🛒
Since my review of the Archer BE230, folks have been asking me when I'd take the Archer BE6500, currently available exclusively at Best Buy in the US, out for a spin. The answer is likely never.
TP-Link has been known to make numerous hardware variants for different retail stores. The Archer BE230, for example, is also available as the Archer BE3600 at Walmart, or the Archer BE550 has an Archer BE9300 variant. The effort to be not confused aside, I'd go broke buying them all while risking gaining zero meaningful intel—they are essentially the same hardware anyway.
Speaking of intel, this quick take is to let you know that the Archer BE6500 likely performs the same as the seemingly lesser Archer BE230, which is currently the cheapest Wi-Fi 7 broadcaster on the market. In fact, it's simply another variant that's not necessarily a better one despite costing significantly more.
TP-Link Archer BE6500: The kinda pointless 4x4 5GHz band
Networking vendors often use the total bandwidth of a router as part of its name. In the case of the TP-LInk BE6500, the number is the router's perceived theoretical bandwidth of its two bands, 5760Mbps on the 5GHz and 688Mbps on the 2.4GHz. Combining the two, we get 6448 or 6500 when rounded up.
On paper, the 5GHz band is where the Archer BE6500 beats the Archer 230. The table below shows the specs of the two routers. Among other things, they share the new trend of forgoing the 6GHz band, first started by the Asus RT-BE88U.
Hardware specifications: TP-Link BE3600 vs Asus RT-BE88U
| Model | TP-Link Archer BE6500 | TP-Link Archer BE230 (Archer BE3600) |
|---|---|---|
 |  | |
| Wi-Fi Bandwidth | Dual-band BE6500 | Dual-band BE3600 |
| Antennas | Six external antennas | Four external antennas |
| 2.4GHz Wi-Fi Specs (channel width) | 2x2 BE Up to 688Mbps (20/40MHz) | |
| 5GHz Wi-Fi Specs (channel width) | 4x4 BE Up to 5760Mbps (20/40/80/160MHz) | 2x2 BE Up to 2882Mbps (20/40/80/160MHz) |
| 6GHz Wi-Fi Specs | None | |
| AiMesh-ready | Yes (EasyMesh) | |
| Gigabit Ports | 3x LAN | |
| Multi-Gig Ports | 1x 2.5Gbps WAN, 1x 2.5Gbps LAN | |
| Multi-Link Operation (MLO) | Yes | |
| Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) | N/A (applicable to the 6GHz band only) | |
| Link Aggregation | No | |
| Dual-WAN | No | |
| Operation Mode | Router Mode Access Point Mode | |
| USB Ports | 1 x USB 3.0 | |
| Mobile App (optional) | TP-Link Tether | |
| Dimensions | 13.52 x 9.25 x 3.90 in (34.34 x 23.4 x 9.9 cm) | |
| Weight | 1.32 lbs (.6 kg) | |
| Release Date | July 2024 | |
| Firmware Version (at review) | Not tested | 1.0.3 Build 20240612 rel.13057(5553) |
| Power | Input: 100 - 240V Output: 12V - 2.5A | |
| Power Consumption (per 24 hours) | Not tested | ≈ 195 Wh (as tested) |
| U.S. Price (at launch) | $179.99 | $99 |
A familiar Archer router with a somewhat impractical design
As noted in the table above, the Archer BE6500 has double the bandwidth on the 5GHz, which can be a bragging right. In real-world performance, however, this band won't make a difference.
That's because, like the Archer BE230, it, too, comes with two 2.5Gbps ports. As a result, the fastest connection you'll be able to experience on a Wi-Fi client will be limited to 2.5Gbps, which is already lower than the theoretical speed of the 5GHz band on the Archer BE230, 2880Mbps.
In other words, the Archer BE6500 would be a massive upgrade if it had 10Gbps ports. As is, its faster 5GHz specs have no way to translate into meaningful real-world performance. Instead, its best-case scenario Wi-Fi performance will be within the realm of Gig+, just like the case of the Archer BE230.
What is Gig+
Gig+, or Gig Plus, conveys a speed grade faster than 1Gbps but slower than 2Gbps. So, it's 1.5Gbps, give or a couple hundred megabits per second, and it's not speedy enough to qualify as Multi-Gig Ethernet or multi-Gigabit. Intel coined the term to call its Wi-Fi 6E client chips—the AX210 and AX211—to describe their real-world speeds.
Gig+ applies to the sustained speeds of Wi-Fi 6 or 6E—via a 2x2 at 160MHz connection, which has the 2402Mbps theoretical ceiling speed—or Internet speed. It's generally not used to describe wired network connections.
As for the physical design, the Archer BE6500 is almost identical to the BE230 except for its two additional antennas. They crowd the router's port to the back, forcing its USB 3.0 port to be placed on the side. That can be impractical. Having a USB wire attached to the side is awkward and increases the router's footprint, possibly making it hard to find a good spot for it in the home.
