Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Totally unscientific test of new Airport Extreme 5
- Thread starter class77
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
4 ports, 1 WAN, 3 ethernet.
The increased speed comes from using 3 antennae now, instead of two before. Each antenna is providing 150Mbps, so 3x gives 450Mbps, v the older generation which only did 2x (300Mbps).
You can't play with symbol encoding without breaking the standard, as only Macs would understand the transmissions.
Both the 4th gen and new 5th gen Airport Extremes have three antennas. I should know; I own the 3rd, 4th, and 5th gen AEBS (models A1301, A1354, and A1408, respectively). Link speeds with the 3G AEBS maxed out at 300Mbps; link speeds with both the 4G and 5G AEBS are 450Mbps (on my '11 MBP and '11 iMac).
Does the range on your new 5th gen AEBS seem greater than the older ones? Do you notice any overall improvements?
Range does seem a tad bit better with the 5G AEBS...actual throughput is a touch higher overall and it stays constant when transferring large files. With my 4G AEBS I'd get similar peak throughput but speeds would fluctuate quite a bit.
Just as an example, you can see I'm getting a peak actual throughput of around 125Mbps with relatively little variance below that. FWIW this is on my 2011 iMac that has a 450Mbps link speed.
That said, I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade if you already have a 4G AEBS. In my case, the 5G AEBS enabled me to replace an Airport Express that I was using as a wireless bridge with my 4G AEBS. Because both the 4G and 5G AEBS have 3x3 MIMO antennas, I get much better throughput using the 4G AEBS as a wireless bridge compared to the Airport Express.
If I'd had the 4th gen AEBS, I certainly wouldn't have upgraded just for the increased transmission power
But since I had a 3rd Gen and wanted to split my MBP's backups from my Windows backups, I went for a 2TB Time Capsule
If I'd had the 4th gen AEBS, I certainly wouldn't have upgraded just for the increased transmission power
Agreed. I was curious about how the increased transmission power would manifest itself in day-to-day use, but since I planned to move my 4G AEBS to wireless bridge duty, I figured what the heck.
The only thing I haven't looked into is whether selecting the region you're in has any effect on the transmitted power. I think Europe places restrictions on the max power output, so I may find setting the region to USA increases the power and therefore helps the signal I receive upstairs. I'll have a play tonight and find out.
I'm surprised that there's been no actual teardown of these things yet. The Thunderbolt cable was opened up and posted all over the web almost instantly.
I know there was that TC "teardown" that basically just showed the hard drive not being server grade, but aside from that no one has really done a thorough search for differences.
I know there was that TC "teardown" that basically just showed the hard drive not being server grade, but aside from that no one has really done a thorough search for differences.
Are these transfer speeds between Macs via AEBS or a Mac and an External USB Drive connected to the AEBS?
Does the new model resolve the VERY SLOW transfer speed when running multiple base stations tied together wirelessly?
I have (3) of the third gen Gigabit Ethernet 802.11N AEBS, one being the main and the other two the remotes.
In this config, it slows down the transfer speed with the three units compared to using just one base station.
I would buy three new ones if the new 5th gen model resolved that problem.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
I have (3) of the third gen Gigabit Ethernet 802.11N AEBS, one being the main and the other two the remotes.
In this config, it slows down the transfer speed with the three units compared to using just one base station.
I would buy three new ones if the new 5th gen model resolved that problem.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
I am no network theorist, but I heard that this type of network expansion might be problematic - at least on the theoretical end of things. Its always better to tie those base stations together on a high speed channel (cat 5/6) - clearly that's not possible in your case.
One thing to look out for is channel congestion in your application. One suggestion - as weird as this sounds - maybe to try moving the base stations further away from each other. This may reduce any channel overlap that may be occurring to closely spaced repeaters.
its purely a guess though
j
So far TC seems fast with a strong connection that reaches a nice distance. But I'm comparing it to an AEBS (maybe 2 years old, not sure what generation) in a different location in the house, so not apple to apple comparison. I can't believe that none of the gadget blogs have done a real test of these machines. Improving ones internet access and home wi-fi network would be really helpful to the average user. If this does this over older solutions, it is worth noting and worth a possible upgrade.
I'm also waiting on a thorough review by smallnetbuilder.com to see if ti's a worthy upgrade from a 4th gen.
Are you experiencing any overheating issues? My 4th generation runs extremely hot. I'm sure all that heat can't be good for longevity and/or performance.
I picked up a 5th gen AEBS yesterday to replace my 3rd gen and it's noticeably faster, not in just wireless but also wired.
It gives me my ISP connections full 100Mbps down with 40 connections in usenet, whereas it always seemed like the 3rd gen was never able to.
I just wish a review would show up to compare it to the net gear wndr4000 and the linksys e4200.
It gives me my ISP connections full 100Mbps down with 40 connections in usenet, whereas it always seemed like the 3rd gen was never able to.
I just wish a review would show up to compare it to the net gear wndr4000 and the linksys e4200.
You can start by looking at the difference between bit rate and baud:
http://www.techterms.com/definition/baud
Reading up on signal constellations may also help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_diagram
Then try reading up on 802.11n, it comprises 64 different modulation and coding schemes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n
Someone on this thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1176632/
pointed out that the 5th gen is the first AE certified for space time block coding. If you go back to the 802.11n page you'll see a reference to Alamouti coding, which is a specific form of space time block coding. You can then read up on maximum likelihood decoding, but that's the sort of thing that will take several weeks in a university course to scratch the surface of.
Anyway, my point really comes back to the Shannon Limit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_limit
The maximum date rate on a channel is limited only by the signal-to-noise ratio, not the absolute power. So increasing the power *can* help, but if you're amplifying an already noisy signal - or if the amplification introduces distortion - it doesn't. This is why most reviews of indoor antennas for digital TV reception recommend against the amplified versions - they don't actually tend to help much (becuase the noise is already in there), and can actually hurt if the components are crappy.
Lord Kelvin actually made the same assumption (more power means better signal) back when they were debating the first transatlantic cable, and this is the guy who had the unit of temperature named after him. I agree that it's the common sense thing to think, but Shannon eventually proved that wrong.
I concede. You win. It still sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me but that's only because (for the most part) I have no idea what you're talking about.
I do understand that what's really important is signal-to-noise ratio, and I've also noticed that that's definitely improved with the new AEBS. That said, my peak throughput hasn't really increased, but the overall throughput is FAR more stable/consistent than it was when using my 4G AEBS.Thanks for the education!