Typo on Intel there first word.

Definitely looking forward to this, 6E (for me) was a letdown.
It can handle a lot of bandwidth but the speeds are just meh.

They did this before with Wi-Fi 5. Yeah... that didn't work out so well.

The max PC datarate is pure BS. It's only because all the WiFi modules have been gimped to 2x2 on the radio side, whereas we used to have 3x3 or even 4x4 in some rare cases.
Also, 4096 QAM is likely to be line of sight only.
The 320 MHz channel width might be doable outside the WiFi 6E countries finally, but it might be of questionable use.
For those interested in where you can use the wider channels on the 6 GHz band. So far Europe has one useable 320 MHz channel.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#6_GHz_(802.11ax_and_802.11be)

Hummm.... would be nice if the "be" in the 802.11 part can stand for "beyond expectations", hehehe :D

Hasn't WIFI 6 had problems on a lot of boards? lets hope they figured out the problem for this new version.

TheLostSwedeThe max PC datarate is pure BS.

That table is full of BS, despite noting 6E they do not list 6GHz under it.

Double-ClickTypo on Intel there first word.

Definitely looking forward to this, 6E (for me) was a letdown.
It can handle a lot of bandwidth but the speeds are just meh.

Have to say I felt a little dissapointed by 6E, but not by its speed (really, it is just as fast as 6 on my smartphone when close to the router) but its range/penetrativity. There's only a single wall between my router and my desktop and the signal drops way too hard.

wNotyarDHave to say I felt a little dissapointed by 6E, but not by its speed (really, it is just as fast as 6 on my smartphone when close to the router) but its range/penetrativity. There's only a single wall between my router and my desktop and the signal drops way too hard.

WiFi 7 won't fix that, at least not in the 6 GHz band. The higher the frequency, the worse it gets at penetrating walls.
Also, it doesn't help that a lof of the bands are low power or ultra low power now, since with less transmit power, the signal reach just gets shorter and shorter.

TheLostSwedeThe higher the frequency, the worse it gets at penetrating walls.

Is that because of the shorter wavelength?

TheLostSwedeWiFi 7 won't fix that, at least not in the 6 GHz band. The higher the frequency, the worse it gets at penetrating walls.
Also, it doesn't help that a lof of the bands are low power or ultra low power now, since with less transmit power, the signal reach just gets shorter and shorter.

Yeah, I actually had to put a node on the upper floor of my house because of that - didn't need one before 6E.
It's really just for devices w/ weaker antennas, but I did notice the signal was a bit less generally speaking before installing it.

FoulOnWhiteIs that because of the shorter wavelength?

Yup... 5Ghz has very low wall penetration, mainly bounces, but the tech was designed to combine los, and multiple bounces.
6Ghz definitely mainly bounces, leave a door open and it will get into more rooms due to bouncing... and if we switch to mmWave 5g 60Ghz.... cant go through a single sheet of paper.

Consequently, these modern standards have been able to be used as a form of radar...

It might take a while for FreeBSD drivers for this to show up...

unwind-protectIt might take a while for FreeBSD drivers for this to show up...

Intel actually posts commits to open source linux-land often before a product even releases, so I would not expect it to take forever. Despite the stereotype Intel is very opensource friendly.

R-T-BIntel actually posts commits to open source linux-land often before a product even releases, so I would not expect it to take forever. Despite the stereotype Intel is very opensource friendly.

Yeah, FreeBSD actually uses them. Problem is that a shim for those drivers is needed and right now it is "a bit" behind.

40 Gbps my ass.
With each generation of Wifi, the amount of lying grows exponentially.
I expect between 1-1.5 Gbps actual speed, with both devices almost touching each other and no other noise in that freq band.
If you move a few steps away, I expect 600-800 Bbps, and in 6Ghz band if you move to the next room I expect no signal at all. Or if there are any big objects in the way.

Maybe lower frequency/higher power is the way to go for home use

FoulOnWhiteMaybe lower frequency/higher power is the way to go for home use

for most home users wifi 4 is enough on UE end, possible a bit low on the AP end. Wifi5 is more than enough for 90+% of home users

Double-ClickYeah, I actually had to put a node on the upper floor of my house because of that - didn't need one before 6E.
It's really just for devices w/ weaker antennas, but I did notice the signal was a bit less generally speaking before installing it.

I have one on each floor in our house in Taiwan, as having concrete and metal floors means the signal on the 5 GHz can't make it a single floor up.
It's actually not a huge place, only a couple of rooms on each floor, so it got expensive to have full WiFi coverage.

