![]() To date, we have tested seven AC1200 class routers. The Benchmark Summary below shows the average of throughput measurements made in all test locations. The 0° position had the front of the router facing the chamber antennas. The closest surface of the router was positioned 8″ from the chamber antennas in 0° and 180° test positions. 20 MHz B/W mode was set for 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz was set in 80 MHz bandwidth mode. The router was first reset to factory defaults and Channel 6 was set for 2.4 GHz and Channel 153 for 5 GHz. (The "neighboring" network for these tests is on Channel 11.)įor throughput testing, all tests were run using our standard wireless test process and 3.0.0.4.374.134 version firmware loaded. For the Fat Channel test, the router switched to 20 MHz link rate immediately when bit was enabled but stayed at 20 MHz link rates when bit was disabled.įor the 40 MHz coexistence test, it switched immediately to 20 MHz link rates when set to Channel 8 and back to 40 MHz mode when moved back to Channel 6. It looks like WPS can only be used on one band at a time.īeing Wi-Fi certified, it’s no surprise that the RT-AC56U passed both the Fat Channel Intolerant test as well as the 40 MHz coexistence test. This appears to be due to router setting. In the WPS test, the Windows 7 client prompted for and completed pushbutton session on 2.4 GHz radio. 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 2.4 GHz radio defaulted to Auto 20/40 MHz Channel width, while the 5 GHz radio defaulted to 80 MHz. It defaulted to Auto channel mode on both 2.4 and 5 GHz radios upon power-up. Clearly, hardware acceleration makes a huge difference. Total average throughput with hardware acceleration disabled dropped to 293.7 Mbps. Uplink averaged 324.8 Mbps and the downlink averaged 303.7 Mbps. The unidirectional tests with hardware acceleration disabled (not shown) also yielded a very stable flat plot, but the performance was significantly lower. Those tests were run with hardware acceleration enabled, which is the default setting. The 95% confidence level showed a significantly larger interval than was seen in the unidirectional tests. Note that the average numbers uplink was 701.5 Mbps with downlink averaging 555.9 Mbps. The RT-AC56U favored the LAN to WAN performance. The simultaneous up/downlink tests show a significant amount of variation in both the LAN to WAN as well as the LAN to WAN speeds. Looking at the plots, you can see very little variation with a very low 95% confidence level. However, for total simultaneous throughput, the RT-AC56U topped the charts at 1251.4 Mbps – more than 200 Mbps faster than the second place winner, the D-Link DIR 860L.įor the unidirectional tests, the IxChariot chart below shows steady throughput at almost the same level. Still, even at fourth place, it turned in a very respectable 800.1 Mbps. ![]() ![]() It looks like the second-generation BCM4708 processor can keep its USB 3.0 port plenty busy for reads, but there is room for improvement for writes.įor the WAN to LAN test, the RT-AC56U ranked second behind the D-Link DIR-850L and ranked fourth in the LAN to WAN routing tests for all tested AC1200 class routers. For the USB 3.0 tests, the RT-AC56U outperformed all others in every test category and turned in an impressive 52.2 MB/s for the NTFS read test. The ASUS is the only AC1200 router to-date that has a USB 3.0 port, so all other results are for USB 2.0 ports.įile copy throughput comparison – MBytes/secĪs you can see, the RT-AC56U turned in similar results to the previous performance leader, the DIR-860L in the USB 2.0 test with the FAT32 Write test trailing the pack. I updated this table from the recent D-Link DIR-860L review to compare the RT-AC56U’s performance with other AC1200 class routers. Tests were run connected with the USB drive connected to both the USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 ports. Windows filecopy tests were run using the standard NAS testbed connected to a router Gigabit LAN port and the standard USB drive formatted in FAT32 and NTFS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |