[Burncycle]

Ok, I know this is probably a dumb question, but hear me out...

802.11G routers were capable of 54 mb/s wireless, whereas the newer 802.11N routers are capable of matching standard ethernet (100 mb/s) wirelessly assuming the receiver is also to the N standard.

You can, of course, transfer data faster within your own LAN with MIMO and using dual band, but even your basic 100 mb/s is well above what our ISP is providing 99% of us. My incoming connection is 12 mb/s down and 1.5 mb/s up for example. So it seems to me that even a $40 wireless N router won't be my bottleneck when it comes to surfing the web or streaming movies.

As I understand it, the faster routers (using MIMO and Dual Band, as well as gigabit ethernet) are indeed faster -- at transferring files within your own LAN from one computer to another. Not something most home users really do on a regular basis (if at all). It doesn't matter if my router is capable of 100 mb/s or 1,000 mb/s, I'm not going to be downloading ANYTHING faster than 12 mb/s from outside the network (ie, the internet) as that is the connection I have with my ISP, right?

It's been a long time since I've messed with networking, but am I missing something here? If I don't own a small business and am not experiencing interference on the 2.4 GHz band, is there any reason I need the $100+ router or will the $40 router work just as good (assuming both are quality brands and meet the wireless N standard) for most typical at home users?

[Toyman]

Originally Posted by Burncycle

It doesn't matter if my router is capable of 100 mb/s or 1,000 mb/s, I'm not going to be downloading ANYTHING faster than 12 mb/s from outside the network (ie, the internet) as that is the connection I have with my ISP, right?

Correct.

Originally Posted by Burncycle

It's been a long time since I've messed with networking, but am I missing something here? If I don't own a small business and am not experiencing interference on the 2.4 GHz band, is there any reason I need the $100+ router or will the $40 router work just as good (assuming both are quality brands and meet the wireless N standard) for most typical at home users?

No reason if you're not going to transfer any large amount of data, such as backups.

[sbhaven]

A basic wireless N router should not be a bottle neck for basic surfing and streaming, but once you settle on a router, check into the reviews of it. I bought a Belkin F7D7301 Wireless N router for $22 a few months ago. It got horrible reviews with the stock Belkin firmware. Changing the firmware to TomatoUSB turned this into a pretty good basic wireless N router with two USB ports (for attaching USB printers and hard drives too for network access) and four (five if you count the WAN port) switched Gigabit ports.

[John Rambo]

Originally Posted by Burncycle

Ok, I know this is probably a dumb question, but hear me out...

802.11G routers were capable of 54 mb/s wireless, whereas the newer 802.11N routers are capable of matching standard ethernet (100 mb/s) wirelessly assuming the receiver is also to the N standard.

You can, of course, transfer data faster within your own LAN with MIMO and using dual band, but even your basic 100 mb/s is well above what our ISP is providing 99% of us. My incoming connection is 12 mb/s down and 1.5 mb/s up for example. So it seems to me that even a $40 wireless N router won't be my bottleneck when it comes to surfing the web or streaming movies.

As I understand it, the faster routers (using MIMO and Dual Band, as well as gigabit ethernet) are indeed faster -- at transferring files within your own LAN from one computer to another. Not something most home users really do on a regular basis (if at all). It doesn't matter if my router is capable of 100 mb/s or 1,000 mb/s, I'm not going to be downloading ANYTHING faster than 12 mb/s from outside the network (ie, the internet) as that is the connection I have with my ISP, right?

It's been a long time since I've messed with networking, but am I missing something here? If I don't own a small business and am not experiencing interference on the 2.4 GHz band, is there any reason I need the $100+ router or will the $40 router work just as good (assuming both are quality brands and meet the wireless N standard) for most typical at home users?

As long as it does G you're fine. N was nothing but a draft up until semi-recently. G is still the workhorse and isn't going anywhere anytime soon - if you don't need the extra speed in your LAN then theres no reason for it - my router is only a G; then again, my wireless is turned off. I DO have a small Cisco Gigabit switch that everything on my LAN runs through before it hits the router, though.

[TBO]

keep in mind that if you broadcast dual band (both g and n) that can slow down your bandwith on some routers. If you have a dual band router, pick one band to operate.
Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

[Linux3]

The thing with any wifi router is that speed drops off real fast with distance.

I have my home router at one end of my house and I like to sit on the couch with my laptop.

The laptop has a N wireless controller and I replaced my G router with an N just to get speed AND range.

A few years ago I took some college classes on networking. I am a network engineer but I old. I thought I would gain something from fresh classes and I did.

However I did my Technology Report on router drop off and it's way worse than I expected.

One floor and 3 walls and 20 feet and G was less than 11 mbs.

So, think range and drop off when purchasing a router.

[Burncycle]

Thanks for the comments guys, wanted to make sure I'm understanding correctly

[gemeinschaft]

Originally Posted by Linux3

The thing with any wifi router is that speed drops off real fast with distance.

I have my home router at one end of my house and I like to sit on the couch with my laptop.

The laptop has a N wireless controller and I replaced my G router with an N just to get speed AND range.

A few years ago I took some college classes on networking. I am a network engineer but I old. I thought I would gain something from fresh classes and I did.

However I did my Technology Report on router drop off and it's way worse than I expected.

One floor and 3 walls and 20 feet and G was less than 11 mbs.

So, think range and drop off when purchasing a router.

+1

I do plenty of backups and streaming locally from a server in my house, so a Gigabit LAN makes more sense.

I ended up running Cable to my bedrooms, living room and family room so that I could utilize the speed of a gigabit copper connection, but the wireless speeds are decent with N.

[fwm]

Originally Posted by TBO

keep in mind that if you broadcast dual band (both g and n) that can slow down your bandwith on some routers. If you have a dual band router, pick one band to operate.
Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

I run 3 routers. A B for my very old systems, G for my mid systems and N for my newer systems.

I try to keep my file transfers between two different systems. Transferring from an N to an N slows the process to 50M anyway. (Each systems gets half the bandwidth)

[tcruse]

Sort of, the actual speed obtained is not the max possible listed on the box. There's the issue of noise, both man made and note. Also, the better N routers will operate at 2.5g and the 5grange. So, if you use the 5g band you are way for cordless phones, microwave ovens, and other home wireless devices for the most part. Also the 5g band has many more channels that do not overlap like the 2.5 g channels. So, if you live in a small house with few neighbors that use wireless and do not transfer large files over the wireless link and have only a couple of devices, the $20 N access point/router like Linksys will be ok. Otherwise you may find that a good high quality router (enterprise quality, like Cisco or Ruckus) will be worth the higher cost.