🛒
Looking to get Wi-Fi 6 explained adequately? You're at the right place!
Since first commercially viable in early 2019, the new Wi-Fi standard has proven to be confusing from the get-go. Among other things, it seems impossible to match a router's marketing specs and what it can realistically deliver. Hint: You can't.
I'll try to explain all about this new Wi-Fi standard in this post. By all, I mean just the parts that matter, not the technical details or the marketing hype. Already in the know? This post is a good refresher.
Dong's note: I first published this piece on January 10, 2019, and updated it on April 29, 2020, with additional relevant information, including a brief section on Wi-Fi 6E. Since then, it has had more minor updates with up-to-date information.
Wi-Fi 6 explained: What is it exactly?
It's a new and trendy name and a great idea, coined by the Wi-Fi Alliance in late 2018, for us to call what otherwise is known as the 802.11ax Wi-Fi standard.
The 6 designation is numerical—it's the 6th generation of Wi-Fi. For the same token, tracking backward, we have 802.11ac as Wi-Fi 5, 802.11n as Wi-Fi 4, and so on. There will be Wi-Fi 7 in the future.
The new naming convention goes back only to Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) because previous standards are largely obsolete. In other words, don't bother with Wi-Fi 3, Wi-Fi 2, etc.
How fast is Wi-Fi 6?
Everybody wants to know how fast Wi-Fi 6 is, compared to Wi-Fi 5 and older.
As a result, the speeds—yes, it's plural—of Wi-Fi 6 have been a big hype. There's a large gap between the theoretical and the real ones.
The issue is figuring out the speed of Wi-Fi 6 can be challenging and confusing. There are just too many variants. That said, make sure you take your time in the next part.
Wi-Fi 6 equipment: Broadcasters vs. receiver and their number of streams
To know a Wi-Fi connection's real-world speed, we need a broadcaster (like a router) and a client (like a laptop). Both have to be of the same standard and performance tier, determined by the number of streams a single Wi-Fi band can handle.
Bands vs. Channels vs. Streams
Wi-Fi uses three frequency bands, including 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz. The width of each band is measured in MHz—the wider the band, the more MHz it has.
The 6GHz band is the widest of the three and has 1200MHz in total width, ranging from 5.925GHz to 7.125GHz. Depending on the local regulations, only a portion or portions of this entire spectrum is available for Wi-Fi applications.
In real-world usage, each band is divided into multiple portions, called channels, of different widths. Depending on the Wi-Fi standards and hardware, a channel can be 20MHz, 40MHz, 80MHz, 160MHz, or 320MHz wide. The wider a channel is, the more bandwidth it has. Depending on the channel width, the number of channels in each Wi-Fi band varies, but there can be only so many.
The 6GHz band has enough space for three 320MHz channels or seven 160MHz channels.
Data moves in one channel of a particular band at a time, using streams, often dual-stream (2x2), three-stream (3x3), or quad-stream (4x4). The more streams, the more data can travel at a time. Thanks to the ultra-high bandwidth per stream, Wi-Fi 6 and later tend to have only 2x2 clients.
Here's a crude analogy:
If a Wi-Fi band is a freeway, channels are lanes, and streams are vehicles (bicycles vs. cars vs. buses). On the same road, you can put multiple adjacent standard lanes (20MHz) into a larger one (40MHz, 80MHz, or higher) to accommodate oversized vehicles (higher number of streams) that carry more goods (data) per trip (connection).
A Wi-Fi connection generally occurs on a single channel (lane) of a single band (road) at a time. The actual data transmission is always that of the lowest denominator—a bicycle can carry just one person at a relatively slow speed, even when used on a super-wide lane of an open freeway.
If you use a sender and a receiver of two different speed grades, the connection speed is that of the slower one—the bottleneck.
Let's start with the sending end.
Wi-Fi 6 speed: On the broadcasting side
A Wi-Fi broadcaster (router or access point) emits wireless signals for clients to connect to. And there have been many Wi-Fi 6 broadcasters covering all different tiers of the new standard.
For example, you can find high-end Quad-stream (4x4) routers, such as the Netgear RAX200, the Asus RT-AX89X, the TP-Link AX6000, and many more. There are also mid-tier Dual-stream (2x2) broadcasters, like the Netgear RAX40, TP-Link Archer AX3000, or Asus RT-AX3000.
On top of that, there are also tri-band Wi-Fi 6 routers, like the Asus GT-AX11000, the AmpliFi Alien, or the Netgear RAX200.
The point is: There are many (fast) options on the broadcasting end.
Wi-Fi 6 speed: On the receiving end
On the receiving end, we've had only dual-stream (2x2) devices—like the Intel AX200 adapter card. And it will be a long time before you can find 3x3, 4x4, or faster Wi-Fi 6 clients, if ever.
That's because 2x2 is already plenty fast. Most importantly, this tier has the right balance of wireless speeds and energy consumption and is the most suitable for mobile devices.
But that's OK. It never hurts to have a super-fast broadcaster anyway, even when we only have mid-tier clients. But how fast is fast?
A 4x4 Wi-Fi router can handle two 2x2 clients at full speeds.
The new base Wi-Fi speed
Generally, on the 5GHz frequency band, Wi-Fi 6 has a base speed of 1.2 Gbps (1200 Mbps) per stream. Hence, a 2x2 connection has a ceiling speed of 2.4 Gbps (2400Mbps), and a quad-stream (4x4) tops at a whopping 4.8 Gbps.
The 2.4GHz band of Wi-Fi 6 has a base speed of about 288Mbps per stream on paper and tends to be relatively slow in real life. Its real-world rate is about the same as Wi-Fi 4—there's no 2.4GHz in Wi-Fi 5.
The 2.4GHz band of Wi-Fi 6 is generally considered a backup since it has relatively slow speed grades on paper and even more so in real-world rates.
The bottom line of Wi-Fi 6 speed in the best-case scenario
Since a network connection always has the speed of the slowest party involved, for now, and likely in the foreseeable future, Dual-stream (2x2) is the fastest connection we can get out of Wi-Fi 6—we only have 2x2 clients, as mentioned above.
As a result, in the best-case scenario, we get the theoretical ceiling speed of 2.4Gbps (or 2400Mbps) out of Wi-Fi 6.
In the world of wireless data transmissions, the real-world sustained rates are always much lower than the theoretical ones. And that's acutely so in the case with Wi-Fi 6.
Intel calls its 2x2 AX200 chip "Gig+", meaning it can deliver real-world speed faster than Gigabit but slower than 2Gbps. And that's generally been the numbers I've gotten in my real-world testing.
Data transmission speeds in a nutshell
As you read this page, note that each character on the screen, including a space between two words, generally requires one byte of data.
The phrase "Dong Knows Tech," with no quotes, requires at least 15 bytes, and likely more since the formatting—such as capitalization and font—also needs extra storage space.
Byte—often in thousands or kilobytes (KB), millions or megabytes (MB), billions or gigabytes (GB), trillions or terabytes (TB)—is generally used to convey storage space to total data usage. For data transmission, we use bits.
One byte equals eight bits.
One million (1,000,000) bits = 1 Megabit (Mb).
Megabits per second (Mbps)—the number of megabits being manipulated in one second—is the standard unit for data transmission nowadays. Based on that, the following are common terms:
- Fast Ethernet: A connection standard that can deliver up to 100Mbps.
- Gigabit: That's short for Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) and generally means transmission speeds in Gigabit per second (Gbps), currently the most popular wired connection standard. 1Gbps = 1000Mbps.
