# Mussels tests some Wifis!



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

TP link sent me an N600 USB adaptor as a freebie with a router i purchased (TL-WDR3600) (and a free pen!) so i figured with my huge ass collection of wifi adaptors, i'll do some speed tests.

TL-WDR3600






the free pen made my day, shout out to *Owen Chen* from TP link Australia for that one.





The chopped off cord on the vonets was an ethernet connector, since its a USB powered wifi-> ethernet bridge.






tests were done 1 room/1 wall away from the router, simply because my router is centralised in my house. distance is approx 5 meters.

To test, i'm using Passmark Performance test LAN test lite so i can get some more reliable results (wifi is unreliable, after all). (In the end i used 'bandwidth meter pro' to watch the realtime results, and included my own 'average'. for example, if it hovered 950-980KB/s, i've rounded it to 1MB/s)

Re-testing is neccesary, i had to run tests 3-4 times and sometimes the peak and average speeds would vary wildly (10MB/s bursts with averages of 2MB/s could happen)



*LAN Test lite (windows file transfer speeds). 200MB test file, to my C: drive (SSD)*
All the 2.4GHz adaptors i had to test multiple times because i could see the real-time graph going a bit haywire due to external interference. speeds could vary by about 15% between runs.


 Wifi Adaptor | advertised Upload speed | advertised Download Speed|Real Up|Real Download speed | Thoughts
Built In Wifi|150Mb|150Mb|7.2MB/s |9.6MB/s | 
Vonets VAP11g|54Mb|54Mb|MB/s |MB/s | i get internet access, but for some reason this adaptor breaks windows file sharing. cant figure it out. 
Alfa long range wifi G| 54Mb | 54Mb |1.3MB/s |0.5MB/s | well known for crap speeds, but extremely long range 
KinaMax N300|150Mb|300Mb |7.6MB/s |6.2MB/s |Download speed would start at 10MB/s and drop off. 
Edup 150 nano|150Mb|150Mb|9.4MB/s |9.3MB/s | the nano adaptor that could (its coming damn close to the 300Mb adaptors in throughput)
Tenda W322U|300Mb|300Mb|11.1MB/s |11.9MB/s | 
TP-Link TL-WN822N|300Mb|300Mb|11.4MB/s |12.1MB/s | Slightly ahead of the tenda, despite being the cheaper adapter.
TP-Link 'N600' 2.4GHz|300Mb|300Mb|11.2MB/s |12.2MB/s | not the best speeds. matches the other 2.4GHz devices.
TP-Link 'N600' 5GHz|300Mb|300Mb|15.4MB/s |17.9MB/s |  spiked upto 20MB/s at times, but couldnt sustain it. pretty damn snazzy.
Kinamax TS-9900|150Mb|150Mb|3.6MB/s |50KB/s |Yeah something went weird on the reads with this one 



Spoiler: bad test program, kept so i dont feel like i wasted my time



*Performance test program (unreliable?)*


 Wifi Adaptor | advertised Upload speed | advertised Download Speed|Real Up|Real Download speed | Thoughts
Built In Wifi|150Mb|150Mb|950KB/s-1MB/s |4.6MB/s (spikes of 6-10MB/s ???)| some file transfers go rather fast. compression?
Vonets VAP11g|54Mb|54Mb|???MB/s |??MB/s| test wouldnt run 
Alfa long range wifi G|54Mb|54Mb|2MB/s |1.45MB/s| not bad considering it can do 1-2Km range
KinaMax N300|150Mb|300Mb| 5.1MB/s |3.7MB/s avg (1.8-4.2MB/s)|The upload and download are almost backwards
Edup 150 nano|150Mb|150Mb|5.3MB/s |5.3MB/s| average range, but very reliable speeds.
Tenda W322U|300Mb|300Mb|5.5MB/s |6.5MB/s|
TP-Link TL-WN822N|300Mb|300Mb|2.13MB/s |1.04MB/s| (windows file transfer 11MB/s download 2.1 up. incompatible with test??)
TP-Link 'N600' 2.4GHz|300Mb|300Mb|7.2MB/s |7.5MB/s| speed ramped up over time, longer tests may go faster?
TP-Link 'N600' 5GHz|300Mb|300Mb|6.4MB/s |8.0MB/s|










In summary: this router kicks ass, and 5GHz wifi is awesome. both TP link adaptors i've got keep up with everything else i've tested, despite the lack of external aerials. TP link seem to have made some decent adaptors using just internal aerials, and the throughput with this N600 pairing on 5Ghz is just fantastic.

The pen also has a smooth rubbery feel to it, which provides excellent grip for my big meaty hands.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

Those are all poor.

300 Mb/s = 37.5 MB/s
150 Mb/s = 18.75 MB/s
54 Mb/s = 6.75 MB/s

WiFi, especially 802.11n and 802.11ac should not be "unreliable."  In fact, I've found them as reliable as wired.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

wifi speeds are half the theoretical. so its 300Mb/s both directions at the same time, so halve the speeds you showed for theoretical max.


last house i lived at i could see almost 40 wifi networks from my bedroom window. wifi can be VERY unreliable in such situations. if/when i get more time i'll use longer tests based on windows file transfers and see if the results differ, the TP link 300Mb has given some weird results with this test.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

Hmmm. as an example, that benchmark on 5GHz maxed out at 8.0MB/s but windows fileshare managed 15.3MB/s.


the tests ARE consistent, but the speeds are not what they should be. it has UDP and TCP modes, maybe i should test UDP.


edit: UDP is no good, ramped to 118MB/s (max of the gigabit on the other end) and jammed the network adaptor XD

edit 2: program "lan speed test lite" seems to do what i want. point it at a shared network file, and it tests that file.


----------



## Jetster (Aug 2, 2013)

The fastest Wifi I have had was on 802.11N 300Mbps actual speed was 17MB/s  The AC nics I have tested cant even do that but I have more on the ways to test.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 2, 2013)

(2.4Ghz mode) (non optimized with 2 other ch 11 networks 40Mhz chan width mode non_coexist n300) on the Amped Wireless ACA1 adapter sample_1 
Distance 35 ft and two walls

Also I really wasn't pushing it that hard either just a quick 1GB test in LST


----------



## slyfox2151 (Aug 2, 2013)

my wireless N only ever connects at 150Mbps... 3 different routers and several different wifi adaptors. 


6.6MB/s is the fastest I have seen over wifi, but my wired network maxes out gigabit  110-115MB/s


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 2, 2013)

What channel width do you have it set to 20 or 40Mhz??? change to 40


----------



## slyfox2151 (Aug 2, 2013)

remixedcat said:


> What channel width do you have it set to 20 or 40Mhz??? change to 40



Not sure who your talking to but mines on 40.


----------



## Frick (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Those are all poor.
> 
> 300 Mb/s = 37.5 MB/s
> 150 Mb/s = 18.75 MB/s
> ...



I wouldn't say poor as such. And as said, there are a lot of factors to account for in all forms of wireless communication.

TP-Link FTW anyway. I've seen some heat issues with them, but otherwise they really are good value.


----------



## puma99dk| (Aug 2, 2013)

i don't see any Intel Wifi here?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

I sent 750 MiB file from my desktop to my laptop (Intel 802.11n) and it was averaging about 5 MB/s with a connection speed of 130 Mb/s.  Yup, pathetic.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I sent 750 MiB file from my desktop to my laptop (Intel 802.11n) and it was averaging about 5 MB/s with a connection speed of 130 Mb/s.  Yup, pathetic.



thats bang on par with 'good' 150Mb wifi N. like i said, they rate it with the stupid full duplex system, so you gotta halve it.  60 odd Mb comes out to about 5MB/s, which means you're getting what you should.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

It should be closer to 8.125 MB/s (7-8 if you less overhead).  The same file transferred over gigabit would go >60 MB/s (limited by HDDs, not network bandwidth).


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It should be closer to 8.125 MB/s (7-8 if you less overhead).  The same file transferred over gigabit would go >60 MB/s (limited by HDDs, not network bandwidth).



yes but i doubt you only have one wifi device. my 2.4GHz tests were done with at least 5 devices connected to the router, just idling.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 2, 2013)

Mine had 3 other devices. One was syncing dropbox stuff and the other was idle and the other one was downloading a buncha emails. 

and on 5Ghz the streaming device was streaming aristocats... LOL.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 2, 2013)

no edimax devices?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

FreedomEclipse said:


> no edimax devices?



i tested what i had in my spare parts, if you want to send me more to test, feel free.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

Mussels said:


> yes but i doubt you only have one wifi device. my 2.4GHz tests were done with at least 5 devices connected to the router, just idling.