Wye40 Gbps my ass.
With each generation of Wifi, the amount of lying grows exponentially.
I expect between 1-1.5 Gbps actual speed, with both devices almost touching each other and no other noise in that freq band.
If you move a few steps away, I expect 600-800 Bbps, and in 6Ghz band if you move to the next room I expect no signal at all. Or if there are any big objects in the way.

You tend to get around half of the claimed speed of WiFi, but in this case, they're taking about carrier grade equipment in an 8x8 or 16x16 type configuration, so not something anyone will have at home.
WiFi 6 already gets you around 800 Mbps in the same room, mostly due to the receving end being limited to 2x2, which is now "being solved" by increased QAM and wider channels, neither of which work well at any distance.

FoulOnWhiteMaybe lower frequency/higher power is the way to go for home use

Lower frequency = lower speeds or it needs a larger chunk of the frequency band, which eats up a wider chunk of the available band at lower frequencies, so that's a no go.
Besides, most of the lower frequency bands are already in use by something else that matters more than WiFi.

big_glassesfor most home users wifi 4 is enough on UE end, possible a bit low on the AP end. Wifi5 is more than enough for 90+% of home users

Yeah, no, you're mixing up frequency bands and technology here.
802.11be/WiFi 7 is improving the 2.4 GHz band as well, not just the 5 and 6 GHz bands, so there are tangible benefits in all frequency bands, which is sort of the point of upgrading a router.
If it was all the same, just with added frequcy band, it would make no sense getting new hardware, but since the days of 802.11ac, a lot of things have been improved, especially if you use multiple wireless devices connected to a single WiFi AP/router.

TheLostSwede802.11be/WiFi 7 is improving the 2.4 GHz band as well, not just the 5 and 6 GHz bands, so there are tangible benefits in all frequency bands, which is sort of the point of upgrading a router.
If it was all the same, just with added frequcy band, it would make no sense getting new hardware, but since the days of 802.11ac, a lot of things have been improved, especially if you use multiple wireless devices connected to a single WiFi AP/router.

Upgrading from an AC to AXE router made a whole lot of difference to me even without using 6GHz per se, but that's also because even for my AC-only devices (TV, laptop and tablet) the router is way stronger than what I had. For those that can use AXE I use AX, though (desktop and smartphone), and it smokes what I could do previously. As I guess Wi-Fi 7 will not get here earlier than 5 years in the slightest, I do think my current 6E router will pay itself easily in the long run.

TheLostSwedeYeah, no, you're mixing up frequency bands and technology here.

nope, not at all.
I'm straight up referring to intels own picture posted above, referring to the dl speed per technology. wifi4 for end UE and wifi5 in regards to AP tput.
What wifi4 provides is enough for the home users on UE end, and on AP end wifi5 is enough. With wifi5 more than enough for normal home users.

MLO, MRU and increased QAM (which absolutely isn't useable for most home users) brings extremely little benefit for the home user.
WPA6 in wifi6 does through security.

What tangible benefit does this provide the normal home user? do provide one example

big_glassesnope, not at all.
I'm straight up referring to intels own picture posted above, referring to the dl speed per technology. wifi4 for end UE and wifi5 in regards to AP tput.
What wifi4 provides is enough for the home users on UE end, and on AP end wifi5 is enough. With wifi5 more than enough for normal home users.

MLO, MRU and increased QAM (which absolutely isn't useable for most home users) brings extremely little benefit for the home user.
WPA6 in wifi6 does through security.

What tangible benefit does this provide the normal home user? do provide one example

So the fact that WiFi has gone from 11 Mbps to over 500 Mbps on the 2.4 GHz band (on the latest WiFi 7 routers using a 2x2 client) has no tangible benefit to anyone?
Even on 802.11n you'd be lucky to get a router that could deliver 300 Mbps, while most handheld devices could only receive at 72 Mbps or less, due to having 1x1 radios with a lot of limiations. I would say there have been huge benefits to consumers moving away from 802.11n, especially as airtime fairness works a lot better these days as well.
As for 802.11ac, we've gotten vastly improved handling of multiple devices once again, whereas the first generation of 802.11ac routers had sup-par processors that couldn't handle more than a couple of devices. Considering most consumers rely 100% on WiFi in their homes, I'd say the improvements to router SoCs have made the 5 GHz band useful, unlike what it was in the early days. MU-MIMO, but maybe more imporantly beamforming has made WiFi signals more reliable, at least if you have a good enough router and enough client devices.

I recently had to upgrade my old Netgear R7800 which had been a solid router for many years and as such went from 802.11ac Gen 2 to 802.11ax and I could see an improvement both in range and signal quality, as well as speeds, but you don't care about that so... but most people do, at least if they have eithe a fast enough internet connection or shuffle things around their network, to say a NAS for backup.

