You're going to have to repeat this, more scientifically. Please select 500 subscribers to come to your house with a couple of devices each and we'll get this done. No need to worry about the hassle of planning, I'll co-ordinate everything in exchange for the UAS-Pro. You're quite welcome.
I saw you use iperf3. To get decent results with that you have to use -P to use multiple streams or set -w to use another windows size instead of the default. Play with them till you see that it maxes out. That will give you correct results.
what should i get with a 2600 sq ft house and possibly basement in the future? i have xfinity 250 mbps. i was planning to go with a SB6183, ER X, and either AP Lite, Pro, or LR..
Good Day Willie, I am interested in knowing if you make any specific configuration changes to the Radio section un Properties for you AP AC Pro’s… or do you just leave that section to Auto… Thank you so very much… Cheers…
Sorry, Willie, I was genuinely confused at first and didn't think it through. I know you said it wasn't an ideal test and, while I didn't expect perfect results near gigabit speeds, I thought it would've been much faster than hovering around 100 Mbps speeds. Then I realized I hadn't thought it through. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but, as usual, the comments section gets pounced on by trolls.
One BIG advantage to the HD is it puts out WAY more signal out the "front" of the access point, so for wall mounting it works much better than the HD/LR/Lite and you can also "aim" it when installing it in large venues. community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Stories/Sports-Arena-Event-4000-users-UniFi-AC-HD/cns-p/1876822/page/2#comments and for radiation charts on all the UniFi access points: help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005212927-UniFi-UAP-Antenna-Radiation-Patterns
Quad stream (4x4:4) and non-standard modulation (256 QAM), or in other words chipset vendor fuckery. As the modulation is non-standard, your client devices also need to support it, otherwise it's just 600M max instead of 800M. Here's one article which touches upon this "issue" www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/33077-goodbye-to-wi-fi-router-classes Also remember the amount of streams. Most devices have a single (1x1:1) or dual stream (2x2:2) wireless NIC, tri stream is not common while quad stream is super rare. So don't expect to see that kind of speeds on any one single client device, rather think of it as headroom and as an investment for the future where MU-MIMO support is more wide spread (along with rainbows and unicorns). P.S. Technically the AC HD is capable of much higher speeds on the 5Ghz spectrum, the box originally said 4Gbps which would imply 160Mhz channel width support on 802.11ac (866.7*4=3466.8 + the 800 from 2.4G = 4266.8). For now it's not enabled (DFS certification issues??) and the retail boxes just say 2.5Gbps. Which is just fine and dandy in my opinion, even 80Mhz is challenging to use in the real world, let's not even discuss how stupid 160Mhz is... If you don't understand why that is, Google '5Ghz 160Mhz' and look at the image search results.
BUT. wouldnt it still cause the 2.4 ghz band to "increase" in bandwidth? like 20hz is several channels vide. 40 hz is even more. wouldnt it demand a 800mbit connection to increase the hz even further? like "blocking" the whole spectrum?
No, it would not. Modulation and channel width are two separate things. Also, don't confuse channel width and bandwidth. Going from 64-QAM to 256-QAM modulation is a 33.3% increase to the theoretical maximum bandwidth. This is a simple calculation, 2^6 is 64 while 2^8 is 256. 8/6 is 1.333 recurring or 33.3% recurring. 802.11n standards highest modulation type is 64-QAM. With 64-QAM modulation, 400ns guard interval and 40Mhz channel width, the theoretical maximum bandwidth is 150Mbps per stream. If you increase the modulation to 256-QAM, you're essentially adding 33.3% recurring more bandwidth, 150+33.3%=200. See the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wikipedia page's data rates sections en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009#Data_rates en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac#Data_rates_and_speed
Great explanation. But how would I ever get to 800 that way? I'm not a guru in modulation to be honest? But do you mean modulation can be turned up higher and still be on 20/40mhz? Increasing the modulation.. would that give a higher total bandwidth or will I only happen if client connected are capable? Like 4x4 Mimi can be 2* 2x2 devices etc etc
Thanks, I'm trying my best. Also apoligies about mixing different words every now and then. It just sort of slips every now and then, for example link speed and bandwidth etc. For you to get 800Mbps link speed on 2.4Ghz with this access point, your device needs to have a wireless NIC that is 4x4:4 and supports 256-QAM (as well as having good enough signal). Good luck finding one. And that's of course just the theoretical maximum, in reality you can remove ~40-60% of that number to get the real world, actual transfer speed. I'm not an expert either. But yes, you can increase modulation higher and higher and still stay at 20Mhz or 40Mhz channel width. We are not making the wireless signal any wider, taller, longer or faster, we're just increasing the signal's _complexity_, the amount of information we are shoving inside that signal. I'll point out the elephant in the room: do you know what happens when you go further and further away from a WiFi access point? Your link speed will go down. As the distance increases, the amount of interference and corruption increases = if the client or access point can't make heads or tails of the signal they received then they will have to lower the modulation=lower complexity=less information to make the signal readable. Yes, the client needs to support the modulation type being used. 802.11n standard _does not include_ 256-QAM. If the 802.11n device does not support 256-QAM, then the theoretical maximum link speed is 150Mbps per stream. If it does support 256-QAM, then it's 200Mbps per stream. Yes, that is the whole point of MU-MIMO, MU stands for Multi User or rather multiple clients. I'm gonna leave this up to you to research, this comment is already quite long.. But yes, 4x4:4 can be split up in to two 2x2:2 slices for two 2x2:2 devices to increase the air time utilization. Or 3x3:3 + 1x1:1 or 2x2:2 + 1x1:1 + 1x1:1 and so on. However, all the devices needs to support MU-MIMO to get the full benefit. At the VERY least, two. Do note however that MU-MIMO is no magic unicorn that's going to "make WiFi great again" or erm just make it great, WiFi has never been great nor will it ever be.
