It actually makes quite a bit of difference! I went with wifi6 at home and love it, the I set up my next project at work to put in several 6E mesh access points.
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.
Wi-Fi 6E Explained: What It Could Mean for iPhone 13 and Beyond
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a given! (well, that and distance to router or ap.)
I get about 3X the performance with Wifi6 Mesh (2 node) than I do with comcast's Wifi5 router, even though the Wifi6 is connected to the comcast router.(wired)
And the average consumer is wondering if their current system is 6D. Based on the current naming scheme, though, I have no reason to believe 6F is next-- it could very well come after 6T, or 6A.
So if you keep the router for 3 years and have 2 years warranty, as most brands offers, then you only pay $467.64 to $575.64 Now that is a hack of a great deal you have there at Comcast!!! - especially if it is a Netgear AX6000 Mesh System Comcast supply.... or perhaps not.
Thanx for the heads-up. I haven't updated firmware in my router/APs/switches in about a year. I'll look into what you said and see what's up.
It's amazing that the general public now has an understanding of how version numbers are supposed to work. The problem is that marketeers mess with that understanding because the new version is "so much super better that a simple increment isn't enough."
It's not Wifi 6.1, it's WiFi 6.10 because it's 10 times better! No, I mean it's WiFi 1000! 10000! A million!
Having SEVEN 160MHz wide channels without DFS is amazing. This will bring some of the biggest real world improvements to WiFi we've ever seen. To put that into comparison, you can't run a single 160MHz wide channel without DFS currently.
A 160MHz 6GHz 802.11ax channel will be able to pump out an enormous amount of bandwidth without interference. Good luck doing that in an apartment complex with the 2.4GHz or 5GHz bands. The slightly lower signal propagation is a big plus too. Also every 6GHz device will support 802.11ax so you won't have issues with .n or .ac devices slowing down your .ax hardware.
A 160MHz 6GHz 802.11ax channel will be able to pump out an enormous amount of bandwidth without interference. Good luck doing that in an apartment complex with the 2.4GHz or 5GHz bands. The slightly lower signal propagation is a big plus too. Also every 6GHz device will support 802.11ax so you won't have issues with .n or .ac devices slowing down your .ax hardware.
As someone with a degree in EEE and having spent years doing network engineering this is wrong on multiple levels.
1. 802.11n is in every way inferior to .ac and .ax.
2. 802.11n DOES also work on the 5GHz spectrum.
3. .ax works in the 2.4GHz and demonstrates considerable bandwidth improvements over 802.11n.
4. 2.4GHz 802.11n will never see 600Mb/s in real world use, even with 40MHz wide channels, maybe half off that if you are lucky.
5. "the lower frequencies have superior range and handle obstacles better and N is 2.4 Ghz" 802.11n on the 2.4GHz might have range but it does not handle obstacles as well, phased arrays (beam forming) only became part of the standard with 802.11ac, also the higher frequencies actually perform better at bouncing signals.
If 75MB/s is all you need then more power to you. But don't spread totally incorrect information.
let's face it. this matters not at all to the avg consumer. it's 97% marketing to make the molehill of an improvement seem like a mountain of an improvement so they can sell you new stuff.
have to agree with you. most of my neighborhood still rocks wifi 4 with a couple of wifi 5 spots here and there. I think I'm the only one with wifi 6 in the neighborhood.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around what the difference between what the different cable companies are touting as the “best” wifi. I’ve given up, but I know they’re generally all throttle-happy *******s, at least in the US.
Does anyone know what the big cabling deal was a few years ago, that made wifi super fast and great? I honestly can’t recall the name, it was a system of cables underground interconnected or something I believe? And it apparently was amazing. TL.DR of this post is “we are super smart look at our cool tech we’re charging an arm and a leg for you to have because it’s not widely available yet, please invest in tech that may not be entirely stable”
Does anyone know what the big cabling deal was a few years ago, that made wifi super fast and great? I honestly can’t recall the name, it was a system of cables underground interconnected or something I believe? And it apparently was amazing. TL.DR of this post is “we are super smart look at our cool tech we’re charging an arm and a leg for you to have because it’s not widely available yet, please invest in tech that may not be entirely stable”
I’d like to have a 6E router; the benefits are clear. Someday I’ll own one. But I don’t think I’ll ever see a time when all of my devices are on the latest standard. The same probably holds true for most average consumers.
That’s the reason why I’ve almost completely ignored advancements in WiFi tech since N. All of my devices will never have the opportunity to take advantage of the latest WiFi tech.
That’s the reason why I’ve almost completely ignored advancements in WiFi tech since N. All of my devices will never have the opportunity to take advantage of the latest WiFi tech.
I will switch to WIFI 6E when half my devices have WIFI 6E chips. Until then I will use my WIFI 6 router with DFS to have channels others that have all in one modem router or cheaper WIFI 6 router don’t have and do not bother to get certified.
Come on HomePod Express & Apple TV Extreme! I really hope Apple releases another router.
I'm due for a router upgrade but struggling to find consistent reviews of 6E mesh systems. I'd prefer not to go with Eero. Are there other comparable choices that are stable? Many of the reviews I've read seem to be a very mixed bag, and Google's mesh system isn't yet updated to 6/6E standards.
As someone with no degree in EEE but a lot of real world experience in designing, building and implementing various networks across the spectrum, I think the thought process comes from poor marketing and harder to find public information. Couple that with terrible salespeople at the electronics store where more expensive has to mean it's better and that most people aren't surveying their network area for optimum antenna locations. Most consumers don't care about the ins and outs of the tech, just that it works. Like people who slap on a new exhaust and believe they've achieved 100 more horse power or getting the "bouncy" running shoes meant they're going to run faster.
3. true, they wouldn't be true successors if they lacked in any areas (additional 80 MHz or 160 MHz wide channels with improved modulation)
4. it took a lot of effort to get 400Mb/s in real world, no one should have to make their own higher gain antennas
5. 802.11n was the first to introduce MIMO (beamforming), 802.11ac brought MU-MIMO
It's more about the access to new parts of the spectrum, better antenna manufacturing (helps with that modulation), and OFDMA that will be a godsend to dense areas.
6E offers another band of the RF spectrum (6 GHz), this is where things get misleading with the naming standards. Just 6 is improved use of the current available spectrum 2.4 and 5GHz. It's going to be a little while before most consumer level tech catches up for it to be necessary to upgrade to a 6E router.
Which is exactly the way we want it. Keep the low data rate appliances segregated from the devices which want high speed.
Current WIFI 6E router options have mediocre 1Gb LAN ports. Waiting for something with >1Gb LAN ports like the TP-Link Archer AX206 with both 10Gb and 2.5Gb ports to link them together without bottleneck.
https://www.tp-link.com/us/home-networking/wifi-router/archer-ax206/
https://www.tp-link.com/us/home-networking/wifi-router/archer-ax206/