Other than that, you can expect the BE6500 to be a typical Archer router. It'll be the same as the BE230, the BE550, or the BE800 in the setup process, management, and features, of which you can expect a standard set, including VPN, port forwarding, Dynamic DNS, VPN (server and client), Quality of Service (QoS), and light parental controls, which are included in with Basic Security.
For management, you can use the default 192.168.0.1 to access its web user interface the standard way or use the optional Tether mobile app to manage it. The latter requires a login account and enables the option to opt for the Security+ and Advanced Parental Control add-on packages via monthly or annual subscriptions.
TP-Link and your privacy
Having to sign in with an account generally means your hardware connects to the vendor at all times, which translates into inherent privacy risks.
On this matter, the Chinese networking company, among other things, insists that it's a "global multinational group" and offers this assurance:
"TP-Link takes privacy seriously and complies with U.S. policies to protect consumers."
TP-Link's Privacy Policy page.
Managing your home network via a third party is never a good idea. Privacy is a matter of degree. Data collection and handling vary vendor by vendor.
Finally, the Archer BE6500 features TP-Link's EasyMesh. You can get multiple units to form a mesh system. But in this case, you'll get much more bang for your buck going with the much more affordable Archer BE230, which practically performs the same.
TP-Link Archer BE6500's UNTESTED Assessment
Pros
Wi-Fi 7 with a 4x4 5GHz band; two 2.5Gbps Multi-Gig support; robust web user interface; a good set of network features and Wi-Fi settings
Useful (optional) mobile app; EasyMesh-ready; compact and practical design
Cons
No 10Gbps ports or Dual-WAN; no 6GHz
Online protection and advanced parental controls require login account and subscriptions
Conclusion
The TP-link Archer BE6500 dual-band Wi-Fi 7 router has enough to be a solid Wi-Fi 7 router for a home of Gigabit or faster broadband. Its biggest problem, however, is the fact it doesn't have anything to edge out the Archer BE230—which costs almost half the price—in real-world usage. Still, at $180, this dual-band Wi-Fi 7 machine can be the second-best deal and a safe way to get into Wi-Fi 7. Consider it!
At retail, the BE230 sells for $120 so this model isn’t that much more expensive. The addition of 4×4 means it can handle two connections without a loss of throughput compared to the BE230 for a $60 price bump. Unifi’s Pro 7 Max is $100 more than the Pro 7, and the only diff is 4×4 in the 5 GHz band.
Seems like a reasonable upgrade at a reasonable price for anyone who’s not impressed by the 6 GHz band so far.
Without a loss of throughput from what, Richard? You only have 2.5Gps at best on the incoming side—you can’t milk a cow more than how much the cow itself can make. Did you actually read this post?
With 4×4 the AP can handle two 2×2 wireless stations at the same time without the two stations interfering with each other. The more streams the better, esp. for local destinations like NAS. Not all data is outside the local network.
This is why people are willing to pay more for 4×4 than for 2×2.
The router only have 2.5Gbps ports, Richard, as mentioned in the post, the incoming traffic caps at 2.5Gbps and that means you can’t get more than that on the outgoing end. The only time this router might help is when you copy stuff between Wi-Fi clients, but even then, the speed still caps at 2×2. I think you’re a bit confused between streams vs. channel width, too. Sure, in real-world, this router might be a tad faster than the BE230 in certain cases, but negligible, definitely not $80 faster. A lot of times, if not most of the time, folks pay for what they want to believe.
I don’t think we’re understanding each other. The value of 4×4 in access points/routers comes from the ability to support multiple stations at the same time. I’ve noticed that the iPerf testing you do tends to use a single station. That kind of test will not see a benefit from 4×4 APs. If you were to construct a test where you run two stations at the same time I believe you will see better performance from 4×4 APs than from 2×2 APs.
Why don’t you try that and see what happens? You may want to aggregate a couple of 2.5 Gbps ports on the AP just to relieve the bottleneck to your iPerf server.
You noticed wrong, Richard. I don’t use iPerf generally and I’ve never used it for any review on this website. Also, I know quite well 4×4 vs. 2×2, etc. You can think or believe whatever you want, I’ve used enough devices to say with absolute certainty that in real-world usage, there’s little, if at all, difference between these two, in terms of throughput performance using existing clients. Sure it doesn’t hurt to get the BE6500, which is “better” on paper, but you just waste your money. That’s like building a bridge with a one-lane entry at one end and a two-lane entry at the other.
Please make sure you actually read before making comments going forward.
Pardon me for claiming you use iPerf, I must have confused you with the magazine guys who do use it. I used to develop Enterprise Wi-Fi for a company in Pleasanton, home Wi-Fi routers for a company in Sunnyvale that supplied Verizon and Century Link, a research lab that was heavily involved in 802.11, and the chip company that led the way to the use of MIMO in 802.11n.
In the enterprise world 4×4 and even 8×8 are the norm, but to each his own.
I understand that Archer BE6500 is able to work EasyMesh being at AP Mode. In other words, it does not need to be in Router Mode to be in an EasyMesh network.
Is not that a difference with BE230?
EasyMesh doesn’t have AP mode (as a system), Ivan. More here.