- Gig+: A connection that's faster than 1Gbps but slower than 2Gbps. It often applies to 2x2 Wi-Fi 6/6E or broadband Internet speeds.
- Multi-Gigabit: That's multiple Gigabits—a link that's 2Gbps or faster.
- Multi-Gig: A new BASE-T wired connection standard that delivers 2.5GbE, 5Gbe, or 10GbE over CAT5e (or a higher grade) network cables, depending on the devices involved, and is also backward compatible with Fast Ethernet and Gigabit.
In short, the current absolutely best Wi-Fi 6 connection sustains around 1.5Gbps (1500Mbps). But that's only on a good day. The 5GHz band is complicated.
Let's dig a bit more.
Wi-Fi 6 speeds and DFS channels: The devil is in the details
The rates mentioned above—2.4 Gbps for a dual-stream and 4.8 Gbps for a quad-stream—only apply when the devices connect using the 160MHz channel width, which is the novelty of Wi-Fi 6.
However, most existing devices do not support this new channel width, nor do many Wi-Fi 6 ones.
The reasons? First, as the number suggests, this extensive channel encompasses multiple narrower ones. Consequently, there are only two 160MHz channels on the 5GHz band. Most importantly, both require the Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) spectrum.
Technically, we can get a completely clean (non-DFS) 160MHz channel out of the 5GHz frequency band if/when the 45 MHz of the 5.9GHz portion is opened up to Wi-Fi use. That remains to be seen.
DFS shares airspace with radar and always takes the back seat. Specifically, a Wi-Fi broadcaster automatically switches its DFS channels or moves to a narrower channel width when radar signals are present. Apart from causing brief disconnections now and then, using DFS can also be why some devices can't connect at top Wi-Fi speeds.
Many existing clients (Wi-Fi 5 and older) don't support DFS, though all Wi-Fi 6 ones do.
Wi-Fi 6: DFS, 160MHz channel width, and your patience
When customizing a Wi-Fi 6 broadcaster's Wi-Fi setting, you can't pick a 160MHz channel as a whole. Instead, you can only select a base channel (generally a 40MHz or 20MHz one). The hardware will automatically add adjacent extension channels on either side of the base to form a 160MHz channel.
When you force a router to use the DFS channels, such as when you set it to operate in the 160MHz channel width, it will take a longer time—between 1 and 10 minutes—to initiate its DFS-related 5GHz band. The exact wait time depends on your environment and equipment.
Consequently, you'll notice that your high-end Wi-Fi 6 router might take a long time to boot up or apply specific Wi-Fi settings, resulting in the band appearing unavailable—the 5GHz Wi-Fi network is not there, or you can't connect to it.
Keep this in mind when you're tweaking your network. Patience is a virtue.
In short, the 160MHz channel width is premium real estate that's generally not ideal for those close (within tens of miles) to an airport or a weather radar station—every big city has at least one of those.
160MHz vs. 160MHz (80+80) channels
To avoid DFS, some Wi-Fi chips have the 160MHz (80+80) mode by combining two non-contiguous 80MHz channels into a single one—like in the case of the Netgear RAX120.
The 160MHz (80+80) approach is a hack and doesn't deliver the same performance as a natural 160MHz channel. It hardly works in real-world testing and is considered abandoned, especially with the subsequent availability of the UNII-4 portion.
Wi-Fi 6’s true real-world speed (vs. Wi-Fi 5)
For backward compatibility, hardware constraint, and often stability, Wi-Fi 6 also uses narrower channels, including 80MHz, 40MHz, and 20MHz.
Many routers, such as the AmpliFi Alien, most canned mesh systems, and Wi-Fi 6 access points, don't even support the 160MHz channels, partly to avoid the need for DFS channels and the potential sporadic disconnections.
So, you should expect your Wi-Fi 6 router to use the 80MHz channel width and narrower ones most of the time.
In this case, the speed will be reduced accordingly by a factor of two. For example, via an 80MHz channel, a 2x2 Wi-Fi 6 connection now caps at 1200Mbps or 600Mbps per stream. That's less than 50 percent faster than Wi-Fi 5's 433Mbps.
So, in reality, you should expect Wi-Fi 6 to reliably deliver about 50 percent improvement over Wi-Fi 5 in terms of sustained data rates in the same specs—2x2 vs. 3x3 vs. 4x4, etc.
And no, Wi-Fi 6 is not necessarily always faster. Here's an interesting fact: Quad-stream (4x4) Wi-Fi 5 devices, which have a cap speed of 1733 Mbps at 80MHz, can deliver faster real-world speeds than 2x2 Wi-Fi 6 counterparts using the same channel width (1200Mbps).
And that proved to be the case in my testing. While Wi-Fi 6 is faster as a standard, it's not always so in real-world usage, which has lots of variations and nuances.
The marketing ploys
The lack of support for the 160MHz channel bandwidth is generally not necessarily good, but networking vendors have figured out a way to make it sound good.
Quite creatively, they call their 80MHz-at-best Wi-Fi 6 routers 8x8 (instead of 4x4). Because 8 x 600 = 4 x 1200. Got it? The problem is there are no 8x8 clients.
(Again, technically, things are more complicated than that. For example, if clients of different tiers all used the 80MHz channel width, these 8x8 routers might have some advantages since they are geared toward this configuration. Realistically, the Wi-Fi airspace is anything but conforming, and you always have clients using different channel widths.)
Another thing with Wi-Fi 6 is that we now have routers that use different Wi-Fi tiers and standards for each band. The Asus RT-AX92U, for example, is a tri-band Wi-Fi 6 router with one 2x2 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi 4 band, one 2x2 5 GHz Wi-Fi 5 band, and another 4x4 5 GHz Wi-Fi 6 band.
Networking vendors add all these bands' streams into a single (large) number for marketing purposes. Asus calls the RT-AX92U an 8-stream (8x8) router. Furthermore, they combine the bandwidth of all of the router's bands into a single (huge) number. As a result, you'll find AX6000, AX11000 routers, and so on.
That said, these numbers only mean the potentials collective bandwidth of a router when all of its bands are used. Since a Wi-Fi connection takes place on a single band at a time, the fastest band of a router determines its cap speed, not its bands or the total number of streams.
So, the Asus RT-AX92U mentioned above is a 4x4 Wi-Fi 6 router that can deliver up to 4.8 Gbps to a 4x4 client or 2.4 Gbps to a 2x2 client.
And that's only true when it works as a single router with a single client. That's because a Wi-Fi router shares its wireless bandwidth between connected clients.
Wi-Fi 6 speeds are a complicated matter
A router must have at least one multi-gig LAN port to deliver actual Wi-Fi 6 speeds. Otherwise, the Wi-Fi connection's real-world speed will cap at 1 Gbps, no matter how fast its wireless rate can be.
That's because, in a wireless-to-wireless connection, where you transfer data from one Wi-Fi device to another, the router shares its bandwidth accordingly. For example, when you copy data between two 2x2 (2.4 Gbps) Wi-Fi 6 devices using the same band, the speed between them will cap at just 1.2 Gbps.
So, a good Wi-Fi 6 router, strictly in terms of speeds, needs to have 4x4 specs (or higher) on a single band and a couple of multi-gig network ports. Most importantly, it needs to support the venerable 160MHz channel bandwidth.
And that brings us to a new and potentially exciting version of Wi-Fi 6, the Wi-Fi 6E.