And another thing, the placement obviously is not perfect and the testing results you see are only applicable to your test setup as a whole, however, it would be kinda nice if you could have a semi-permament mounting options for these guys in the ceiling close to a corner or something. Or a shelf or whatever higher up so they would be at least somewhat realistically placed, higher up and facing down like you would have in the real world. (edit: accidental double period) As another commenter said, the HD's radiation pattern and antenna design and whatnot is much more concentrated downwards so the testing setup was quite inconvenient for the HD, not to say that the Pro's radiation pattern is 100% horizontal (which it certainly is not) but it's a bit more horizontal than the HD.
You should've paid a little more attention when you were testing :D With the "VTH40" test you did on the HD, your phone was actually connected to 2.4Ghz... After you reprovisioned it to VHT80 5Ghz, then your phone was connected to the 5Ghz as seen on the client info page you had open on the controller. If you have the time and you have enough wireless clients, it would be nice to see a "high density" test by testing multiple devices at the same time to showcase the much higher processing power of the HD.
Willie thanks for putting together this quick side by side test for your fans. I'm sure when time allows you'll be able to take some of this feedback and give a detailed comparison. I know at times fans get spoiled and feel they could have done something better, but the fact is if we could then we should and share that knowledge with the other fans of Ubiquiti. I do look forward to see whats next for the channel.
Hey Willie, I was running iperf3 both from my windows machine to my ER-Lite and vice versa. Sending from the router on a wired gigabit connection i only get 151mbps and from the computer to the router i get no more than 230, any idea why its not close to a gigabit?
You should get a more current client device for your testing. with a 2016 MBP I can get about 600-800mbps with the HD and about 400-600 with the UAP-AC-PRO-IW. So not a huge single client boost but then again its hard to side if there is anything else you get from Wave 2 in a single client usage. Not sure how well the beamforming works.
It depends on a lot of details. In ideal situation I think both the Pro and the HD will just max out your phone's maximum wireless throughput. In my daytime job as an ISP mechanic I have to test Wi-Fi on home networks. There's an obvious difference in the results I get using my company's S5 or using my private iPhone 7 Plus(which ofcourse is not a surprise considering the difference in age). (S5 maxes out around 200-250Mbits while the iPhone has shown 350Mbits and higher)
Hi Willie, doesn't the IOS app (and I assume the android app) provide a very similar speed testing functionality ("Throughput test"")? For testing wireless throughput to the AP in various locations and AP positions, I have found the app very helpful. Am I missing something in the advantage of using pc based iperf? Besides the IPerf3 app costs $10! BTW, using the app, about the same distance as in your demo from a ceiling mounted AP-AC-Lite i get speeds of 250+ up and down.
You're going to have to repeat this, more scientifically.
Please select 500 subscribers to come to your house with a couple of devices each and we'll get this done. No need to worry about the hassle of planning, I'll co-ordinate everything in exchange for the UAS-Pro. You're quite welcome.
how many devices can connect on 2.4G at the same time. and can this router be suitable for smart home that most smart devices support 2.4G only.
I saw you use iperf3. To get decent results with that you have to use -P to use multiple streams or set -w to use another windows size instead of the default. Play with them till you see that it maxes out. That will give you correct results.
what should i get with a 2600 sq ft house and possibly basement in the future? i have xfinity 250 mbps. i was planning to go with a SB6183, ER X, and either AP Lite, Pro, or LR..
