First Gigabit Wi-Fi Routers Ready to Launch

[drsox]

I wonder if the difference lies on whether the file transfer speed is being affected by:
- Hard Drive read/write speed (Would it be faster using SSD drives at both ends?)
- Interference (are you connecting at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz?)

On your first number, 15MBps which is approximately 120 Mbps or by adding the extra bits required for the transfer 150 Mbps, it does seems slow.
Could the slowdown be internally to the MBA not having a fast enough bus?

What speed do you get when copying a file to an external USB 2.0 drive 7200RPM? That may show us if the problem really is happening during network transfer or before.

All the file transfers I do tend to be to/from/between Gb LAN NASs that can run at 90+MBps. Yes, quite possibly the I/O bus of the MBA is also limiting.
For comparison I could achieve 90+ MBps I/O through a home-brew Win7 PC with an i3/SSD/Intel PRO1000 PT.
The network links are the same with the MBA connected to the same switches/LAN/NASs as the PC.

Just today for a test I copied some 5GB files between 2 NASs through the MBA (mind you it was using Win7 in Bootcamp) and saw simultaneous 15MBps Input and Output. I'll run it again in OSX.

All my storage is in the NASs so no opportunity to run USB drive speed tests.

UPDATE :

Yes, Gb USB NIC is faster in OSX. NAS to MBA - 40MBps. NASa to MBA to NASb - 20MBps in and 20MBps out.
However, Wireless - even with a 300Mbps 802.11n 5Ghz connection I only get 8MBps in and 8MBps out (NASa to MBA to NASb)

 

[50548]

It's not about internet, it's about moving stuff around your network... including streaming HD videos from one room to the next.

In other words, absolutely IRRELEVANT for 99.9% of people out there. Unless you're dealing with multiple computer setups that exchange thousands of files every day, or perhaps streaming directly to your TV through local servers, no one is going to be able to enjoy any additional speed out of this.

Again:

- Most broadband connections top out at 25Mbps or so - even if you have a 100Mbps link, this router won't help;
- Apart from local content, Apple TV uses your Internet connection to stream purchased stuff - irrelevant, then.

 

[BiggAW]

Netgear? Sorry, they've joined Sony on my "never again" list. I had one of their top-end routers (at the time) the WNDR3700. It's been 3-4 years since release, and the thing STILL doesn't work completely right with stock firmware. I got an ASUS RT-N66U to replace it and I'm loving it.

Now if Apple would just release a router with QoS, I'd be all over that!

Really? We've had a pretty good experience with ours, although admittedly, it's not our router, it's just an AP/switch.

I seriously don't think many people know what version of Wifi they are using. The technologies are marketed under so many different names.

 

[mjtomlin]

I'd settle for 10mbps never mind 100!!!

The thing is though, the speed will certainly help when transferring files/sharing libraries etc at home.

I'd settle for 2Mbps never mind 10!!! Really. AT&T DSL service sucks that bad in my neighborhood. I top out at 1.8Mbps on a good day. Normally I get 1.1Mbps.

 

[lifeinhd]

Hoping Apple comes out with a new TC at the same time as the MBPs (or before). Looking to pick both up this summer to replace my aging MBP and my b-speed router.

 

[sampdoria]

I hope Apple updates their Airport Express Base Station. I've got a 4th generation AEBS and file transfers over Wifi are incredibly slow. I typically have to send files to a connected hard drive, speeds range from 3-4.5mb/s

Here's me trying to send a 2gb file;

Image

Total time for it to transfer is about 10 minutes.

Where is that screen shot from? I'd like to try the same in my home network.

 

[Matthew4]

.. try living in London and having to deal with the so called 'service' BT provides....

You should try it in hull with Karoo, they say we can get speeds between a minimum of 8Mbps a maximum of 15.5Mbps and the speed I got then was 3.87 Down and 0.80 Up.

 

[Konrad9]

woah, its $25 here for unlimited data and also includes unlimited calls and $35 including HD tv channels

We get 16 mbit/d 4mbit/up for ~$60 a month, no TV. TV would be an extra $30 for basic cable, +$10 for the box rental.

 

[awinn233]

Ugh

Oh god not another Wifi standard. I just finished updating to 802.11n.

 

[dlowings]

I wish people would see the game that is going on here... Faster is good , but what good is it when the FCC does not manage the bands properly... Try using a G router now... There is so much interferiance in that band that the equipment is unusable... Give it time and there will be so many things out there overlaping and bleeding into the band that even this in time will be come unusable.. It happened to all of the other bands... This is just a way to make people buy more stuff... SAD SAD SAD

IMO

 

[gnasher729]

whether I use a router from 2008 or this one, I wouldn't notice a difference because my service provider sucks..

Consider a large office with a few hundred computers where for most uses you can now get rid of Ethernet and rely on a wireless network. (With WiFi, the total bandwidth in an office is 3 times the bandwidth for a single channel, because no more than 3 channels can be used simultaneously without interference).

Wonderful. That's full of wonder. Too bad there isn't the infrastructure in enough places in the world to support this fully.

The required infrastructure is air. If air is not available, vacuum will do just fine. So I think infrastructure is not a problem

 

[MacintoshUser86]

No way am I buying a NetGear router, as a gaming you need D-Link for maximum effectiveness. I've been using the D-Link DGL 4500 Extreme N Gaming router since 2008 and I would never get anything else but their HD Media 3000 model.

 

[reden]

I am definitely hopping on one of these...

You're gonna break it though.

 

[3282868]

Oh god not another Wifi standard. I just finished updating to 802.11n.

lol I know, tech is moving so fast these days it's hard to keep up. I sort of miss the days when Motorola RAZR's were da bomb. Now a new N in the works. So rumors have it that Apple will be using this in devices this year? I wonder if Broadcomm has chips ready for the long awaited Mac refreshes. Maybe too early. Be nice to drop one in my Mac Pro. Easy as pie

Where is that screen shot from? I'd like to try the same in my home network.

I believe it's part of iStat Menus, it's the pulldown for monitoring your WiFi UL/DL speeds/connectivity. I have the same thing.

 

[wikus]

Where is that screen shot from? I'd like to try the same in my home network.

Its a program called 'iStat Menus'

http://bjango.com/mac/istatmenus/

 

[BiggAW]

Consider a large office with a few hundred computers where for most uses you can now get rid of Ethernet and rely on a wireless network. (With WiFi, the total bandwidth in an office is 3 times the bandwidth for a single channel, because no more than 3 channels can be used simultaneously without interference).



The required infrastructure is air. If air is not available, vacuum will do just fine. So I think infrastructure is not a problem

Wired will always be more reliable. Wired isn't going anywhere, but this great for where you can't do wired. You still need a back-end ethernet/PoE/controller infrastructure for wifi. That ain't cheap.

 

[lostngone]

Ugly...

Ugly little sucker!

However I guess I can't complain if it works as advertised.

 

[cube]

And where is the consumer 10GBASE-T ?

 

[lostngone]

I hope Apple updates their Airport Express Base Station. I've got a 4th generation AEBS and file transfers over Wifi are incredibly slow. I typically have to send files to a connected hard drive, speeds range from 3-4.5mb/s

Here's me trying to send a 2gb file;

Image

Total time for it to transfer is about 10 minutes.

You claim you are only getting 3-4.5Mb/s but the picture is showing 4.0MB/s. That translates to about 32Mb/s.

Depending on many factors. S/N ratio, range, g or n connectivity that is actually pretty good performance.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

All the file transfers I do tend to be to/from/between Gb LAN NASs that can run at 90+MBps. Yes, quite possibly the I/O bus of the MBA is also limiting.
For comparison I could achieve 90+ MBps I/O through a home-brew Win7 PC with an i3/SSD/Intel PRO1000 PT.
The network links are the same with the MBA connected to the same switches/LAN/NASs as the PC.

Just today for a test I copied some 5GB files between 2 NASs through the MBA (mind you it was using Win7 in Bootcamp) and saw simultaneous 15MBps Input and Output. I'll run it again in OSX.

All my storage is in the NASs so no opportunity to run USB drive speed tests.

