3 router just because it can handle congestion better.
MIMO improves throughput if you have an Internet link it can saturate; realistically even a midrange 2x2 802.11AC router will provide more wifi bandwidth than your internet does.
And that’s where the fat controller says you are wrong. I have 1000 Mbps down. I’ve yet to actually hit that speed with WiFi 6.
Also newer WiFi standards significantly improve latency. That’s nothing to do with having more antennas though you would be correct there.
The meme is correct. A $6 ethernet cable beats any and all wifi routers and client adapters, and always will.
With current technology you would be correct. But as for the always part: Ethernet is an electrical signal, so it’s actually slower than microwave signals used by WiFi, and the WiFi signals can also take a more direct path. So in the future WiFi or LiFi could in fact be faster. It’s the processing delay, and scheduling that makes WiFi have higher latency. Not the physical medium.
Before you say this is all academic because of the small distances involved I would remind you that propagation delay is actually a large issue in current microelectronics and computers. Sometimes parts of the same chip are far enough apart to create problems for the engineers due to the high clockspeeds of modern devices.
I’m a network professional with a specialty in wireless.
Yeah, beam forming and mimo are the main reasons for antenna diversity. There’s also more radio chains in those units typically, and more radio chains can provide better speeds if you have client devices that can take advantage of the extra radio chains (both sides need to have the same, increased number of radio chains to see an increase).
The antennas are fairly small/thin pieces of wire that are not very long, so the antennas don’t need to look like that, but the quantity is useful.
As someone with a telecommunications background who’s taken apart some cheap routers that look like that: the only caveat I’ll add is that the antennas are only useful if they’re actually connected to anything. From a decently trustworthy brand you’re probably fine, but I’ve seen a few where only one or two of the antenna couplings were connected to anything internally.
I believe it’s for beam forming which can be used to improve signal strength in a specific direction.
Some of them are marketing wank, some of them have MIMO channels that need multiple antennas to support independent bands with multiple devices.
1 MIMO channel = 2 antennas, so this router could theoretically have 4 devices communicating bilaterally without interrupting each other.
tell that to the $800 of copper running through my walls.
Hay $800 worth of copper, I found a 1000ft roll of shielded pure copper for $2.11 because someone misplaced the decimal point I know because it was listed for $2.1199 every thing was automated through amazon so they just shipped free shipping to, thank for listening $800 worth of copper, your the best.
My PC, laptop, work laptop, are all wired using gigabit. But my laptop on wifi reach 1200Mbps so it’s faster than cable!
Faster than gigabit, but not 2.5 gigabit. Your cables likely support the speed, just your ports and switching hardware are capped at gigabit.
It’s not extremely expensive, but unless you move around a lot of big files, you’re probably getting very diminished returns, even spending less than twice as much for 2.5x speeds.
If you have only one device on Wi-Fi, multiplexing turned off, or especially if you have MU-MIMO support, Wi-Fi can be faster than a single wired connection. It is still higher latency and subject to other drawbacks such as security and power consumption, but of course it offers advantages that can outweigh the disadvantages depending on use case and user needs.
That said, it’s technically not faster than the cable, but rather faster at the data link or network layer. For example, CAT8 physically supports up to 40Gbps, but most consumer and even professional electronics only support up to 2.5Gbps. Only really enterprise level switches can push up to like 100Gbps onto copper, and even then that’s using QSFP transceivers, not RJ-45 connections. Fiber cables regularly push 400Gbps.
Same lol. I get 800Mbps on Cat6, but 1100 on Wifi 6 with one of these fancy expensive 11000ax gaming routers that has all those antennas (antennae?).
Something is wrong there then, because no other ethernet spec is going to cap at 800 Mbps, it’s 10, 100, 1000, 2.5g 5g 10g etc
*Excluding running ethernet cables to every room through the attic, down the walls to wall jacks. Also the cost of the jacks, and the various switches needed for several rooms. And the contractor to do it all.
But hey for like $600 I have cat6a in basically every room so
Not everyone is comfortable drilling walls and installing plates, stripping wires, etc. and CAT cables aren’t like simple copper electrical wires.
And not everyone wants to have cables running along their floorboard and up their stairs
I’ve looked into wiring decent Ethernet through our walls, where the phone lines are. Wooden flooring isn’t very common here so pulling through the wall ducts that have dodgy AC cables and Cat-negative-1 telephone “cables” is the only realistic option. Personally I even think I’d like to run double Ethernet cables anywhere just so I can have flexibility. When I get my own place someday, the cable duct provisioning will be absolutely ridiculous, I’ve already promised myself.
The ducts are complete trash and it’s a miracle the phone lines even worked for so long. Our electricity is so goddamn noisy here that any Ethernet signal would be affected, meaning I’ll definitely need better cables and end up with worse speeds. So noisy that powerline Ethernet really sounds like a punchline. The WiFi isn’t great because the only place the AP/router has access to the phone line is right where it enters the apartment, which is from the elevator shaft - meaning a giant Faraday cage shields half the apartment from the WiFi. We’ve disconnected the phone lines in the walls because those are completely fried and have started to introduce so much noise that it’s audible on the landline and completely kills any synchronization with the phone center. Like it’s fucking bad. All that headache for 2-4 megabit unreliable DSL. Even for Lebanon, the perennially cursed paradise we call home, pretty goddamn bad.
