Performance Testing

This section will continue to evolve and change depending on how the reception is to the category, and also whether we manage to get our hands on some useful tools that will help 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, my laptop, and even an iPerf3 Android app helped measure throughput for the AmpliFi HD mesh router, with a ruler measuring the distance from it and a Wi-Fi analyzer using my Essential PH-1 phone Wi-Fi antenna and connection to measure signal attenuation as I moved from right on top of the router (and also the Teleport) 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 barriers in between and other devices operating in the bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, etc). With a common test location, the variable under test is the router itself, and it would thus be valid to compare results as and when other products are tested.


The chart above shows how the antenna in the AmpliFi HD mesh router copes with connected clients at various distances from it. The tri-polarized antenna is rated to cope better in the vertical, horizontal, and even slanted (45° along the various axes) position, and the client was measured at varying points in the 3D space with a shortest distance measurement taken between the two. Given the nature of the bands supported, the test here was conducted for Wireless N at 2.4 GHz and Wireless AC at 5 GHz to best replicate end-user applications, as in my own case, and we can see that the signal loss is heavier for the 5 GHz network relative to the 2.4 GHz network, which is as expected. There is a steep decrease in signal strength in both cases as you move even slightly away from the router (-20/-30 dB at 3 meters away on the 2.4/5 GHz band respectively), and I added in a data point with a drywall (typical in most US residences today) in between as well. If your residence has walls out of brick or wood, for example, the signal loss will likely be higher.


By removing the actual Internet speed connection out of the equation, a TCP throughput test done at these same spots away 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 away from the router. The AmpliFi HD mesh router is rated for a maximum of 1300 Mbps on Wireless AC and 450 Mbps on Wireless N, but those are ideal numbers that are unlikely to be seen in practice. The slowest of the server (the router in this case) and client will dictate the overall speed of traffic as well, and here, the maximum throughput (downlink) was 211 and 744 Mbps respectively for wireless N at 2.4 GHz and wireless AC at 5 GHz. They remained close to the maximum for about a signal attenuation of -5 to -8 dB, following which a near-exponential drop started to happen, dropping to as low as 32/122 Mbps respectively. Uplink speeds are merely offset by 5-8 dB more attenuation, so they are not reported separately here.


As of when this product was tested, I only had another router for comparison, which was my own, older D-Link DIR-880L. In order to best compare them across the possible variables, the decision was made to chart throughput at a set distance, 5 meters in this case. With three beam-forming antennas that can be directed to point towards the clients, the larger DIR-880L outperformed the AmpliFi HD mesh router, but not by much. This is where the current specification used in this single router is a limitation, and the further away you are from the router, the more useful the AmpliFi mesh Wi-Fi systems with an added mesh access become.


The power-draw comparison chart is merely to see if specific routers are vastly different from others. A Brand Electronics 4-1850 power meter was used in between the power adapter for the router and the 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. Night mode in the AmpliFi HD mesh router turns off the screen and lighting, which has the older, less efficient D-Link router consume more power here. In normal operation, both routers are pretty much identical, and note that both are rated to the same max power draw of 11 W as well.


The AmpliFi Teleport was tested in two separate locations away from my residence - first at a hotel in Las Vegas during CES and then at work. The former is a lot further away and a real-use case for the unit, so this is where I measured signal attenuation as a function of distance away from the Teleport inside my hotel room. I was within line of sight most of the time here, and the room was also limiting in how far I could move away, but, again, this is going to be used as such. The dual band antennas in the Teleport do a decent job given the size of the product; however, we can still see a higher drop here compared to the larger HD mesh router. Note also that there is no wireless AC support here, although you can use the 802.11n network on either of the 2.4 or 5 GHz bands.


The AmpliFi Teleport is a hardware VPN solution, first and foremost, so it is limited to the upload speed of the paired home network at most. This is where Comcast with their Xfinity ISP connection bit me hard, as despite the over 250 Mbps of consistent download speed I get at home (left image above, least ping), the upload speed is less than an order of magnitude lower. So, be it in Las Vegas (center, higher ping) or at work (right image, lower ping), the highest speed was a lot lower in all cases. You are also limited by the guest network that is being used to piggyback-off as well, although in some cases I did notice a higher prioritization of traffic and Internet speed with the Teleport network compared to without when both were similar for download speeds.

Despite this, it is not at all an issue of the product, but do realize that all hardware VPN solutions will face the same bottlenecks, if applicable. Software VPNs are another option of course, but here, you either pay a monthly fee for privacy and perhaps applicable traffic speed or your data is the price itself. AmpliFi confirmed that they are using WPA2-AES (Wi-Fi Protected Access II Advanced Encryption Standard) as well as WPA2-TKIP (Wi-Fi Protected Access II Temporal Key Integrity Protocol) here, and you can choose either when connecting to the Teleport or even the HD mesh router networks via PSK (Pre-shared key). They were also quick to guarantee adoption of newer, established encryption standards as and when they come in. What this should mean to you is that you should have no qualms about using the Teleport to access sensitive content from work when traveling once set up. I had no problems accessing files from work or even here at TechPowerUp to wrap up pending reviews while away.