Performance Testing

This section will continue to evolve and change depending on how it is received and whether I manage to get our hands on some useful tools that will better measure the performance of routers and other Wi-Fi systems in general. As it stands today, a combination of the excellent, freely available iPerf3 on my Win 10 desktop PC and laptop and iPerf3 Android app were used to measure throughput for the Gryphon AX router, with a ruler or tape measuring the distance from it and a Wi-Fi analyzer using my phone's or laptop's Wi-Fi antenna and connection to measure signal attenuation as I moved from right on top of the router to further and further away inside my residence. Please note that signal attenuation depends heavily on a number of factors apart from just distance, including any physical barriers and other devices operating in the bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, etc). With a common test location, the variable being tested is the router and Wi-Fi itself, and it would as such be valid to compare results to other products tested thus.


Given I only had the 1-pack SKU here, there was no reason to contemplate testing a single vs. multi-pack as with some other mesh WiFi systems. We know from page 3 that Gryphon is likely using a Qualcomm-based setup, and what appears to be a pretty good one at that. The plot above shows how the antennas in the router cope with clients connected at various distances. The client was positioned at specific distances in a 3D space, with the shortest distance measurement taken between the two. Given the nature of the supported bands, this test was conducted for wireless N at 2.4 GHz and wireless AX (WiFi 6) at 5 GHz, with previous testing showing the signal attenuation for wireless AC and AX on 5 GHz being within error margins on the same radios. Later on, you will still see wireless AC being tested and compared to WiFi 6, with nearly exactly the same data points for signal strength in each case.

We can see that signal loss is heavier for the 5 GHz network relative to the 2.4 GHz network, which is as expected. That said, I need to point out that this single unit is doing quite remarkably on the 2.4 GHz band. This is in line with Gryphon rating the throughput on 2.4 GHz higher than many other routers and WiFi systems, including those with a higher total throughput. What this directly means is that you will more likely get wide coverage from this single unit, with Gryphon rating a 1-pack to be enough for 3000 sq. ft. of uninterrupted coverage, and two for 6000. In practice, this is great news for those with lots of IOT devices as the range of the 2.4 GHz wireless N WiFi network here will be quite good for those.


By removing the actual internet speed variable from the equation, a TCP throughput test done at these same spots from the router paints a more useful story, while also helping with a comparison of those numbers across test residences by having the X-axis as the signal's attenuation instead of distance from the router. This is where WiFi 6 really shines with a higher maximum throughput on the same frequency. In fact, WiFi 6 on 2.4 GHz will also perform better than wireless N at 2.4 GHz, but no one is going to use this on 2.4 GHz unless really suffering from poor signal strength. The Gryphon AX is rated for a theoretical maximum of 591 Mbps on 2.4 GHz band; 1,237 + 2,475 Mbps on the 5 GHz bands. All this combined gives us the 4300 Mbps total throughput promised, but of course in reality things are not as effective with WiFi 6 (wireless ax) on 5 GHz being the most impressive at a recorded maximum throughput of 1841 Mbps right on top of the router. Both wireless AC and N throughput is of course lower, generally dipping down with a decrease in signal strength as expected. That said, the 2.4 GHz band of course continues to showcase its strength relative to the others with a near-constant throughput all the way. This did make me curious how the 2-pack would work in practice, especially given this single unit is performing so well already in some cases.


Here is where all the data above come together for some comparisons, where I chose a distance of 5 m from the router and charted the throughput from various routers on wireless N at 2.4 GHz, and wireless AC and AX where applicable on the 5 GHz band. As such, note the three WiFi 6 products showing up twice in the second chart, and this is where the Gryphon AX shines again on wireless N as it even managed to best a two-pack mesh system, and easily bested the Gryphon Tower. In fact, it does seem to be a case of the Gryphon AX being steadily less impressive the higher up the chain you go, and it's bested by the other two mesh systems on WiFi 6 after all. Not bad, especially for a single unit. In the future, I will separate the wireless AX comparisons into a third chart, as and when more entries come in.


The power-draw comparison chart identifies whether specific routers are vastly different from others, which turns out to be the case here. A Brand Electronics 4-1850 power meter was put between the power adapter for the router unit and, subsequently, any satellite units and wall socket as applicable. Simple Kill-A-Watt units are good for basic checks, but not reliable enough for tests in my opinion. Each product was set up for a minimum of 24 hours of use across multiple days, and power consumption was averaged across a period of idle (inactivity at night) and normal operation (during the day). Note that the Nighthawk MR2100 has different battery modes, including a battery-only operation, which does throw things off somewhat.

The wireless performance may be exceptional, but so is the low power draw! Now, I will point out that the two mesh systems have their total power across included units added up here, but what interested me the most was that the Gryphon AX is clearly more efficient than the Gryphon Tower. This also explains the lower wattage power adapter compared to the previous Gryphon flagship, so the use of a newer Qualcomm/ARM SoC is again proving dividends.