Wi-Fi 6 speeds compared with older standards
| Standard (name) | Debut Year | Channel Width (in MHz) and Theoretical Speed (in Mbps) per Stream (rounded numbers) | Max Number Streams Used in Clients (Max Speed Theoretical(•) /Real-word) | Security | Bands | Status (in 2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 802.11b | 1999 | 20MHz/11Mbps | Single-stream or 1x1 (11Mbps/≈6Mbps) | Open WEP | 2.4GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11a | 2000 | 20MHz/54Mbps | 1x1 (54Mbps/≈30Mbps) | Open WEP | 5GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11g | 2003 | 20 MHz/54Mbps | 1x1 (54Mbps/≈35Mbps) | Open WEP | 2.4GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11n (Wi-Fi 4) | 2009 | 20MHz/75Mbps 40MHz/150MBps | Quad-stream or 4x4 (600Mbps/≈400Mbps) | Open WEP WPA | 2.4GHz, 5GHz, Dual-band | Legacy |
| 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5) | 2012 | 20MHz/108Mbps 40MHz/217Mbps 80MHz/433Mbps | 4x4 (1732Mbps/≈1000Mbps) | Open WPA WPA2 | 5GHz, Dual-band, Tri-band(••) | Common (Phasing out) |
| 802.11ad (WiGig) | 2015 | 2.16GHz/multi-Gigabit | n/a | Open WPA WPA2 | 60 GHz | Obsolete |
| 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) | 2019 | 20MHz/150Mbps 40MHz/300Mbps 80MHz/600Mbps 160MHz/1200Mbps | Dual-stream or 2x2 (2402Mbps/≈1500Mbps) | Open WPA WPA2 WPA3 | 2.4GHz 5GHz Dual-band, Tri-band(••), | Common |
| 802.11axe (Wi-Fi 6E) | 2021 | 20MHz/150Mbps 40MHz/300Mbps 80MHz/600Mbps 160MHz/1200Mbps | 2x2 (2402Mbps/≈1500Mbps) | OWE WPA3 | 6GHz, Dual-band, Tri-band, Quad-band(••) | Common |
| 802.11be (Wi-Fi 7) | 2023 | 20MHz/225Mbps 40MHz/450Mbps 80MHz/730Mbps 160MHz/1.45Gbps 320MHz/2.9Gbps | 2x2 (5800Mbps/≈3000Gbps) | OWE WPA3 | 6GHz, 5GHz, 2.4GHz, Dual-band, Tri-band, Quad-band(•••) | Common (Latest) |
| 802.11ah (Wi-Fi HaLow) | 2024 | 1MHz 2MHz 4MHz 8MHz 16MHz | (85Mbps to 150Mbps) | OWE WPA3 | 900MHz | Emerging |
(•) The absolute theoretical bandwdith of the band or speed of a connection to a single client in an ideal connection before interference, signal degradation, and hardware incompatibility are taken into account. Depending on the number of streams and channel width in use, this theoretical ceiling speed is generally lower, often by a factor of two. Discount this ceiling number by another 30% or 60% to get real-world bandwdith, then divide it by the concurrent clients to get the real-world sustained rates.
(••) The 5GHz band is split into two portions as sub-bands.
(•••) The 5GHz or 6GHz band is split into two portions as sub-bands.
Wi-Fi 6E: The answer to spectrum shortage
In early 2020, the Wi-Fi Alliance introduced the Wi-Fi 6E terminology to call Wi-Fi 6 devices capable of working on the new 6 GHz frequency band.
The purpose of Wi-Fi 6E is to address the spectrum shortage—you'll get more natural 160MHz channels out of the new frequency. But Wi-Fi 6E also has its issues as I detailed in this post.
***
Wi-Fi 6: Frequently asked questions
If the part above has given you a headache, yet, you still can wrap your head around what Wi-Fi 6 entails, my answer to the common questions about the standard below will help.
Will I be able to download a movie much faster with Wi-Fi 6?
Not necessarily! Here's why: Downloading a movie (or Netflix streaming, for that matter) depends on the Internet speed, which has little to do with Wi-Fi. They are two different things.
Wi-Fi is the alternative to network cables—it allows for a local network without wires. So, the increased speed of Wi-Fi 6 (or any Wi-Fi standard for that matter) is only meaningful locally, within your home or office.
In other words, assuming all your devices are Wi-Fi 6-enabled, you'll be able to print, perform network Time Machine backups, stream from a local NAS server, etc., much faster.
As for the Internet, most residential broadband services offer speeds significantly below that of Wi-Fi 5, which is already plenty fast. Consequently, if you use Wi-Fi 6, you'll experience no improvement in Internet access.
In networking, the final speed of a connection is always that of the slowest party involved. Right now, in most cases, the Internet is that party.
It'll be a few years or even a decade—when 5G cellular and Gigabit-class broadband are ubiquitous—before we need Wi-Fi 6 to deliver the Internet in full. But then, remember that your client needs to support the same Wi-Fi standard to get the fast speed out of a router.
Wi-Fi 6: Better efficiency with OFDMA and TWT
Wi-Fi 6 features orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA), on top of the fact it has MU-MIMO by default.
In a nutshell, Wi-Fi 6 can slice its wireless signals into many perfectly sized chunks and, therefore, can simultaneously feed more clients of different Wi-Fi specs and keep them all happy—without slowing down, that is.
Potentially, Wi-Fi 6 can maintain fast individual connections even in crowded air spaces with many clients.
MIMO vs. MU-MIMO vs. ODFMA
You might have heard of MIMO (multiple inputs, multiple outputs) and MU-MIMO (multi-user MIMO), which are other techniques for increasing Wi-Fi efficiency.
It's hard to explain MIMO, MU-MIMO, and ODFMA without invoking technical jargon. That said, let's go with this analogy. Imagine a Wi-Fi band as a freeway, channels would be lanes of different sizes (MHz), and we'd have the following:
- MIMO is when you use multiple trucks of the same size simultaneously. That's more efficient than using just one truck that has to go back and forth, but not great since the trucks can be too large for a certain load.
- MU-MIMO is when you use multiple vehicles of different types depending on the load's size or type. So you use a pickup truck for a big-screen TV, a dump truck for dirt, or just a scooter for a letter. And they all work together simultaneously. (All Wi-Fi 6 hardware support MU-MIMO, by the way.)
- ODFMA is when you cut a load of any type or size into small standard pieces that can fit perfectly in any vehicle.
Note that none of these techniques increase the bandwidth of a Wi-Fi band. They only help it work more efficiently in a mixed environment, where devices of multiple Wi-Fi standards and speed grades are present.
Thanks to more advanced quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM)—the way radio frequencies are manipulated—Wi-Fi 6 has much higher ceiling speeds than Wi-Fi 5.
So, ultimately, Wi-Fi 6 beats Wi-Fi 5 in speed.
Target Wake Time: Better battery life
Battery life applies mainly to the client's side. And yes, Wi-Fi 6 clients will generally get better battery life. That's partly thanks to the higher speed—a client will take much less time than older Wi-Fi standards to deliver the same amount of data, hence using less energy.
However, what significantly helps reduce energy use is Wi-Fi 6's new feature called target wake time (TWT). TWT automatically puts the Wi-Fi adapter into sleep mode when idle, no matter how brief, and wakes it back up when necessary.
This method is similar to making a car automatically shut down its engine at a traffic stop and instantly start up when you hit the gas (which is somewhat annoying at first, but you'll get used to it.)
Does Wi-Fi 6 have a better range?
It depends.
If you're using a single router, the Wi-Fi 6 has about the same range as Wi-Fi 5. The Asus RT-AX88U, for example, can cover about the same area as the RT-AC88U.
Wi-Fi's range has a lot to do with the nature of the frequencies, namely the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz. (And the new Wi-Fi 6E sure will have a shorter range than the other two.)
However, if you get a Wi-Fi 6 mesh system, it's a different story. Thanks to faster speeds, you can place the hardware units significantly farther away from one another (than those of Wi-Fi 5) and still get the final Wi-Fi speed fast enough for almost any application at hand. (It's a matter of degrees here.)
Indeed, the purpose-built tri-band Wi-Fi 6 mesh systems I've tested all delivered exceptional Wi-Fi coverage. Examples are the ARRIS mAX Pro, the Netgear Orbi RBK82, or the Ubiquiti Alien Kit.
In other words, Wi-Fi 6's fast ceiling speed compensates for the signal loss and overheads in the wireless connection between hardware units. As a result, you'll still get a fast connection speed at the far end.
So yes, Wi-Fi 6 works well for wireless mesh Wi-Fi systems, much more so than Wi-Fi 5.
Do existing Wi-Fi clients work with Wi-Fi 6?
The short answer is yes, Wi-Fi 6 is backward compatible and will, in theory, support all existing Wi-Fi clients. In reality, it's a bit more complicated.
Due to other requirements, such as security, efficiency settings, channel width, and so on, many existing clients will need new software drivers to work (well) with Wi-Fi 6 routers.
And for those that are too old, such as 802.11g, 802.11a, or even some 802.11n (Wi-Fi 4) clients, chances are there won't be new drivers for them.
Also, Wi-Fi 6E will only work with Wi-Fi 6E-capable clients. It will not work with legacy clients (Wi-Fi 5 and older). But all Wi-Fi 6 routers will include a 2.4 GHz band that works with all existing clients on the market.
For the most part, you can set your Wi-Fi 6 router to work in a compatible mode. However, it won't deliver fast speeds to Wi-Fi 6 clients in this case. It's a bit of a dilemma.
In my testing, legacy devices proved to work better (had faster Wi-Fi speeds) when working with legacy routers than with Wi-Fi 6 routers, especially on the 2.4GHz frequency band, of which Wi-Fi 6 is indeed slower than Wi-Fi 4 stream by stream.
Should I buy a Wi-Fi 6 router?
Yes, and eventually, you don't have a choice—with the availability of Wi-Fi 6, networking vendors will slowly phase out Wi-Fi 5 hardware.
Wi-Fi 6 is excellent if you have many of the latest Wi-Fi 5 and new Wi-Fi 6 clients. You can upgrade many existing computers to Wi-Fi 6, by the way.
Wi-Fi 6 routers have more than just Wi-Fi speed. These routers tend to be beefy devices with more valuable features.
(To find out more, check out my regularly updated lists of top Wi-Fi 6 routers and mesh systems.)
But, still, for at least the next few years, Wi-Fi 6, especially the Wi-Fi 6E, is not a must-have. A good Wi-Fi 5 router will work just fine for most of us. This post on Wi-Fi 5 gives you more reasons to keep using the old standard.
So, if you need a new router, well, chances are it's sensible to start with a Wi-Fi 6 one. But a Wi-Fi 5 will do, too. It'll work with your Wi-Fi 6 devices anyway.
The takeaway
Wi-Fi 6 is indeed significant in terms of efficiency and speed. But it also pushes the envelope hard on the 5GHz frequency band. And then Wi-Fi 6E requires new hardware, which is far from ideal in terms of adaptation.
I guess it will take Wi-Fi 6 clients a few more years to become as popular as their Wi-Fi 5 counterparts. And then it'll require even more years for us to have real needs or the full experience of Wi-Fi 6.
The move to Wi-Fi 6 is inevitable, but it will take a while. It's a gradual process. In the meantime, in most cases, there's no need to ditch your Wi-Fi 5 equipment deliberately.
Hi Dong,
I have XT12 dual mesh and just added a GT6. The backhaul is in the Uni-4 channel. I had an issue: if I use spectrum 160MHZ for clients, devices will get removed and sent to the main Router. I noticed that the wireless Backhaul QBSS Channel Utilization would go to 89%, and then all clients would be disconnected simultaneously and steered to the Router. I switched to 80mhz and no longer see such a high utilization rate. Do you have any idea why? Could it be that some devices are not playing well with 160mhz?
You should leave that setting at the default value, Omran. More here.
Hi Dong for 5ghz_1 default as in set to auto
What about 5ghz-2 wireless backhaul can I leave at 173, I am getting no disconnects between the nodes and router
Hi Dong,
I had 2 ASUS RT-AC5300 wifi 5 routers as mesh setup for a good 7 years. I was going to skip the wifi 6 / 6e train and move on to wifi 7 this year, but decided to get 2 RT-AX88U pro as mesh setup instead, since it’s a lot more mature, stable, and cheaper than wifi 7.
Beside, the devices I have at home are combination of wifi 5 and 6e, nothing will benefit from the wifi 7 yet.
Now my question is, is it true if I have a mix of wifi5 and wifi6 network environment, I can only use the 80mhz band instead of 160mhz? My desktop computer has an 6e 2×2 wifi card built in, but I could only get link speed Tx/Rx at 1201/1201Mbps. In order to get the full 2×2 2400Mbps speed, all the devices will need to operate at 160mhz?
My router has channel setting for 5GHz (20/40/80/160) with 160mhz enable box checked. Control channel at 161. But I think it’s still running at 80mhz instead since I have many legacy devices, Maybe that’s why my desktop is capped at 1200Mbps link speed?
This has nothing to do with ISP, I mainly want use it as local network to move files to an Asustor NAS with 2.5Gbps LAN port connect to the router.
As described above, the 160MHz of Wi-Fi 6 is not a guaranteed even in an ideal condition. There are many factors to keep you from getting it and the 80MHz is the sweet spot. And mixing hardware of different standards is definitely not an ideal condition, that’s generally the case of AiMesh.
Thanks Dong. I will play around with wifi scanner and the channel setting to see if I can get the link speed working. It’s really not a big deal even staying at 1200 is plenty fast for regular internet usage. I will get an 10GBps switch for my NAS instead.
Greetings, in the section “The new base Wi-Fi speed
Generally” a sentence up grom the bottom states “Its real-world rate is about the same as Wi-Fi 4 — there’s no 2.4GHz in Wi-Fi 5.”
I’m confustulated by that statement. Wi-Fi 5 does have a 2.4GHz band. Did you mean that Wi-Fi 5 can’t use the 2.4GHz band for additional speed as Wi-Fi 6 does?
In all other respects, fabulous article.
Wi-Fi 5 does NOT have 2.4GHz, Paul. Its broadcasters use that of Wi-Fi 4. More here.
Okay – I see that it’s a specification nomenclature distinction. I was thinking of it in terms of the reality that virtually every wi-fi 5 router I’ve ever seen also supports 2.4 GHz – but that’s a separate fact of _utility_ of router devices, rather than _within_ the technical specification.
Thanks Dong, that makes sense.
👍
“So, in reality, you should expect Wi-Fi 6 to reliably deliver about 50 percent improvement over Wi-Fi 5 in terms of sustained data rates in the same specs — 2×2 vs 3×3 vs 4×4, etc.”
The real life improvement is unfortunately even smaller since that 600 Mbs per stream is obtained at 1024 QAM, and that requires close distance to the router – that defeats the whole purpose of Wifi. Move a little far from the router and the speeds will get downgraded to the old Wifi 5 speeds.