Good Day Willie,
I am interested in knowing if you make any specific configuration changes to the Radio section un Properties for you AP AC Pro’s… or do you just leave that section to Auto… Thank you so very much… Cheers…
What are the benefits of having low transmit power for both 2.4 and 5 Ghz?
So, they both seem to top out close to about a quarter of their purported 2.4 GHz speeds. I'm confused.
With four 2.4ghz users running full speed it'll put out the speed specs. The specs listed never work at that speed for a single client.
That's true, he didn't specify his wireless adapter capabilities. I didn't take that into account with my comment.
Galaxy S6 which has BCM4358, 2x2:2 ac, 256-QAM and that kind of jazz. Decent antenna design as well.
Sorry, Willie, I was genuinely confused at first and didn't think it through. I know you said it wasn't an ideal test and, while I didn't expect perfect results near gigabit speeds, I thought it would've been much faster than hovering around 100 Mbps speeds. Then I realized I hadn't thought it through. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but, as usual, the comments section gets pounced on by trolls.
Ogarza - perhaps you should do something productive with your life instead of trolling TH-cam comments sections.
One BIG advantage to the HD is it puts out WAY more signal out the "front" of the access point, so for wall mounting it works much better than the HD/LR/Lite and you can also "aim" it when installing it in large venues. community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Stories/Sports-Arena-Event-4000-users-UniFi-AC-HD/cns-p/1876822/page/2#comments and for radiation charts on all the UniFi access points: help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005212927-UniFi-UAP-Antenna-Radiation-Patterns
a question.. how would you ever reach 800mbit on the 2.4 ghz??? wouldnt that mean it has to broadcast 2 signals on the 2.4??
Quad stream (4x4:4) and non-standard modulation (256 QAM), or in other words chipset vendor fuckery. As the modulation is non-standard, your client devices also need to support it, otherwise it's just 600M max instead of 800M.
Here's one article which touches upon this "issue"
www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-features/33077-goodbye-to-wi-fi-router-classes
Also remember the amount of streams. Most devices have a single (1x1:1) or dual stream (2x2:2) wireless NIC, tri stream is not common while quad stream is super rare.
So don't expect to see that kind of speeds on any one single client device, rather think of it as headroom and as an investment for the future where MU-MIMO support is more wide spread (along with rainbows and unicorns).
P.S. Technically the AC HD is capable of much higher speeds on the 5Ghz spectrum, the box originally said 4Gbps which would imply 160Mhz channel width support on 802.11ac (866.7*4=3466.8 + the 800 from 2.4G = 4266.8). For now it's not enabled (DFS certification issues??) and the retail boxes just say 2.5Gbps. Which is just fine and dandy in my opinion, even 80Mhz is challenging to use in the real world, let's not even discuss how stupid 160Mhz is...
If you don't understand why that is, Google '5Ghz 160Mhz' and look at the image search results.
BUT. wouldnt it still cause the 2.4 ghz band to "increase" in bandwidth? like 20hz is several channels vide. 40 hz is even more. wouldnt it demand a 800mbit connection to increase the hz even further? like "blocking" the whole spectrum?
No, it would not. Modulation and channel width are two separate things. Also, don't confuse channel width and bandwidth.
Going from 64-QAM to 256-QAM modulation is a 33.3% increase to the theoretical maximum bandwidth. This is a simple calculation, 2^6 is 64 while 2^8 is 256. 8/6 is 1.333 recurring or 33.3% recurring.
802.11n standards highest modulation type is 64-QAM. With 64-QAM modulation, 400ns guard interval and 40Mhz channel width, the theoretical maximum bandwidth is 150Mbps per stream.
If you increase the modulation to 256-QAM, you're essentially adding 33.3% recurring more bandwidth, 150+33.3%=200.
See the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wikipedia page's data rates sections
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009#Data_rates
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac#Data_rates_and_speed
Great explanation. But how would I ever get to 800 that way? I'm not a guru in modulation to be honest? But do you mean modulation can be turned up higher and still be on 20/40mhz?
Increasing the modulation.. would that give a higher total bandwidth or will I only happen if client connected are capable? Like 4x4 Mimi can be 2* 2x2 devices etc etc
Thanks, I'm trying my best. Also apoligies about mixing different words every now and then. It just sort of slips every now and then, for example link speed and bandwidth etc.
For you to get 800Mbps link speed on 2.4Ghz with this access point, your device needs to have a wireless NIC that is 4x4:4 and supports 256-QAM (as well as having good enough signal). Good luck finding one.
