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 the iPerf3 Android app were used to measure throughput for the Orbi RBK853 WiFi system, 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.


Anyone buying this three-pack Orbi RBK853 WiFi system is definitely going to use the router and satellites together, so I tested the Wi-Fi system as such. The plot above shows how the antennas in the system cope with clients connected at various distances. The client was positioned at varying 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 NETGEAR cites a different throughput distribution for the US version over the European one, with a 1200 Mbps (2.4 GHz), 2400 Mbps (5 GHz), and 2400 Mbps (backhaul) split in the US model replaced with 2400, 2400, and 1200 Mbps respectively here. So keep in mind that if this is not a typo, the backhaul channel on 5 GHz is not as strong in European models. This is also possibly why wireless N on 2.4 GHz was near-spectacular by comparison to other NETGEAR Orbi products I have used before. However, as soon as the signal automatically switched from the router to the satellite on the 5 GHz band, signal attenuation went on a relatively steep decline. Perhaps this is another reason the triple-pack SKU is a general retail option in Europe!


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 Orbi RBK853 not only is a mesh system to account for this, but also features 2x2 radios with a total throughout of 2400 Mbps per radio for two bands, and the standard 1200 Mbps for the third as seen above. All this combined with the backhaul channel ultimately results in a massive increase in throughput over the downlink, with the test results coming quite close to the 2400 Mbps mark at 2280 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. As such, I recommend placing the satellite units primarily with consideration for WiFi 6 products in mind, as you are paying to use it after all.


Here is where all the data above come together for some comparisons, whereby 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 two Orbi WiFi 6 systems showing up twice in the second chart, and this Orbi RBK853 outperforming everything else by a handy margin. The extra satellite no doubt helps, but the internal hardware and updated firmware also greatly improve throughput and the strength of the WiFi network around your home. 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, the satellite unit and wall socket. Simple Kill-A-Watt units are good for basic checks, but not reliable enough for tests in my opinion. Each router 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 also 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 power draw! Now, I will point out right away that each unit consumes about a third as much as the values reported above, which is still quite high compared to the other single/two-pack solutions. The Orbi RBK853 with its 2x2 radios and tri-band with a dedicated backhaul is clearly a power-hungry high-performance beast of a setup, but still slightly bested by the Orbi Pro SXK80 on a per-unit basis.