Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New iMac Joins MacBook Pro in Supporting 450 Mbit/sec Wi-Fi

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,394
40,430



132857-airport_icon.jpg


HardMac reports that the new iMac released earlier this week brings support for 450 Mbit/sec Wi-Fi connectivity, adding a third antenna to support the higher speed using multiple-input/multiple-output (MIMO) standards when connected to a compatible network access point. The iMac joins the latest MacBook Pro in offering the improved connection speeds.
It seems that Apple seeks to standardize this data flow. Thus, the new iMac is also compatible with the 450 Mbits/s. For that, Apple changed their Airport card and also installed 3 antennas (instead of 2 before), something indispensabie to be able simultaneously to use 3 channels of 150 Mbits/s.
Click to expand...
In order to take advantage of the increased speeds with compatible base stations such as the latest AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule, users must be sure to set the base station's options to use the 5 GHz band and to allow use of wide channels.

Article Link: New iMac Joins MacBook Pro in Supporting 450 Mbit/sec Wi-Fi
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/06/new-imac-joins-macbook-pro-in-supporting-450-mbit-sec-wi-fi/
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

How do I check if my MacBook Pro and/or TimeCapsule has this?
 
Sorry, but I don't see the point here, considering that 100% of the Internet connections in the world are well under 200Mbps...other than for internal networks (like file transfer between two devices), what's the advantage?
 
BRLawyer said:
Sorry, but I don't see the point here, considering that 100% of the Internet connections in the world are well under 200Mbps...other than for internal networks (like file transfer between two devices), what's the advantage?
Click to expand...

You just said it. Internal networks. Transferring files between multiple computers, streaming 1080p video from your desktop to your laptop...

Especially useful if you do network backups (say to a Time Capsule or NAS) regularly.

I have a gigabit/CAT6 network in the walls of my house. Surely, this is useless since my internet connection is only 40 mbps, right? Not exactly.
 
Last edited:
BRLawyer said:
Sorry, but I don't see the point here, considering that 100% of the Internet connections in the world are well under 200Mbps...other than for internal networks (like file transfer between two devices), what's the advantage?
Click to expand...

Progress?

Besides, a lot of wireless bandwidth is lost due to interference and overhead ... the more theoretical bandwidth you can get, the better overall real-world performance.
 
Mac Pro

Anyone know if the current Mac Pro line has support for this? Or where to look in system to tell?
 
That is only 56.25MB/s. Where is my wireless Thunderbolt? :D

GFLPraxis said:
You just said it. Internal networks. Transferring files between multiple computers, streaming 1080p video from your desktop to your laptop...
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot data is transferred between the devices in your home nowadays. Things like AirPlay rely totally on this.
 
BRLawyer said:
Gotcha...streaming video may be a good use for this extra bandwidth...what is the necessary rate for HD streaming?
Click to expand...

Depends totally on the bitrate of your video. A high-quality Blu-Ray can be 50Mb/s but rips are usually less. The ones I download are around 5Mb/s (720p). The stuff that iTunes sells is even lower quality. Remember that this 450Mb/s is the theoretical maximum. In real world, the bandwidth is much less, especially if there are lots of obstacles (i.e. walls and other materials).

In real world I've seen wireless N getting speeds of 8-10MB/s (64-80Mb/s) so maybe this will increase that to 12-15MB/s.
 
I was thinking of of buying an AirPort Extreme this month... Maybe save it for later, then?

Dang! All I want to buy are things that are to-be-updated: Mac mini, AirPort Extreme...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

BRLawyer said:
Sorry, but I don't see the point here, considering that 100% of the Internet connections in the world are well under 200Mbps...other than for internal networks (like file transfer between two devices), what's the advantage?
Click to expand...

All my photos live on a NAS, therefore a speedy WiFi connection is a must. I use a Canon 5d mark II, and the raw files from it are ~30 MB each, which must be loaded on my computer for correction. After a day of shooting, i can have 16 - 20 GB of pictures that have to be uploaded to the NAS over wifi

Anything less than 5Ghz 802.11 n does not cut it for many users.
 
ciTiger said:
The improvement is appreciated. But I would prefer improvements on distance rather than on speed.:D
Click to expand...

Distance requires more power, which means more heat and less battery life. Additionally, I believe that requires more from the FCC than just adding another antenna does.
 
Menge said:
I was thinking of of buying an AirPort Extreme this month... Maybe save it for later, then?

Dang! All I want to buy are things that are to-be-updated: Mac mini, AirPort Extreme...
Click to expand...

No, this is supported in the current Airport Extreme and TimeCapsules.

Only wait to purchase if the computer you want doesn't yet support MIMO.

I'd be surprised if the next iteration of AppleTV doesn't support MIMO, as that's the perfect use case for it (although ATV bandwidth is bottlenecked at the processor and HDMI output, I believe).

That having been said, note that TWO antennae supports MIMO just as three does. It's just two ins/outs instead of three. Not sure if Apple's firmware didn't take advantage of this before or what, but there's nothing stopping MIMO from being implemented with the two antennae previous iMacs used.
 
The largest problem with this for me is that even the iPhone 4 and iPad do not support WiFi 802.11n at 5 Ghz. Kinda sucks having a network that my iOS devices cannot join.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

When we finally get wireless syncing, this would be great in future iOS devices.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

krill said:
The largest problem with this for me is that even the iPhone 4 and iPad do not support WiFi 802.11n at 5 Ghz. Kinda sucks having a network that my iOS devices cannot join.
Click to expand...

With the latest Airport Extreme you can have 2 separate bandwidth networks, right?
 
krill said:
The largest problem with this for me is that even the iPhone 4 and iPad do not support WiFi 802.11n at 5 Ghz. Kinda sucks having a network that my iOS devices cannot join.
Click to expand...

The iPad does support 5Ghz, and I believe the current Airport line are dual-radio APs, so you can run those at both 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz.
 
tests?

Is 3x3 MIMO supported within OSX? Has anyone with a new macbook pro/imac been able to demonstrate faster speeds on a 3x3 router (there are only a couple out there right?)? I know the last iteration of the extreme was supposed to have 3x3 support at the board level, but I'm not sure if it was even supported in software.
 
It would be nice if these speeds were real-world. With my iMac and my Mac mini both connected via 5ghz N to my Time Capsule, I still only get ~3MB/s transfer speeds from the iMac to the mini. Distance is really not an issue here, either. These theoretical speeds are just never true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back