![]() We disabled all other wireless equipment during the tests, including cordless phones and other mobile devices. That said, most high-volume traffic is likely to come in from the WAN (streaming, downloads, online gameplay) and there it will for most people be their ISP’s limit that sets the bottleneck. The tests were run six times at each location, twice each for the following configurations: 2013 AirPort Extreme with 5GHz 802.11ac, 2013 AirPort Extreme with 2.4GHz 802.11n, and 2011 AirPort Extreme with 2.4GHz 802.11n. But the more modern ac flavor is in the same ballpark as Gigabit over Cat5. If you have Gigabit local clients they would definitely be bogged down by that kind of wifi if they engage in heavy LAN traffic. ![]() That's in part because the wireless-n standard is a big jump in technology, but also because the. I know though that my older flat Extreme (n type I believe) was definitely slower. Apple promises a five fold increase in speed using wireless-n, and AirPort Extreme delivers. My Apple updates for example never come down at more than ~10 MB/s even at work where we’re hooked up to the same network the rest of the world uses to connect to NERSC supercomputers (on our site). 125 at Amazon The Good Apples new compact and beautiful AirPort Extreme Base Station supports 802.In my case it actually would be a bottleneck since I have 1 Gbps fiber, but truth be told, I’ve never been limited by that. That is certainly far more than what most people’s ISP will ever deliver. As I said, with my ac model (upright, not flat) I routinely see 500 Mbps upstream to WAN and even more between two LAN wireless clients. ![]() And this is with routers that support 802.11n and ac speeds (that should, theoretically, support 100Mbps). I currently see that at home - computers with a (Gigabit Ethernet) wired connection are much faster than those with a Wi-Fi connection.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |