Wifi - Why should I want ac over n?

[Kermit power]

Morning all,

As a general rule, if something can be quick, then I like it to be quick, but I'm a little bemused as to why anyone would pay more money for an ac wifi router rather than just sticking with n?

As I understand it, the major benefit of ac over n is that it ups data throughput from around 450 Mbps to around 1,300. OK, that's wonderful, but if the maximum speed for broadband in the UK is Virgin at around 300 Mbps, what's the point in having more than 450 Mbps throughput at the router?

I suppose I could see the point if, in addition to what you're sucking through the broadband, you were also streaming locally stored video or music, but do many people really do that in the age of Netflix, Spotify et al?

Am I missing something really obvious?

[Mr Pointy]

The fact that if you have more than one person on the wi-fi then they are sharing the bandwidth so if it's higher each gets more?

[Shiv_P]

AC performs much better at the same range compared to N

[Mr E]

Devices on the WLAN may well be talking to each other and therefore not be throttled by the backhaul.

[Kermit power]

Mr Pointy said:

The fact that if you have more than one person on the wi-fi then they are sharing the bandwidth so if it's higher each gets more?

But still only up to the maximum speed of the broadband coming into the house, surely? I'm on BT which tends to sit at a steady 76 Mbps at all times of the day and night, so what benefit is there given that - like I would imagine is the case in most homes - we're not sharing any significant data between devices locally?

[Brainpox]

It's important if you're working with large files over your network.

ac also supports beamforming which in theory will make data transfer more consistent.

The fact there is no drawback i.e. no backwards compatibility issues means there's little reason to not upgrade.

[Trustmeimadoctor]

Kermit power said:

Morning all,

As a general rule, if something can be quick, then I like it to be quick, but I'm a little bemused as to why anyone would pay more money for an ac wifi router rather than just sticking with n?

As I understand it, the major benefit of ac over n is that it ups data throughput from around 450 Mbps to around 1,300. OK, that's wonderful, but if the maximum speed for broadband in the UK is Virgin at around 300 Mbps, what's the point in having more than 450 Mbps throughput at the router?

I suppose I could see the point if, in addition to what you're sucking through the broadband, you were also streaming locally stored video or music, but do many people really do that in the age of Netflix, Spotify et al?

Am I missing something really obvious?

Another note york has 1Gbit internet so more use there

[bloomen]

My wifi is pretty sluggish, but I had to get an AC router modem to get a usable home network for a NAS. With a N only one it was over 10x slower.

For the wifi itself there's a very slight performance bump, but the range is much weaker than N.

My previous router is well over a decade old and would have carried on just fine had I not wanted a home network type thing. To get the best out it I did have to use an ethernet cable which still wasn't quite as fast as the new one on wifi.

Edited by bloomen on Friday 24th May 13:30

[anonymous-user]

Kermit power said:

But still only up to the maximum speed of the broadband coming into the house, surely? I'm on BT which tends to sit at a steady 76 Mbps at all times of the day and night, so what benefit is there given that - like I would imagine is the case in most homes - we're not sharing any significant data between devices locally?

You are assuming that all wifi traffic is internet traffic. Loads isn't in a lot of houses.

Large file transfers from NAS to computer/laptop
HD Video / media streaming from a media server

Then there is the fact you won't get anywhere near the bandwidth that you think you should get with a wireless technology unless under perfect conditions.

[Shiv_P]

You also should consider ping. 802.11ac on 5Ghz is naturally a considerably higher frequency than 2.4G. Your wifi devices will communicate to your router/WAP quicker, receive DNS IPs quicker and thus your internet browsing will naturally feel a bit snapper

[Kermit power]

RogerDodger said:

You are assuming that all wifi traffic is internet traffic. Loads isn't in a lot of houses.

Large file transfers from NAS to computer/laptop
HD Video / media streaming from a media server

Then there is the fact you won't get anywhere near the bandwidth that you think you should get with a wireless technology unless under perfect conditions.

I did think that, until I did a quick survey of about 20 colleagues in the office and not one of them had any such setup at home.

I've never met a single person in real life with a media server!

[Wax1234]

Kermit power said:

RogerDodger said:

You are assuming that all wifi traffic is internet traffic. Loads isn't in a lot of houses.

Large file transfers from NAS to computer/laptop
HD Video / media streaming from a media server

Then there is the fact you won't get anywhere near the bandwidth that you think you should get with a wireless technology unless under perfect conditions.

I did think that, until I did a quick survey of about 20 colleagues in the office and not one of them had any such setup at home.

I've never met a single person in real life with a media server!

I have one, okay we haven’t met but I know a few people using Plex, Xbmc (or whatever it is called now) it’s not that rare

[Mr E]

Shiv_P said:

You also should consider ping. 802.11ac on 5Ghz is naturally a considerably higher frequency than 2.4G. Your wifi devices will communicate to your router/WAP quicker, receive DNS IPs quicker and thus your internet browsing will naturally feel a bit snapper

Erm. No.

[Kermit power]

Wax1234 said:

Kermit power said:

RogerDodger said:

You are assuming that all wifi traffic is internet traffic. Loads isn't in a lot of houses.

Large file transfers from NAS to computer/laptop
HD Video / media streaming from a media server

Then there is the fact you won't get anywhere near the bandwidth that you think you should get with a wireless technology unless under perfect conditions.

I did think that, until I did a quick survey of about 20 colleagues in the office and not one of them had any such setup at home.

I've never met a single person in real life with a media server!

I have one, okay we haven’t met but I know a few people using Plex, Xbmc (or whatever it is called now) it’s not that rare

I do know a couple of people who used to have one, but with the advent of Netflix and the like, they just decided it wasn't worth the hassle any more.

[bloomen]

Kermit power said:

I do know a couple of people who used to have one, but with the advent of Netflix and the like, they just decided it wasn't worth the hassle any more.

I've gone the other way and quit Netflix because of it. I'd rather have a fully curated library of delights than flick through a ton of dreck and give up.

[Brainpox]

Kermit power said:

I do know a couple of people who used to have one, but with the advent of Netflix and the like, they just decided it wasn't worth the hassle any more.

I reckon we'll see a u-turn at some point. There are a lot of streaming services and more studios are splitting off and producing their own. If you consume a lot of content it'll be more cost efficient to run your own media server again.

[EmmaJ]

Gotta laugh, 802.11ac is so 2013.

Get with the program and get a router that’s 802.11ax or otherwise now know as the more user friendly WIFI 6.

[The_Jackal]

bloomen said:

I've gone the other way and quit Netflix because of it. I'd rather have a fully curated library of delights than flick through a ton of dreck and give up.

I used to be one of those geeks with a carefully curated library of delights. Then the world of the internet reached the speeds the technology demanded and I realised life was too short to organise libraries of videos you rarely watch.
I also think Netflix is overhyped rubbish. Most people I know who watch it, end up just watching random crap I've never even heard of just to fill the emptiness.

[bloomen]

The_Jackal said:

I used to be one of those geeks with a carefully curated library of delights. Then the world of the internet reached the speeds the technology demanded and I realised life was too short to organise libraries of videos you rarely watch.
I also think Netflix is overhyped rubbish. Most people I know who watch it, end up just watching random crap I've never even heard of just to fill the emptiness.

You only have to index once and then it's there for good. Seeking stuff out, ripping and curating is one of the prime pleasures for me.

The rate at which rights revert and services disappear or splinter seems to be accelerating. If there's something I like I want it to still be there a few months from now.

[paulrockliffe]

Set the server up properly and you can organise the library simply by entering the name of the show you want to watch into a browser once. Everything automated from there, just open Plex and see what's new.