2011 Airs 450mbps Wi-Fi?

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by aristobrat, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. macrumors demi-god

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    #1
  2. macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #2
    i second that question since i just ordered an Air and i'm in the market for a new router i nthe next months
     
  3. thread starter macrumors demi-god

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    #3
    I've got the latest generation Time Capsule already, and a 2011 13" Air on the way, so if nobody beats me to it, I'll def update this thread!
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #4
    thanks i would appreciate it ...

    typically how apple is silent about it's technical specs not only on the macs themselves but also on peripherals...
     
  5. macrumors 604

    ZBoater

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny Florida
    #5
    I bought the 2TB Time Capsule with my new MBA, and a 70GB restore took 4 hours.... :(
     
  6. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #6
    Could you copy a file that is at least 1 GB and tell us how many megabytes per second you're getting? Finder does not show this info, but you can download a trial of PathFinder and do the copy using it.

    Edit: please do the test using Ethernet and using wireless, if you can. The TC is not known for it's capabilities as a "NAS", but at least we will get some idea.
     
  7. ZBoater, Jul 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2011

    macrumors 604

    ZBoater

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny Florida
    #7
    Will do. I am about to go to the Apple store to pickup a USB Ethernet adapter, and will download Pathfinder to see whats up.

    EDIT: I copied a 1.5TB movie and it started at 15MB/second and slowly dropped to 10MB/second as the copy progressed. Definitely a lot faster than Time Machine restoring from it. Odd. Ethernet cable is not here yet.
     
  8. vow
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #8
    I'm about 6 feet away from my new Time Capsule right now on my 13" i7

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #9
    Thank you both. The speeds are inline with what I would expect for real world N wifi.

    Copy performance for one large file is better than lots of small files, which is what a large part of your TM backup would consist of. A TM restore would also require more CPU power than a simple copy.
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    #10
    I would imagine the bottleneck to be the hard drive in time capsule in vow's case.
    One might try between two airs on an ad-hoc network to be sure or even better, copying between two ram-disks or similar.
     
  11. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #11
    Even a 5400 RPM can easily exceed the fastest wifi speeds. The bottleneck is in the TC itself and its lack of processing power.
     
  12. vow
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #12
    Forgot to mention that I was copying to my NAS box that's hard wired to the Time Capsule.
     
  13. macrumors 604

    ZBoater

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny Florida
    #13
    I just copied the same file to my Time Capsule using an ethernet cable and the USB Ethernet adapter.

    Same speed. 10.5MB/second.

    Sigh.

    Would that possibly be the fastest the Time Capsule can write a file?
     
  14. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #14
    What NAS are you using just out of interest?
     
  15. vow
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #15
    I'm using the Synology DS11J
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    #16
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #17
    Yuck - why? :mad:
     
  18. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #18
    Source?
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    #19
    Self test, '11 MBA right next to the '11 Extreme rate would not exceed 300
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    #20
    Still not fast enough to support my home connection atleast. I get around 70-80 Mbit depending on where I am in the apartment, so around 10 MB/s. Too bad, I was hoping it would be quick enough not to be a huge bottleneck at home. I see no difference between this one and my 2010 MBP.
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Japan
    #21
    Is everything set up to use Wide Channels like in the OPs FAQ?
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #22
    It's quite simple.

    You need 3 antennas for 3x3 MIMO, as currently found in the iMac and MacBook Pro.

    If you saw the pictures from iFixit you could clearly see that only 2 antennas are going to the Wi-Fi/Bluetooth board.
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    Japan
    #23
    Thanks for the reply. I see now. I just had a look at the macbook pro teardown and you can clearly see 3 antennas. It appears that they are using a broadcom chip in the Airs still which in not compatible with 450mbs anyways.
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    That must be one hell of movie. Perhaps it is 1.5 GB?

    /Jim
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    #25
    There are only 2 wifi stacks in the Air according to anandtech, where each stack can handle full duplex 150mbps, so 2 of them get you 300mbps.
    Pro and iMac have 3 stacks
     

Share This Page