Yeap, but at the same distance, Wi-Fi 5 will be even slower. 50% is about right when compared apples to apples where that’s possible. But some low-end Wi-Fi 6 routers actually have high-end WiFi 5, that plus the fact we have 4×4 and 3×3 Wi-Fi 5 clients (and only 2×2 for Wi-Fi 6) mean yes, Wi-Fi 5 can be faster, as mentioned in the post.
DFS is probably a scam. The radar signals are so much more powerful that I don’t think any aviators really give a crap about what anybody might be doing with commercial wifi equipment. I once called an airport about that and they were laughing with me.
Maybe, but that doesn’t change how a router is required to behave.
Hi Dong, I just re-read this article after a few years. Would you help me understand a little more? I just bought the Asus ROG GT6 2 pack and set up to use ethernet backhaul. So I have 2 5GHz bands to use. For the 5GHz-1 band, if I enabled 160MHz and set channel to 36. What will happen when CAC happens? Will it move the clients to the upper 5GHz (channel 149 and above)? or simply shrink the bandwidth to 80MHz? If moving to upper 5GHz channels, will it interfere with my 5GHz-2 band which set to use channel 149 and 80MHz? Thank you!
The GT6 is generally not for wired backhauling, Peter. Also, I don’t know what you meant by “CAC”. But in any case, if you read this post carefully, you’ll get the answer. The GT6 support UNII-4 by the way, so this post on the topic will help, too.
Hi Dong, I’m really struggling to identify what mesh router system will be best for my specific my use case. We go into large grocery stores and setup a local network (intranet only). We deploy ~30 handheld scanners to collect data (small packets) that send the data back to the server (PC) on site in the network. We typically use a 2.4 network to achieve more coverage and our handhelds are older (not wifi 6 compatible). Is there any benefit for us to move to wifi 6? Thanks!
Use the TP-Link Omada, Adam. And no, Wi-Fi 6 is not necessary.
Thanks Dong, one thing I may have omitted in my original response is that we setup this network for about 7 hours of use while we perform our service. As soon as we are done we take the network (router(s)) down so we can bring them to a different location the next day for service.
Then it’s impossible to know, Adam, since Wi-Fi depends on the location. But Wi-Fi 6 doesn’t hurt. You can get a 3-pack ZenWifi XD5 and try it out, for a low-demanding network you can even use up to four or five wireless nodes. Read up on AiMesh for more options.
Thanks for the article!
Do all Wifi6 access points support TWT? I can’t find many devices where this is mentioned in the manual or spec sheet …
Yes, that’s an inherent part of the hardware, Patrick, some hardware allows you to turn that on or off, in others, it’s just on by default. TWT only works with Wi-Fi 6 (and later) clients, by the way.
Hi Guys,
Can anyone help here I have a problem with TP-Link devices
So, no matter what scenario/setup is the
RE605X will never connect to the EAP610-Outdoor at 5 GHz: 1201 Mbps or 2.4 GHz: 574 Mbps but only 720.6 Mbps
OR
RE605X will never connect to the EAP660HD at 5 GHz: 1201 Mbps or 2.4 GHz: 574 Mbps Mbps but only 720.6 Mbps (choosing the lower spectrum/bandwidth/device because this is the RE605Xs limitations)
Doesn’t matter if the devices are on the same table facing each other 12 inches apart.
Awaiting your response/reply. Thanks in advance
MJ
The numbers you saw there don’t mean anything, MJ. They are just estimates and always incorrect. You have to test the connection to see what the actual speed is — more on testing here. And the actual real-world speed of this extender will be *significantly* below 600Mbps. It might sustain at around 300Mbps or so. To understand, reread this post — make sure you READ it. After that, check out this post on mesh systems and learn about signal loss.
I have a 2021 14″ MacBook Pro. I must say I’m pretty disappointed with the wifi especially for a $3,000+ laptop. It appears it only has a 80+80 card inside? https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/dep2ac3e3b51/web I have tried several high end routers Asus ET12 XT12 XT8 even the new GT-AXE16000, Synology RT6600ax. I am lucky if I can get about 500 on my gig speed fiber connection being the only one connected. I’m not sure if I am configuring these wrong or what but have tired various settings and top of around 500. When I hard wire I get 950. It doesn’t appear Apple has a thunderbolt or add-on 4×4 wifi adapter. Would maybe an older wifi router be better for a new MacBook Pro?
Older Macs with 3×3 Wi-Fi 5 cards are faster, Chris (but not as good in battery life.) This is quite normal for a new Mac and 500Mbps is plenty fast.
Hello!
Thank you for the detailed article. I have a question, I bought a TCL 65 inch tv recently (65C825) which is advertised as a WiFi 6 TV but it does not detect my Wifi 6 band which only runs DFS channels. Is it possible that a Wifi 6 client doesn’t support DFS? My router is Asus RT-AX92U and the TV would not detect my wifi 6 band at all. All my other devices can see that band.
There’s no “Wi-Fi 6 band”, John, only 5GHz or 6Ghz bands. But yes, DFS can be an issue. More on that in this post.
Thank you for the quick reply. I know it’s wrong to say “Wi-Fi 6 band” but I meant my second 5GHz band which supports wifi 6. I read through most of the article you linked, but my problem is that the ASUS RT-AX92U’s second 5GHz band only has the channel range 100 – 140 which are all DFS channels, and my TV (which is supposed to have 802.11ax support) does not see that band no matter what settings I change in the router. I’ve tried every possible solution but nothing worked, and I dont think there’s a way to force an android TV to support DFS in case it’s a software issue, so i’m stuck with the slower speed of the first 5GHz band on the TV.
Yes, John, you’re in a bit of a pickle there. I missed the RT-AX92U notion in the previous reply (😬). That router’s upper channels only work well with modern clients. You can connect the TV to a lower channel, though. It should make no difference since performance in the TV won’t use more than 100Mbps anyway.
Hi Dong! Thanks for this amazing website and your tech genius.
Would a Wi-Fi 6 router will help with congestion in my home, mainly at certain times of the day when seven people are all home and are simultaneously streaming TV, online gaming while video calling, and streaming college lectures? There are also a handful of Wi-Fi security cameras and smart plugs, etc. Range and coverage don’t seem to be an issue; rather it feels like the high number of bandwidth-heavy streams all at once are slowing us down. I’m wondering if OFDMA would help in this situation.
I’m currently using a Netgear R6230 (AC1200), which is pretty fast and reliable otherwise.
You need to configure QoS, Jake. More here: https://dongknows.com/qos-explained-and-how-it-makes-wi-fi-calling-better/
Hi Dong,
I know this is a done subject (2 reviews already!) but the RT-AX92u now allows for client access to the WiFi 6 ax wireless backhaul. The backhaul connects at 3gbps so when shared with the clients, 1gbps is possible without any of the lag associated with a shared wireless backhaul. I’m seeing 900mbps for AX clients. This makes the AX92u one of the fastest mesh solutions on the market.
To get this speed, you have to enable 160mhz only and AX only on 5g2 and then unhide 5g2 for client access. The mesh will then steer AX clients to the 5g2 band.
The RTAX92u is such an underrated mesh solution. It’s had it’s fair share of bad firmware releases in the past. But now, with the current firmware, it’s a real power house, more than capable of handling a mesh environment of mixed AC and AX clients.
That has ALWAYS been the case, Lee. I mentioned that in its review.
Hi Dong,
Thanks for a great review!
I recently got ASUS GT-AXE11000 and Firewalla Gold to replace my old Linksys E4200v1 router. Everything worked fine before, just wanted to get better control and upgrade to WiFi 6/6E.