Everything that had WiFi besides the laptop was either off (Wii) or out of network range (smartphones).  There's also only one other 2.4 GHz network in the area and it is usually poor or no reception.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Everything that had WiFi besides the laptop was either off (Wii) or out of network range (smartphones).  There's also only one other 2.4 GHz network in the area and it is usually poor or no reception.



bluetooth on mobile phones, mice and keyboards, BT receivers in phones/PCs, game consoles, game controllers, cordless phones, microwaves, etc) can all cause interference on 2.4GHz.


2.4 is bad 

5GHz is where its at for now, although i wish we had a longer range, lower frequency option as well


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 2, 2013)

My phone can detect 8 networks by my house and the ACA1 can detect like 15 2.4Ghz networks.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

Mussels said:


> bluetooth on mobile phones, mice and keyboards, BT receivers in phones/PCs, game consoles, game controllers, cordless phones, microwaves, etc) can all cause interference on 2.4GHz.
> 
> 
> 2.4 is bad
> ...


The mouse (Logitech Performance MX) for the laptop is the only one of those that would apply.  Everything else was off.  The cordless phones are 5.8 GHz.

5 GHz doesn't travel through walls as easily as 2.4 GHz.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 2, 2013)

How many wireless devices in total do you got ford?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

The only things running at the time of the test were:
-Xbox 360 Controller Receiver for Windows
-Dish Network remote control receiver
-Wii remote control receiver
-Revolution MX receiver
-Performance MX mouse and receiver
-5.8 GHz (two handsets + base) phones

Router is a D-Link DGL-4500.  Laptop is Intel 4965AGN.


----------



## GuavaSauce (Aug 2, 2013)

sweet stuff! I love home grown testing, seems to often in review sites opinions are skewered to not offend.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 2, 2013)

Are you using open wifi or protected?  I've been told that enabling WPA, etc can reduce bandwidth as well.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

t_ski said:


> Are you using open wifi or protected?  I've been told that enabling WPA, etc can reduce bandwidth as well.



WPA2-PSK.

thats true, but only on really old/low end hardware. it takes more processing power on the router, modern N stuff that wont matter at all.

 not worth the risk with stuff like sidejacking (another user on an open network can literally intercept cookies and login passwords straight off the wifi, no need for any actual attack to steal your details)


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 2, 2013)

WEP is really bad. Best to use WPA2


----------



## Mussels (Aug 2, 2013)

remixedcat said:


> WEP is really bad. Best to use WPA2



i can crack WEP in < 5 minutes. you cant use it on wifi N anyway, so most modern routers wont give you the option.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2013)

t_ski said:


> Are you using open wifi or protected?  I've been told that enabling WPA, etc can reduce bandwidth as well.


Forgot about that.  Using WPA2-PSK with AES here.  That's got to hurt quite a bit.  I refuse to use anything less.  Too much sensitive data sitting on the server.  The more barriers to access, the better.




Mussels said:


> i can crack WEP in < 5 minutes. you cant use it on wifi N anyway, so most modern routers wont give you the option.


Most telecoms around here only use WEP.  It makes me sad.


----------



## Frick (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Forgot about that.  Using WPA2-PSK with AES here.  That's got to hurt quite a bit.  I refuse to use anything less.  Too much sensitive data sitting on the server.  The more barriers to access, the better.
> 
> 
> Most telecoms around here only use WEP.  It makes me sad.



<comment about how inferiour the US is>

As Mussles said, on modern hardware it shouldn't matter much. You could do a test though.


----------



## CounterZeus (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Those are all poor.
> 
> 300 Mb/s = 37.5 MB/s
> 150 Mb/s = 18.75 MB/s
> ...



standard wireless protocols have large overhead, with a lot of extra fields (for example synchronisation is a big one) and error correction (expressed as the coding rate). Users have a max of about 32Mbps if the wireless is 54Mbps.


----------



## t_ski (Aug 2, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Forgot about that.  Using WPA2-PSK with AES here.  That's got to hurt quite a bit.  I refuse to use anything less.  Too much sensitive data sitting on the server.  The more barriers to access, the better.



Just adding the info in because it does account for some of the loss due to overhead.


----------

