New AMP Wi-Fi extender

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by ABCDEF-Hex, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. ABCDEF-Hex macrumors 6502

    ABCDEF-Hex

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Location:
    NC
    #1
  2. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #2
    Personally, I would go for an Express for the purpose. They are both $99.99, but the Express can be bought for $75 from Apple Refurb the last I checked.
     
  3. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    The Express won't extend the "ac" network it's maxes out at "n".
     
  4. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #4

    Doesn't really matter since this extender, while offering AC support for the connection to the router will only give less than N speeds to clients. Making an observation here.
     
  5. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    Given a wirelessly extended AP can provide maybe 50% of the bandwidth for client access, the Express will provide no more than 150Mbps on 5Ghz, 75Mbps on 2.4Ghz.
     
  6. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #6

    Since the 5 GHz AC signal degrades so quickly, they might be only putting in 300-600 Mbps transfer rate from the Extreme to the extender. Either way you cannot go wrong, but something to consider is printer sharing off the extender Express, AirPlay, and having a Ethernet port where there wasn't before.
     
  7. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    Unless throughput is your priority, then it's best to go with the AMP as it will provide twice the network speed that the Express can provide as a wireless extender.
     
  8. ABCDEF-Hex thread starter macrumors 6502

    ABCDEF-Hex

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Location:
    NC
    #8
    Thanks for the advice.

    I always receive great information posting here.

    I probably should have stated my needs better in the original post.
    This is just a small home network.
    I am trying to extend the range to the farthest part of the house for Apple TV and iPad use.

    Thanks Again.
     
  9. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    In that case your old extreme will do the job without having to run any wires. Set it's wireless mode to "extend existing network" and select the new Extreme as the network to extend, it will provide sufficient bandwidth for your iPad and Apple TV.
     
  10. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #10
    The Express carries its own benefits. For personal reasons, I would want the Express. However, since the OP has the Extreme why even bother dropping $100 on either option?

    Than the Extreme will be fine.

    What a good use of used and older hardware!
     
  11. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    Yes it does if you need/use those extra features. Otherwise a faster performing extender based on the latest standard may be preferable. Particularly over time as computing/peripheral devices get replaced, obsoleting older wifi standards.
     
  12. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #12
    In all honesty the best is running Ethernet to the "extender" or an AP for this.
     
  13. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #13
    Not in either of these cases, the Express or AMP, as each of these only provides a 10/100Mbps port. Depending on the distance you can get faster speeds wirelessly on the Express, the AMP will definitely be crippled extending via Ethernet.
     
  14. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #14
    This is if they were to use the Extreme that is already owned. The AMP would be crippled, but the Express would not as the 2.4 GHz supports 150 Mbps. Halve that and you have 75 Mbps that is susceptible to interference and distance. Under ideal conditions, the 5 GHz would give 150 Mbps of usable bandwidth to the client.
     
  15. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #15
    If the AMP OR Express is extended via cable, the fastest theoretical throughput either can provide is 100Mbps, as the Ethernet port connecting back to the main router on BOTH is only a 10/100 port.

    If you extend an "ac" network wirelessly with the Express the fastest you will achieve on 2.4 GHz is approximately 75 Mbps. Extending 5GHz wirelessly with the Express, the fastest the Express will achieve is approximately 150 Mbps.

    Extending an "ac" network wirelessly with the AMP you can get 150Mbps on 2.4Ghz and 433Mbps on 5Ghz on an extended link, according to their specs. Obviously a significant speed advantage over the n-only Express.
     
  16. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #16
    Quite obviously you are right about the AMP. However, those are theoretical specifications. The real world version is very likely to be much less, but still significantly higher than the Express. Why not just plug in the Extreme since it has the Gigabit backplane to the AC Extreme? I know Ethernet is a hassle, but it is well worth it for Gigabit devices.
     
  17. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #17
    But the OP already stated it's only for an Apple TV and, presumably, a roaming iPad. Neither of which are gigabit devices. Extending the network wirelessly provides enough bandwidth for those two devices. If more devices are added in the extended area, running a wire might be worth it.
     
  18. ABCDEF-Hex thread starter macrumors 6502

    ABCDEF-Hex

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Location:
    NC
    #18
    Thanks for taking the time to help me.

    I think I learned even more from the extended discussion.
    I'm going to try the older airport extreme.

    Does the following sound right?

    We have 2 older iMacs (2007) but my wife now uses the iPad more than her iMac. I use her iMac for grid computing.

    If I were to move her iMac into that part of the house it would be better to run a wire back there.

    If I did move it but only used it for grid computing it might still be OK.
    (small downloads - mostly cpu).

    Thanks again marzer and Altemose for all you help.
     
  19. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #19
    You can run one wire lead to the Extreme's WAN port and then plug the iMac into the LAN port on the second Extreme. It will be full Gigabit Ethernet.
     
  20. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #20
    Yes. Wiring the two routers together will give you better network performance into the the further reach of the house. Esp. if you do Mac-to-Mac transfers, etc., then the gigabit connection will come in handy.

    If you extend using a cable connection, you'll want to set the old Extreme in bridge mode (allowing the new extreme to perform DHCP services, etc.) and use the same wireless SSID and password if you want the convenience of one wireless network ID throughout the house.
     
  21. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #21

    If the OP plugs a Ethernet line from the LAN port to the WAN port on the second Extreme it will work. Also, reset the base station and make sure you're running 7.6.4. Then using AirPort Utility 6 on a Mac or an iOS device, setup the base station.

    When you first see the setup screen it will say "Setup AirPort Extreme to extend 'SmithWireless'". Click next and it will then ask you details. It will also find out it is connected via Ethernet and will change the title to "Setup AirPort Extreme to extend 'SmithWireless' over Ethernet".

    I recommend using the new utility for this as it allows the guest network to be shared with the roaming secondary base station. The older 5.6 can be used after to do the rest of the configuration.
     
  22. marzer, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014

    marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #22
    If the routers are wired by Ethernet cable, there no point in "extending" the wireless, as that will reduce the wireless throughput as was already discussed. Actually, I'm not even sure you can extend the wireless from a hard wired access point. But if the option exists, I recommend against it.

    If the two routers are hard wired it only makes sense to get the full performance from it and use the "create wireless network" to get the full benefit. Using the same SSID/password for seamless roaming.

    If the OP is running Mavericks, Airport Utility 5.6 will not run, Mt. lion was the last OS that supported it.

    This example uses the old utility, but the idea for setting the routers up is still applicable:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4260
     
  23. Bruno09 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Location:
    Far from here
    #23
  24. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
  25. Altemose macrumors G3

    Altemose

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Location:
    Elkton, Maryland
    #25
    It is the terminology that AU 6 uses. It says "Setup AirPort Extreme to Extend 'SmithWireless' over Ethernet" They made it so people could easily understand it and it also allows the roaming network to host the guest network.

    Both ways accomplish the same thing, but AirPort Utility 6 is easier. It also sets up the guest network to allow roaming. The second base station is not connected wirelessly but rather Ethernet.
     

Share This Page