With the Firewalla in router mode and AXE11000 in AP mode, 5GHz network would sometimes randomly go “invisible” on one of the Windows 10 machines. It would often reappear on its own in a few minutes, but sometimes I have to disable and re-enable WiFi, even multiple times.
For example, after a reboot (or disabling/enabling the adapter), my desktop with AX200 adapter would occasionally not see the 5GHz network, or a laptop with Intel AC8265 randomly loses connection and does not see 5GHz when trying to reconnect. When this happens all other devices (e.g. the other windows machine, macbook, iphones, etc) remain connected to 5GHz just fine.
This never happens with 2.4GHz, does not seem to be a problem for apple devices, and I haven’t had this issue with ASUS in router mode (although tested it only briefly as I want to have firewalla as the router).
Tried updating the drivers and firmware, doing a factory reset, setting fixed control channel (e.g. 36) with 80MHz. This is one of the strangest problems I’ve seen and it drives me crazy.
Would really appreciate any help and suggestions!
You shouldn’t use the Gold in the router mode, Leo. Use it in the add-on mode. Check out it’s review for more. https://dongknows.com/firewalla-gold-review/
Question!
It has taken me months but I finally have my network setup with 2 ASUS ZenWiFi AX6600. the second one uses moca 2.5 adapters to ethernet in order to keep the backhaul stable (apt building causing too much interference). Here is my questions while connecting to the base node on 5Ghz-2 with 160mhz enabled on my wifi 6 devices I get significantly slower speeds than 5Ghz-1 with up to 80hz enabled. What am I doing wrong?
Also I have 1gbps up and down which I can achieve when cat 6 wired in.
Love the site,
MGB
That only means the upper channels are more crowded in your place, J. Note, though, that the router’s two 5GHz bands are of different specs. If you call them correctly, the 5GHz-2 band, which normally works as the backhaul, is supposed to have double the bandwidth of the 5GHz-1.
Hello.
I have a question…
I have the router RT-AX58U 2X2 and laptop with intel AX200 you mention. In this configuration I should see from times to times using the 5GHZ in the Wifi status the max of 2.4gb appears no…? I never see it….I sometimes see 1.2 gb but never 2.4gb…for me looks like my connection work only in 1×1…I know that those are theorical speed but in my understanding I should see this 2.4 gb at least for a few seconds from times to times no? What should I do it works in 2×2? thank you
That depends, Arkhane. Chances are you’re just using the 80MHz channel width. *Read the post again* — it looks like you were just skimming over it. And here’s the review of the RT-AX58U for more info.
I had read the post and use 160Mhz so really would like to understand.
RT-AX58U 2×2 AX: Up to 2.4 Gbps….on my laptop I have the intel AX200 which is also 2×2 up to 2.4 Gbps…I should from times to times see this in the adapter option of Windows 10 but only see 1.2 Gpbs like it work as 1×1…
Any useful info to make me understand this? It is not the 1st time I ask question here to not have correct answers…
Try making your laptop the only Wi-Fi client. You might have other devices in your network that won’t work with 160MHz and the router automatic use the 80MHz. You can’t really force a broadcaster to function only on the 160MHz. That’s the nature of DFS. Read the post again.
so said differently and with my own words:
as soon as 1 AC device (or N etc) connect to my wifi router my router will use 80Mhz cutting by half the speed?
The only way I could see this 2.4gpbs is when I exclusively use AX devices on the 5Ghz ?
Is that correct?
thks
Thanks for the info on DFS channels. I never could figure out why the 5GHz channel would take forever to reconnect on my AX300 router.
Sure, Mike. Patience is a virtue. 🙂
Hi Dong – thanks for the article!
I have TP-Link Archer AX1800 Wifi 6 router. Currently I purchased Samsung S20 smartphone which has Wifi 6 support. Do I need to make my special configuration in my router / phone for them to communicate in best possible way.
Which band should I use to connect my phone 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz?
Can my phone automatically switch to best available band (2.4 GHz or 5 GHz)?
That router is pretty slow, so you won’t need to do anything, Sakthivel. And yes, if you name the two bands the same (Smart Connect), then the client should be able to switch between the two automatically.
Kudos on the breakdown.
Curious, with all of this marketing slang regarding speed (model number), number of wireless clients (50+), etc., a router/broadcaster can accommodate, what differences are there between MIMO, MU-MIMO, ODFMA, etc., in terms of the frequency being used?
In other words, does legacy 2.4GHz “really” support these enhanced options/features and what is the real world ceiling for how many wireless clients 2.4GHz and 5GHz can handle? I ask this because much of the low-cost IoT devices still cater to this frequency (not sure why — cost, distance/coverage, other?).
Going on the marketing campaigns, I would have to imagine “50+” includes all frequencies combined.
You need to ignore the marketing, Hick. All Wi-Fi 6 routers support MU-MIMO, ODFMA, etc. It’s like saying your new car has power-steering and AC.
As for the support, that takes two, clients need to support them, too. Truth be told, most (Wi-Fi 5 and older) clients don’t. Almost all IoT devices don’t.
great write up!!
im still thinking of upgrading tp link archer c1200 to tp link archer c80. my friends ask me to take ax10 instead. My problem is still having legacy device like my acer s3 and samsung galaxy note 2 which both working fine. Even my receiver on desktop PC is tplink t4u.
Should i buy ax router or upgrade wifi 5 router?
I forgot to mention that my internet speed is 800mbps,
At any point wifi devices can get around 200- 400 mbps max.
Using Lan i can easily reach 800 mbps
That’s your call, Azru. One thing is for sure, you won’t get faster speed unless you have new clients. Check out this post for more.
I just wanted to say thank you for writing this up. It explained everything that I couldn’t find explained. I just found your site, and I appreciate what you’re doing here Dong!
Happy to have you Jeffrey! And you’re welcome! 🙂
@Dong Ngo very interesting article and lots of useful information. So I have been looking into some routers with Wi-Fi 6 lately. According to the information in the article is it pointless to have a router, that offers 4×4 connection but only has 1Gbit WAN? The LAN ports support aggregation but I could just get switch with 2,5 GBit for LAN connections instead of the mark up for the router. I really don’t know what was the reasoning of product managers behind this setup.
Is the 4×4 and higher throughput worth it over 2×2 on cheaper models? I mean maybe if you have lots of clients connected or have multiple streams of high bitrate video or transfer files wirelessly? What is your opinion on this?
For the part, yes, Mark, it’s pointless. However, for a local network with wireless clients sharing information between themselves, that helps. It’s a matter of (local) bandwidth.
All along I thought wi-fi only meant internet. Great to know that I have a lot to learn in the home networking area.
With that said, is it necessary for me to upgrade to a Wi-Fi mesh system like the Deco X5700 or Orbi AX4200 if I primarily use internet and not local network? I am starting to integrate many smart devices into my house, they’re primarily TP-Link Kasa. They don’t require a hub, but require Wi-Fi. So this gets me thinking. Should I upgrade to a mesh system or will I even notice a difference?
My internet speed seems fine, but I pay for 100gbps and I never see that. Comcast… Maybe I’m not using the correct bands. Any information on what might be “smart” to do to maximize internet speed, but also make sure my smart devices will be efficient? Im going to have many smart devices in the next couple months. Thanks!
Hopefully I’m asking the correct questions to get an understanding of if it’s necessary or not for me to be running a Wi-Fi 6 mesh system with a major local network, unless all the smart devices are considered to be on that network and not using the internet.
You can’t use the Internet without your local network, Justin. Also, 100Mbps is slow and any router or mesh system will be able to take care of that just fine. Judging from your question, though, I’d recommend you start with this post (and use links within it for related topics.)