UPDATE :

Yes, Gb USB NIC is faster in OSX. NAS to MBA - 40MBps. NASa to MBA to NASb - 20MBps in and 20MBps out.
However, Wireless - even with a 300Mbps 802.11n 5Ghz connection I only get 8MBps in and 8MBps out (NASa to MBA to NASb)

Interesting results... Until I could digest all that, and try to understand why, I'm speechless.

Oh wait... Could I assume that your NAS units have write caching ON?
Also, what kind of drive is in the MBA, what are its specs and is write caching ON?

I found this thread that may be useful to you if you want to speed up your MBA. Will it really help? Not sure, but you ay consider trying it:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1311309/

 

[ncaissie]

whether I use a router from 2008 or this one, I wouldn't notice a difference because my service provider sucks..

Routers aren't all about downloading/uploading from the internet. I like the speed for PC to PC and PC to iOS device transfers as well. Also streaming movies to the PS3 and iPad.

 

[btacuso]

whether I use a router from 2008 or this one, I wouldn't notice a difference because my service provider sucks..

The internet speed limit depends with your service provider, but the wireless data transfer within your network(local), as in between your computer to another of your computer in the same house, or to an external drive, or to a printer can be easily accomodated by the gigabit wireless at the same time.

 

[ericinboston]

I think you're likely correct on the Macs but incorrect on the mobile devices. 802.11ac is VERY important for mobile devices and I'd be absolutely floored if the iPad 2013 doesn't support 802.11ac and I'll tell you why.

Current 802.11n technology provides 150Mbps per antenna. Computers have the space and power to run 3 antenna to get to 450Mbps. Mobile devices cannot afford the space and power consumption of 3 antenna so speed will be locked in at only 150Mbps theoretical.

Enter 11ac

Each antenna in 11ac supports 433 Mbps. So mobile devices stand to see the largest improvement of network speed because one antenna provides almost the speed of 3 channels of 11n. That's a win.

Being that 11ac is fully backwards compatible means the rolllout will be fast .

But there is no use case for iPads, iPods, or iPhones. What are people doing now (or in 3 years) on an iPad that could possibly warrant ac? Nothing. Sure, years down the road when the technology is cheaper and more mainstream and consumers suck more and larger files over the internet, sure...but that's the story with any hardware in computers...faster, cheaper, more powerful every year.

The only possible use case is streaming content from Apple/Netflix/whoever...but the average home's 5-15Mbit downstream connection is a HUGE bottleneck compared to even wireless G. I have 30Mbit and the streaming is still so-so thanks to all the inner workings of the internet and the source location's pipe/bandwidth/performance of the media files.


You have to seriously compare iOS users to desktop users. Desktop users have FAR more flexibility and ability to work the internet connection (FTP, file sharing techniques, large uploads to Shutterfly/Dropbox, uploading a 500MB file to Youtube, backing up 5GB of data to online storage unit, copy 500GB of data over your local network to your other pc/NAS, etc.). iPad does what in comparison?...email a 5MB picture a few times a day? Download a 5-7MB MP3 file from iTunes?

It'll all pan out over the years.

 

[Nermal]

Surprised it wasnt dubbed something "Wi-Fi 2.0™" or something to offer less confusion amongst people who are less familiar to tech terms and specifications.

The Wi-Fi marketing people are calling it "5G WiFi", and Netgear is using that name in the press release.

 

[wikus]

You claim you are only getting 3-4.5Mb/s but the picture is showing 4.0MB/s. That translates to about 32Mb/s.

Depending on many factors. S/N ratio, range, g or n connectivity that is actually pretty good performance.

It was 4mb/s at THAT moment. Speeds are never constant, it fluctuates a lot. I've seen it transfer as slow as 1mb/s and as fast as 8mb/s. I've had instances where it would stay at 2mb/s for a longer period of time.

Regardless, the speeds are tragic.

Wikipedia's page on the AEBS states;

The performance of USB hard drives attached to an AirPort Extreme is slower than if the drive were connected directly to a computer. This is due to the processor speed on the AirPort extreme. Depending on the setup and types of reads and writes, performance ranges from 0.5 to 17.5 MB/s for writing and 1.9 to 25.6 MB/s for reading.

I'm getting typically around 4mb/s.... TYPICALLY (you seem confused).