And that's of course just the theoretical maximum, in reality you can remove ~40-60% of that number to get the real world, actual transfer speed.
I'm not an expert either.
But yes, you can increase modulation higher and higher and still stay at 20Mhz or 40Mhz channel width. We are not making the wireless signal any wider, taller, longer or faster, we're just increasing the signal's _complexity_, the amount of information we are shoving inside that signal.
I'll point out the elephant in the room: do you know what happens when you go further and further away from a WiFi access point? Your link speed will go down. As the distance increases, the amount of interference and corruption increases = if the client or access point can't make heads or tails of the signal they received then they will have to lower the modulation=lower complexity=less information to make the signal readable.
Yes, the client needs to support the modulation type being used.
802.11n standard _does not include_ 256-QAM.
If the 802.11n device does not support 256-QAM, then the theoretical maximum link speed is 150Mbps per stream.
If it does support 256-QAM, then it's 200Mbps per stream.
Yes, that is the whole point of MU-MIMO, MU stands for Multi User or rather multiple clients. I'm gonna leave this up to you to research, this comment is already quite long..
But yes, 4x4:4 can be split up in to two 2x2:2 slices for two 2x2:2 devices to increase the air time utilization. Or 3x3:3 + 1x1:1 or 2x2:2 + 1x1:1 + 1x1:1 and so on.
However, all the devices needs to support MU-MIMO to get the full benefit. At the VERY least, two.
Do note however that MU-MIMO is no magic unicorn that's going to "make WiFi great again" or erm just make it great, WiFi has never been great nor will it ever be.
Thanks for spending the time to share information, but honest feedback: the video could be trimmed down a lot, way too much dead time.
And another thing, the placement obviously is not perfect and the testing results you see are only applicable to your test setup as a whole, however, it would be kinda nice if you could have a semi-permament mounting options for these guys in the ceiling close to a corner or something. Or a shelf or whatever higher up so they would be at least somewhat realistically placed, higher up and facing down like you would have in the real world. (edit: accidental double period)
As another commenter said, the HD's radiation pattern and antenna design and whatnot is much more concentrated downwards so the testing setup was quite inconvenient for the HD, not to say that the Pro's radiation pattern is 100% horizontal (which it certainly is not) but it's a bit more horizontal than the HD.
You should've paid a little more attention when you were testing :D With the "VTH40" test you did on the HD, your phone was actually connected to 2.4Ghz... After you reprovisioned it to VHT80 5Ghz, then your phone was connected to the 5Ghz as seen on the client info page you had open on the controller.
If you have the time and you have enough wireless clients, it would be nice to see a "high density" test by testing multiple devices at the same time to showcase the much higher processing power of the HD.
I smell a rack mount cable management video coming up.
I couldn't resist with that rats nest of cables behind you.
Willie thanks for putting together this quick side by side test for your fans. I'm sure when time allows you'll be able to take some of this feedback and give a detailed comparison. I know at times fans get spoiled and feel they could have done something better, but the fact is if we could then we should and share that knowledge with the other fans of Ubiquiti. I do look forward to see whats next for the channel.
Hey Willie, I was running iperf3 both from my windows machine to my ER-Lite and vice versa. Sending from the router on a wired gigabit connection i only get 151mbps and from the computer to the router i get no more than 230, any idea why its not close to a gigabit?
You should get a more current client device for your testing. with a 2016 MBP I can get about 600-800mbps with the HD and about 400-600 with the UAP-AC-PRO-IW. So not a huge single client boost but then again its hard to side if there is anything else you get from Wave 2 in a single client usage. Not sure how well the beamforming works.
Very helpful when deciding
I have the AC pro, I get 400mbps on AC and 90mbps in 2.4ghz (also tested with S6)
It depends on a lot of details. In ideal situation I think both the Pro and the HD will just max out your phone's maximum wireless throughput. In my daytime job as an ISP mechanic I have to test Wi-Fi on home networks. There's an obvious difference in the results I get using my company's S5 or using my private iPhone 7 Plus(which ofcourse is not a surprise considering the difference in age). (S5 maxes out around 200-250Mbits while the iPhone has shown 350Mbits and higher)
Hi Willie, doesn't the IOS app (and I assume the android app) provide a very similar speed testing functionality ("Throughput test"")? For testing wireless throughput to the AP in various locations and AP positions, I have found the app very helpful. Am I missing something in the advantage of using pc based iperf? Besides the IPerf3 app costs $10! BTW, using the app, about the same distance as in your demo from a ceiling mounted AP-AC-Lite i get speeds of 250+ up and down.