Hi, will WiFi 6 result in faster file transfer speed to/from my PC to my Synology?
Faster compared to what?
What about Wi-Fi 6 clients? Would they work with the 6ghz band?
You need a Wi-Fi 6E client. You can upgrade to one right now.
Hi Dong,
My situation is: my house is two stories, “at the end of the line” for Comcast, and I have plaster walls from the 1950s, many devices fighting for wifi simultaneously. Our wifi is spotty and buffers and paying for 600mbps. Using Xfi gateway ac located in the basement office. I want to get a router/mesh set up (will connect pods via ethernet cable). Excluding speed, would a wifi 6 tri-band router help with efficiency and the congestion due to the number of devices connected simultaneously (as opposed to wifi 5) even if few devices (only 2 iPhone 11’s) have wifi 6 capability? I am more concerned about a consistent connection than the speed at this point (btw I have very little idea what I’m talking about).
Thank you in advance for your help!
How about getting a new home, Lisa? Just kidding. It looks like you know a lot about what you’re talking about. A couple of things:
1. I’d recommend replacing your gateway with a modem of your own. More on that here. If you don’t have phone service, this is definitely the way to go.
2. Get a dual-band mesh system out of this list, and set it up via wired backhaul — that is you use network cables to connect the hardware units.
2e. (e=extra): If you don’t want to get rid of that gateway, check out this post on how to use another router/mesh on top of your gateway.
3. Do an Internet test at the modem (or gateway) to make sure you get what you pay for, before blaming your router or mesh system.
Hope this helps. 🙂
@Dong Ngo,
Thank you so much, your answers are very helpful!
Just to confirm, by you suggesting dual-band, am I to conclude that tri-band will not help with our congestion issues? If so, is that because most of our devices are wifi 5(ca)? Does tri-band only come into play when devices are wifi 6(ax)? If not why? I’m really trying to understand this stuff.
I think I’m confused about tri-band benefits vs. wifi 6 benefits. I thought wifi 6 would not help me now because our devices are mostly wifi 5, but tri-band would improve buffering when for example, 3 different zoom meetings are going on simultaneously via wifi, or four different programs are being streamed at once, all via wifi.
Thanks so much!
Lisa
Tri-band is generally only good when you use a mesh in a wireless setup, Lisa. More here.
@Dong Ngo,
That is what I am planning on doing. I was wiring the router to the pods but then all our devices are over wifi.
@Dong Ngo,
Hi again,
You recommended I get my own modem, which I would love to do. However, I have read nightmare-ish stories about how difficult it is to get Comcast to update the firmware on equipment that is not theirs even if it’s is on their compatibility list.
What are your thoughts on this conundrum?
You update the firmware yourself, Lisa. More on the maintenance part in this post. Chances are you don’t need to update a modem’s firmware for its entire life, though.
@Dong Ngo,
The more I ask, the more confused I get.
The article is about router firmware. I am asking about modem firmware.
Thanks again, your help is much appreciated.
Lisa
If you read my previous comment, Lisa, you’ll note that you don’t need to worry about modem firmware. But if you need to update it, it’ll be the same as that of a router.
@Dong Ngo,
Re: firmware,
so all these horror stories I’ve read of Xfinity users having issues with Comcast pushing out firmware for their own devices, does that only apply if they are using their own gateway? I’m so confused, and down a rabbit hole.
Thanks!!!
@Dong Ngo,
Last question–I hope.
I am deciding between the Orbi AX4200 1 router 2 satellites, OR Lynksis Velop AX4200 2-Pack. Either one would be wired from router to satellite(s).
Not sure if 1 satellite is enough. Modem and router downstairs (basement), satellite(s) on main floor 2,400+sq.ft. on each level.
Considering the NETGEAR Nighthawk CM1100 DOCSIS 3.1 Cable Modem.
Please tell me what to go with. I can’t do anymore research or my head will explode!
Thanks so much for your help!
Lisa
Lisa,
1. Don’t buy any tri-band if you have wired your home (which you did). That said, get any *dual-band* system on this list. They all support wired backhaul. If you HAD TO pick the Orbi or the Velop, then go with the Velop.
2. That modem will work well.
@Dong Ngo,
Hi Dong,
Clearly you did not like my two options so, after more reading–what if I got an ASUS RT-AX86U as the main router and then two hubs/satellites? I don’t know what to use for the satellites, please suggest.
I considered the ASUS – ZenWiFi AX Dual-Band Mesh Wi-Fi System (3-pack) without the AX86U but I need more ports at the main router for printers, etc., that are wired in the basement.
I don’t see where I can get the ZenWifi not in a 3 pack if I were to use those as nodes along with AX86U…and the price for everything is getting too high. All using the Nighthawk CM1100 modem.
Please help!?!
Thank you
@Dong Ngo,
Should I just go with ASUS–ZenWifiAX and plug a switch into the router unit? If so, do you recommend a switch? I searched your site but didn’t find anything.
Thank you so much for your help and patience.
Lisa
Hi Dong – Great site and information! I am wanting to upgrade our wireless configuration. The home is 4200 sq ft on two levels in basically an L shaped configuration. We have wired ethernet capability essentially throughout the house, including where we have our televisions (one on each floor). Our service provides 200 Mbps up and down. Currently using a Tmobile rebadged Asus RT-AC86u with two access points to help with coverage (would need to flash to use as part of AIMesh). The main router is situated close to the middle of the home on the second floor. While the main router is hidden from site, the satellites will be in plain view, which complicates the use of a satellites with typical antennas due to wife approval factor. I was considering two options, but open to others.
XD4 – Good enough performance using ethernet backhaul and will meet wife approval factor. Guest network to use with various IOT devices. Will locate satellites near televisions to be able to stream over ethernet, with a switch.
RT-AC88u with Orbi RBS40V – Would be nice to have Alexa built into extender. Use wired switches at television stations.
Any benefit in repurposing a flashed AC86u as main router over using the XD4 router?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks, Gerard. I’d go with the RT-AC86U and XD4 via wired backhauls. They support Alexa by the way, though, you probably don’t want to use it. Note though, that you only have a Guest network (for now) if you use the XD4 by itself. More here.
@Dong Ngo, Thanks for the quick response. A couple of follow up questions, if you don’t mind. Is there an advantage to using the flashed AC86U over simply using the XD4R as the router? Is there an advantage, security wise, to using a guest network for the IOT smart home devices? Thanks again. I hope you know how many people you are helping, especially as we do more work and schooling from home and are reliant on our wi-fi.
The advantage is you’ll have a full Wi-Fi 6 system. The RT-AX86U does have more ports, though, so there’s that. More on Guest Wi-Fi network here.
@Dong Ngo, Thanks for the explanation regarding the use of the guest network for IOT devices. Clearly, there is no reason to do that. Looking back, I made an error. The existing router I have is the RT-AC 68U, not 86U. Does that change your recommendation? It’s pretty old, so I’m assuming its performance would be worse than just eliminating it and using the XD4 system on its own, would you agree?
Yes, I would, Gerard.
@Dong Ngo, Hi Dong – Could you comment on the option of using Blue Caves instead of the XD4 units? They seem to have similar, if not better performance, based on what I’ve seen on your site. The added benefit, for me, is that I wouldn’t need to use a switch at the satellite locations. Thanks.
It seems everyone is possessed about speed, but from a practical perspective, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that with an internet speed below about 300 Mbps and tech more than a year old, anything more than a 2×2 mi-mo router is not of any practical value.
Throw in that most streaming services only use\require 5Mbps for HD and about 25Mbps for 4K, even with a few people streaming, 433Mbps still seems like a lot.
