NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Nighthawk x10[R9000] To Nighthawk Tri-Band AX12[RAX200]
So I upgrade from R9000 to RAX200 Router, I was hoping to see at least 10% Wi-Fi speed improvement but seen none!!! I got Verizon Fios Gigabit speed but surprise to see no improvement over the previo...
Redtulips7 wrote:
So I upgrade from R9000 to RAX200 Router, I was hoping to see at least 10% Wi-Fi speed improvement but seen none!!!
How comes you expect this - because the old was designated AD7200 and the new AX11000? Or simply new == faster?
Unless you have capable Wifi 6 (802.11ax) clients which can bring a massive speed enhancement, the 802.11ac standard implemented on the RAX200 is still the same, and will remain the same, for your existing 802.11ac clients.
Curious where you have acquired your RAX200 btw.
Forget one point (as editing after posting is still not possible here in this community section ChristineT Christian_R !) ... of course the RAX200 will allow some more concurrent throughput (by multiple clients) on 5 GHz because of the two radios in this band.
Last, for the future records in the community - which firmware version is in place on your RAX200?
schumaku wrote:
Forget one point (as editing after posting is still not possible here in this community section ChristineT Christian_R !) ... of course the RAX200 will allow some more concurrent throughput (by multiple clients) on 5 GHz because of the two radios in this band.
How did I? NGPB Prog. very fast shipping, thx to NG
Now lets talk about Link speed? RAX12 Link speed slower than Nighthawk X10 192mbps Vs 172mbps!!!
Router Firmware Version
V1.0.0.78
Redtulips7 wrote:
Router Firmware Version
V1.0.0.78That's not a RAX120 then?
Redtulips7 wrote:
RAX12 Link speed slower than Nighthawk X10 192mbps Vs 172mbps!!!
In a isolated laboratory I would be concerned. In the real wireless world it's not uncommon that the link rate does vary slightly, depending on a zillion of factors. And then again, as I said before ... the risk of jumping on pre-mature technology devices.
...and after having the second coffee - it's not yet six in the morning here - I would be disgusted seeing such low PHY link rates on 5 GHz - either this is a very basic or outdated client, or the environment does not allow optimal wireless connections (long distance to router, obstacles, interferences, ...) - certainly not a good WiFi environment at all if you are keen on the performance. Even decade old 802.11n radios performed similar under the similar conditions. If my math is right, 192 Mb/s can only be reached on a 20 Mhz channel 802.11n/ac with some 56 sub-carrieres on 256-QAM 5/6 on a 3x3 client..Assuming a 80 MHz channel, 175 Mb/s can indicate a 16-QAM 3/4 on a 1x1 client, QPSK 3/4 on a 2x2 client, or QPSK 1/2 on a 3x3 client.
On a 802.11ac 80 MHz channel with some 234 sub-carriers out of 256 I would expect something approaching 866 Mb/s on a x2 client, something near 1300 Mb/s on a 3x3 client, or up to 1733 Mb/s with a 4x4 client.
That's why I prefer many wireless access points (wired, needless to say) covering small cells, even by using affordable and lower 802.11ac standard hardware like WAC505 with almost direct line of sight to all clients - instead of a single central latest tech gadget.