I’ve looked into coax Ethernet, the problem is that every few years a bolt of lightning hits the TV cable network in my neighborhood and deep fries every TV that wasn’t manually disconnected at the start of the storm. Just awful. I suspect the cable integrity is better throughout the walls though. A lot of splitters though.
The best part? I live in a part of my cursed country where they’ve started connecting FTTH. And for some reason they stopped laying the cables mere meters from my building in like 2020 and just never bothered to keep going. And the fiber company has legitimately blocked every phone number I’ve since inquired from. I’m not joking when I say I’ve considered just suspending a thick thick optic (remember the lightning, there’s no grounding here!) SFP cable along the municipal power poles (let’s not discuss legality here, it’s okay, this is Lebanon habibi), putting a nice switch in a neighbor’s house, and just paying for their internet in return for making sure that one port is nice and snug.
I do think my best bet is (when the fiber finally arrives in 2097) some kind of mesh WiFi with no backhaul, or some kind of Ethernet backhaul that relies on routing the meatiest Ethernet cable I could find on the outside of the building.
Another alternative is paying out the absolute ass for a corporate Internet subscription, but microwave internet is susceptible to the weather, and the whole thing is just so much upfront cost that it can’t be worth it. Although maybe going that route five years ago would have been worth it.
Just awful. At least everyone’s on Netflix and short form video now so data caps have moved past the pathetic 20 and 30 GBs they were only a decade ago.
Counterpoint: I’ve probably saved a significant amount of money by having the odds overwhelmingly stacked against me setting off on my homelab journey. lol
And then you still need a wireless router to get Internet on your phone unless you use data at home like a crazy person.
Ethernet is obviously better but running ethernet around your home can be a pain in the arse
A pain in the arse you only need to do once, and you can hire someone to do it for you for basically the same cost as a couple of the high end wireless routers, so in like 5 years, you break even.
Also, how much have you spent on your computer (s), phone(s), tablet(s), and all your other internet connected devices, and you won’t spend like $500 on something that can run all that stuff simultaneously? Pouring literally thousands of dollars on connected devices, but most won’t pay more than they would for a toaster, to get them on the internet, then pay out the wahzoo for gigabit internet that your crummy d-link router can’t handle, and you wonder why all your fancy gadgets run like shit… It’s a lot like buying a Ferrari to drive on dirt/gravel roads.
I think it’s a little more than $500 to get Ethernet ports installed all around your house. Especially if you need to run through fire breaks and insulation. Will have to wait till a remodel before I can get those installed.
That said, I didn’t skimp on my home networking, even though it’s all wireless. I’ve got 4 WiFi 6 APs on PoE with Cat 6 runs thru the attic. I can get 700 Mbs+ download speeds pretty much anywhere in and around the house.
It could be, depending on where you land on the DIY vs building code spectrum… Also what your local building code details in terms of low voltage cable.
In my experience unless you’re intentionally going through air handling ductwork, CMG is fine, though I would go with CMR at least, just as a matter of safety. I have yet to see a residential home with any fire protection or fire breaks, at all, nevermind where you would think to put them, like between floors and whatnot. The homes in my area are mostly built from timber, so we’re basically living inside a framework of dried out wood, so putting a fire break between wood framed floors where the floor/ceiling shares a set of wooden cross members for support, seems like it would be unnecessary, since the framing of the building is going to conduct the fire between levels.
Ethernet is low voltage, so it’s largely unregulated. The only real regulation is regarding plenum or riser spaces, and the latter is mostly when floors are intentionally or naturally separated in terms of shared fate when it comes to fire. I only see fire breaks in concrete structures, usually apartments or commercial buildings.
YMMV, not every country has the same building codes, so every person reading this will need to do their own research or pay someone who knows.
My point remains, regardless of all this conjecture: even if it’s $2000 or more, this is structure cabling that should service the premise for as long as it continues to stand, which is hopefully many decades. Over 20 years, at $2000 for installation, you’re looking at a cost of around $8.34/mo for the cabling to exist.
Considering people will pay 10x that for Internet service, and the addition of Ethernet in the building will allow them to take full advantage of the internet they’re paying for, I’d call that a bargain.
Preach! I just finished a long DIY remodel and running ethernet to everyroom was less than a $100 in cable and connectors. Obviously it was easier and cheaper for me because I already had a lot of the drywall down.
Either way such a good point you make, people will drop 1k on a phone no questions asked but a few hundred is too much to get the best home upgrade a tech enthusiast could ever ask for.
I could preach all day about this.
I have a simple philosophy: wired when you can, wireless when you have to.
With that being said, doing a site survey for wifi and getting optimal access point locations, then placing Ethernet in ceiling there for said access points, ensures you have good coverage of your space, which then leads into another rant about network hardware and people spending thousands on everything except their router/access points even if they have the structure cables to support such a system…
Then people wonder why their wifi sucks.
I mean, spend a couple hundred one time to get Ethernet run, spend some time on an online ap placement tool and signal estimator for it, and then go buy infrastructure wireless for your home, and spend upwards of $1000 on networking hardware. You’ll get more out of it and it will work for longer than your $1000+ smart phone, or many $1000s laptop that use it almost constantly.
Networking is critical and it should be seamless and blend into the background. You shouldn’t need to mess with it constantly to get it to work. If that’s normal for you, then something is very wrong.
That can be an advantage. Some of the enterprise-level tech has trickled down to consumer WiFi in recent years, which includes browsing between multiple access points. With several access points with relatively weak signal, you get signal right where you need it without broadcasting up and down the street.