Yes, a PC with a good card and a NAS may benefit with local content, but how much does Alexa or a handheld device really need (specs are generally thin)?
As I sit here today shopping for a new system for a large house, I am not seeing much reason to buy more than an RT-AC86U or the RT-AX56U (I will need at least 2). Buying the AX at about the same price I get a device that will probably be supported longer (firmware). Also been looking at the CT8, but with a wired infrastructure and it’s Guest LAN issues, not seeing the point, other than style.
Dong, your perspective is appreciated.
You’re correct, Ranger. I talked more about that in this post. As far as Internet speed is concerned, you only need so much Wi-Fi bandwidth. For your station, the routers you mentioned will do. Considering you have wired your home with cables, I’d also recommend a 2-pack ZenWiFi AX Mini.
Are you suggesting that instead of 2 routers I get 1 and a 2 pack of DX4.
Can you confirm this would have Guest on both Dx4 nodes when connected to the RT-AX56U?
Can I connect one DX4 on a Ethernet and wireless mesh it to the second (or AX56U). If we could plug this in as needed on the covered porch I think it should span the entire backyard.
Yes, and no, Ranger, as I mentioned very clearly in the review of the XD4, the Guest network is only working as expected when you use the XD4 by itself. At least that’s the case for now, though that might change via firmware.
Just reread the DX4 and the Guest answer appears to be NO, so I then need to ask if I use multiple RT-AX56U will the Guest LAN be available on all devices.
In my particular case the primary router is in a basement corner and the most unlikely location to actually server the Guest LAN. I need it on the clients.
The answer is, hell no, Ranger, for now. 🙂 More here. The point is among AiMesh routers, the XD4 is your best bet when it comes to the Guest network.
Hi,
Your review is very helpful.
I would like to ask a very armature question before buying Archer AX6000 or Archer AX11000.
Will my Broadcom 802.11ac Network Adapter(Laptop,Win 8.1) and Few old phones (Oldest is Android 4.5)will be able to connect the wifi and wired connection(in Laptop) and get better speed from AX6000 or Archer AX11000?
Does Archer AX11000 has Lifetime malware protection?
Thank you so much.
I don’t know the answer to your first question, Rupam. Chances are it’s the same. As for the 2nd, you have to ask TP-Link. For now, it’s free.
This is a really good explanation. Thank you for properly breaking down the annoying marketing tricks all these companies use. Might also want to point out that Wi-Fi bandwidth is rated at half duplex. So while a 1Gbit Ethernet port says “1000Mbps”, it’s really doing 1000Mbps in both directions simultaneously thus alleviating things like TCP overhead. Wi-Fi on the other hand must wait for the return transmission. So when they say a single 802.11ac stream is rated at 433.3 Mbps, in reality you will see real world one way speeds of about 50-60% depending on the protocol in use. I consider 480Mbps on a 2×2 client about as fast as you can get, just over half the rated 866.6Mbps max throughput.
That’s an excellent point, Chris. Thanks for adding.
This is incredibly helpful. The terminology was becoming overwhelming. Thanks.
Sure, HB. 🙂
Good article! I would just like to point out that the asus rt-ax89x is vastly superior to the asus rt-ax88u. Here’s why. Let’s assume we are operating on 5Ghz 80Mhz with a 2×2 client. Throughput maxes out at 1200 Mbps. The rt-ax88u is only 4×4 capable, so it can only really push out 2400Mbps to (2) 2×2 Clients simultaneously. The rt-ax89x is a true wifi 6 spec router with 8×8 spatial streams on 5Ghz band. This allows it to supply 1200Mbps to (4) 2×2 clients simultaneously, achieving the 4800Mbps spec that is commonly marketed to consumers. This is why they also contain two completely different chipsets, one Broadcom (trash, in my opinion)…….one Qualcomm (vastly superior). I switched from a gt-ax11000 (4×4: 4×4: 4×4 Broadcom chip) to the rt-ax89x (4×4: 8×8 Qualcomm chip) and the rt-ax89x beats it in every way.
Good point, Justin. Thanks for the input.
Two key innovations are accelerating Wi-Fi 6 associations: MU-MIMO and OFDMA.
MU-MIMO, which means “multi-user, multiple inputs, multiple outputs,” is as of now being used in current switches and gadgets, however Wi-Fi 6 redesigns it.
The innovation permits a switch to speak with various gadgets simultaneously, instead of broadcasting to one device, and afterward the following, and the following. At present, MU-MIMO permits switches to talk with four gadgets, one after another. Wi-Fi 6 will allow devices to speak with up to eight.
Thanks for the input, Sourav. I edited out your spamming link. Please don’t do that again. 🙂
Dear Dong, many thanks and stay safe! Best wishes, Simon
Thanks, Simon. You, too! 🙂
Hi Dong,
Excellent article and it’s noce to “connect” again,i was wondering where you’ve been since you lefft CNET and came across your site recently! I bought an Asus RT-AC87 after watching your video on CNET before where you mentioned you had bought two!
After reading this and other articles, i still have a question which is unanswered: My family has only wifi5 enabled clients. So are there any advantages to having a wifi6 router? eg would there be better coverage and less break in the wifi signal (my children complain “the wifi is slow” despite having a 1Gpbs home broadband plan).
Thanks!
Simon
Glad you’re here, Simon. No, generally you won’t see any improvement though it doesn’t hurt to have a Wi-Fi 6 router, you might need a more powerful one anyway, maybe a tri-band. For your situation, though, check to make sure none of the devices in your home is hogging the Internet. You can do that via the current router’s interface, the Traffic Analyzer feature. Also check out this post for more.
how fast can wifi 6 go can it go above 1gbps upload and download if u have a capable device?
what about wifi 7?
We’ll cross that bridge when we get there, Alvin.
I have a Google Nest WiFi mesh network that is adequate — it’s comprised of all router components, since the access points are less capable — but as we’ve spent an extended time at home, I’ve had the occasional slowdown or drop-out that makes me wonder if I can do better with a different mesh system. I was looking at the top-end Netgear Orbi Wi-Fi 6 mesh system until the Wi-Fi 6E announcement came out. Since it will be a significant investment, should I wait for Wi-Fi 6E or should I buy now? I can hold out until then with my current system. Thanks in advance for your recommendation!
I’m familiar with the Google Nest, Ron. My take is don’t use it for privacy reasons alone. Another thing is don’t count on Wi-Fi 6E, chances are it’s useless for your existing clients. That said, almost any of these new Wi-Fi 6 mesh solutions will work better than what you have now.
Hi Dong – thanks for the article! Can current Wifi6 routers actually broadcast 6ghz (via firmware etc), or is this a hardware upgrade that future routers will need to have? If the latter, doesn’t it make sense to hold off on any current Wifi6 routers if they are physically limited to 5ghz?
Thanks,
Greg
It’s unclear, Greg, but it’s highly likely that you’ll need new hardware to use Wi-Fi 6E (6GHz).
Thanks for your quick answer, but I still don’t quite get it. If 2 routers are 4×4 8 stream , but one of them has 4 antennas and the other has 8 antennas, what’s the difference between them?
That’s because vendors tend to add the number of streams all the bands up into a single number. You need to be specific but generally, it’s confusing, read the post again, slowly, and also this post, and you’ll find out yourself.
I’ve seen similar routers claiming the same WiFi speeds while having a different number of antennas (4,6,8). Are more antennas always better?
The number of antennas generally means the number of Wi-Fi streams. So a 2×2 router will have two antennas a 4×4 will have four etc.