I suggest you have a read over here, even though he doesn't add much content any more, there are some good technical articles that explains the improvements that have been done to WiFi over time.
www.smallnetbuilder.com/

TheLostSwedeSo the fact that WiFi has gone from 11 Mbps to over 500 Mbps on the 2.4 GHz band (on the latest WiFi 7 routers using a 2x2 client) has no tangible benefit to anyone?
Even on 802.11n you'd be lucky to get a router that could deliver 300 Mbps, while most handheld devices could only receive at 72 Mbps or less, due to having 1x1 radios with a lot of limiations. I would say there have been huge benefits to consumers moving away from 802.11n, especially as airtime fairness works a lot better these days as well.
As for 802.11ac, we've gotten vastly improved handling of multiple devices once again, whereas the first generation of 802.11ac routers had sup-par processors that couldn't handle more than a couple of devices. Considering most consumers rely 100% on WiFi in their homes, I'd say the improvements to router SoCs have made the 5 GHz band useful, unlike what it was in the early days. MU-MIMO, but maybe more imporantly beamforming has made WiFi signals more reliable, at least if you have a good enough router and enough client devices.

I recently had to upgrade my old Netgear R7800 which had been a solid router for many years and as such went from 802.11ac Gen 2 to 802.11ax and I could see an improvement both in range and signal quality, as well as speeds, but you don't care about that so... but most people do, at least if they have eithe a fast enough internet connection or shuffle things around their network, to say a NAS for backup.

I suggest you have a read over here, even though he doesn't add much content any more, there are some good technical articles that explains the improvements that have been done to WiFi over time.
www.smallnetbuilder.com/

Im going to cry, finally a wireless thread where someone understands it.


Wireless is so much more complex than anyone gives it credit for. From ptp cones (los isnt enough) to wifi being half duplex and understanding why. Its understandable that most consumers just go "buy new router" but there is so much more to understanding what is actually happening.

Wireless architecting is an entire specialization of networking and for good reason.

Solaris17Wireless architecting is an entire specialization of networking and for good reason.

Turns out you actually need to understand how to setup a proper office WiFi network. All these new features really do help there, less congestion, better latency and speeds closer to Ethernet.
We had a really nice jump when we moved from N to AC access points, it was less about speed and more about the improved connection quality due to MIMO tech advances.

TheLostSwedeSo the fact that WiFi has gone from 11 Mbps to over 500 Mbps on the 2.4 GHz band (on the latest WiFi 7 routers using a 2x2 client) has no tangible benefit to anyone?

I've said "most" and "normal home user" (my fattening in the qoute). I believe or tried to be very explicit about most home users.

TheLostSwedeEven on 802.11n you'd be lucky to get a router that could deliver 300 Mbps, while most handheld devices could only receive at 72 Mbps or less, due to having 1x1 radios with a lot of limiations.

intel owns picture list 4x4 MIMO on as key advances.... is that one wrong?
That's why I mentioned wifi4 with possibly being a bit on the low end. With very specifically saying wifi5 is more than enough for most home users

big_glassesWith wifi5 more than enough for normal home users.

TheLostSwedeAs for 802.11ac, we've gotten vastly improved handling of multiple devices once again, whereas the first generation of 802.11ac routers had sup-par processors that couldn't handle more than a couple of devices. Considering most consumers rely 100% on WiFi in their homes, I'd say the improvements to router SoCs have made the 5 GHz band useful, unlike what it was in the early days. MU-MIMO, but maybe more imporantly beamforming has made WiFi signals more reliable, at least if you have a good enough router and enough client devices.

almost like I mentioned wifi5 (and mentioned wifi4 on UE end, you do know what that refers to?) .... you're also mentioning early/cheap processing issue, which is unrelated to the standard.... Router SoC is under the standards... that's new to me :)
"good enough" most uses whatever outdated shit that the ISP provides (yes it often is, maybe not on HW level yet, but don't trust it to be FW updated:) ) or they just buy whatever is recommended ether by ISP, tech store or consumer-tech sites (ie not enthusiast-sites)

literally non in the link is relevant. that is close to (or is) enthusiast level

TheLostSwedeI recently had to upgrade my old Netgear R7800 which had been a solid router for many years and as such went from 802.11ac Gen 2 to 802.11ax and I could see an improvement both in range and signal quality, as well as speeds, but you don't care about that so... but most people do, at least if they have eithe a fast enough internet connection or shuffle things around their network, to say a NAS for backup.

congrats on new gear. Thanks for putting word in my mouth (my fattening).
Most people don't "shuffle things around their network" or have a NAS. do you visit tech websites too much?
most people use their internet to watch streaming services, surf various website and gaming. non of which is particular heavy in the amount used by a normal household.
oh wow, my new fancy router can download my bank service or email an unnoticeable amount faster.

again, which of the Wifi7 gives tangible benefit for the average normal home user?
30G download speed... wow... 5G in UE dl speed.... big wow...
MLO and MRU (just a carrier for speed. and also WTF wifi is slow af on radio standards) (also means multiple radio AP's...)
higher QAM is also just a carrier for higher speed, and that high is weak af

Im not sure what intel puts under "Managed QoS", but flexible channel utilization and better channel sounding sounds good if you're in apartment complex.

etisoftware.com/resources/blog/report-average-u-s-internet-speed-is-42-86-mbps/
www.europeandatajournalism.eu/internet-speed-in-europe/#:~:text=Internet%20performance%20in%20Europe%20has%20improved%20dramatically%20between,by%2044%20percent%2C%20from%2032%20to%2046.2%20Mbps.
www.speedtest.net/global-index

wow, the Gbps speed in wifi7 sure sounds useful for the average normal home user.

big_glassesI've said "most" and "normal home user" (my fattening in the qoute). I believe or tried to be very explicit about most home users.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about as well.

big_glassesintel owns picture list 4x4 MIMO on as key advances.... is that one wrong?
That's why I mentioned wifi4 with possibly being a bit on the low end. With very specifically saying wifi5 is more than enough for most home users

4x4 = router/AP, please see the meaning of the two different blue colour on the provided diagram.

big_glassesalmost like I mentioned wifi5 (and mentioned wifi4 on UE end, you do know what that refers to?) .... you're also mentioning early/cheap processing issue, which is unrelated to the standard.... Router SoC is under the standards... that's new to me :)
"good enough" most uses whatever outdated shit that the ISP provides (yes it often is, maybe not on HW level yet, but don't trust it to be FW updated:) ) or they just buy whatever is recommended ether by ISP, tech store or consumer-tech sites (ie not enthusiast-sites)

How is the router SoC unrelated? If the SoC is lacking, the router is lacking, which equals poor performance. Do you even know how a router works?
Good enough is mostly because most people have no idea how their router/WiFi works, which seems to include you.
This is why people are shocked at how much better their "internet" got when they got a new router, without changing anything with regards to their internet connection.
Swapped out my parents router some years ago, as they had a POS old 802.11n router and did nothing else and they thought they'd gotten an "internet" upgrade.

big_glassesliterally non in the link is relevant. that is close to (or is) enthusiast level

Then you learnt nothing.

big_glassescongrats on new gear. Thanks for putting word in my mouth (my fattening).
Most people don't "shuffle things around their network" or have a NAS. do you visit tech websites too much?
most people use their internet to watch streaming services, surf various website and gaming. non of which is particular heavy in the amount used by a normal household.
oh wow, my new fancy router can download my bank service or email an unnoticeable amount faster.

If you don't care, then why are you here making an angry rant?
Do I visit tech websites too much? I write news here so you go figure...
I know loads of people that have a NAS at home for backup, so yes, people do actually do that.
A router wouldn't download shit, but a good router with stable signal would make the experience much better for sure.

big_glassesagain, which of the Wifi7 gives tangible benefit for the average normal home user?
30G download speed... wow... 5G in UE dl speed.... big wow...
MLO and MRU (just a carrier for speed. and also WTF wifi is slow af on radio standards) (also means multiple radio AP's...)
higher QAM is also just a carrier for higher speed, and that high is weak af

Im not sure what intel puts under "Managed QoS", but flexible channel utilization and better channel sounding sounds good if you're in apartment complex.

etisoftware.com/resources/blog/report-average-u-s-internet-speed-is-42-86-mbps/
www.europeandatajournalism.eu/internet-speed-in-europe/#:~:text=Internet%20performance%20in%20Europe%20has%20improved%20dramatically%20between,by%2044%20percent%2C%20from%2032%20to%2046.2%20Mbps.
www.speedtest.net/global-index

wow, the Gbps speed in wifi7 sure sounds useful for the average normal home user.

I'm sorry you live in a country with slow internet, but I can get Gigabit speed if I want to pay for it, as can most people in the Nordics and Asia, despite what you've provided as "proof".
The data from Speedtest is an average from everyone that has tested their connection and really doesn't mean much, except possibly that most people don't want to spend too much on their internet connection.

What's the point of your angry rant though? Why are you angry that there's a new WiFi standard that's faster, since no-one is forcing you to use it?
The whole point of modern routers is that they're much better at handling mulitple devices, something that simply wasn't possible with older routers, but I guess that doesn't matter to you either?

Have a look at the Speedtest thread here and you'll see that there are plenty people with a fast internet connection.
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/post-your-speedtest-net-speeds.101525/