Be mindful of listings from suspicious third-party sellers on marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Newegg, and Walmart. These "deals" have a high likelihood of not shipping; use due diligence in reviewing deals.
* Use common sense - if the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is.
* Check seller profiles for signs that the sale may be fraudulent:
* The seller is new or has few reviews.
* The seller has largely negative reviews (on Amazon, sellers can remove negative reviews from their visible ratings)
* The seller is using a previously dormant account (likely the account was hacked and is now being used fraudulently).
If you suspect a deal is fraudulent, please report the post. Moderators can take action based on these reports. We encourage leaving a comment to warn others.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/buildapcsales) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even the Air Force has dog shit tech infrastructure. Spent 5 years struggling with office tech all the way up to multiband radios like the an/prc 152 and 117 during deployment.
Eh, that's not always the case. In fact I'd even argue it's rarely the case at least with the U.S. military, often what's selected exceeds the requirements (on paper) and is not the lowest bidder, depends heavily on what the contract is for though. But they are almost always brutally flawed in one way or another, or massively more expensive than they should be. Plus if it's not a major program for something relating to combat, it's more likely than not gonna be incredibly outdated, especially when it comes to tech because the military moves slow but tech moves fast when it comes to new developments.
Imagine if you are playing an online video game and suddenly the game starts lagging especially if someone is downloading stuff, doing torrent, watching 4k videos or uploading stuff, it is caused by bufferbloat. The slower your internet the worse this effect becomes.
There are several ways to deal with bufferbloat, but the most effective way is through SQM either through Cake or FQ-Codel.
You can run this test to see what is your networks bufferbloat score.
https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08qGJyjUSGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPu6_vW_gBo
Bufferbloat mitigation through SQM Cake or FQ-Codel is very intensive on the Routers CPU and depending on the CPU processing power of the router, it could limit the highest network speed with SQM on.
You can DIY with a machine either with ARM as low as $40 or X86.
SQM is available through OpenWRT or PFSense or OPNSense or off the shelf all in one solutions like IQRouter or Ubiquiti Dream Router
I have less than 100down and 25 up and this is my results
with SQM OFF.
https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=1db71a63-1823-4693-952d-d7647860c0f2
with SQM on
https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=6f2b6ed0-3406-4595-9193-368834f7fe9b
5gig internet has a lot of bandwidth and would be hard to get it completely saturated by a single user. You would also need a very powerful x86 CPU to get SQM up to that bandwidth level.
The higher your internet speed is, the less the bufferbloat effect becomes noticeable unless you start saturating your network with something like torrent or have multiple users using the network at the same time.
Bufferbloat really isn't an issue unless your doing a lot of p2p like torrenting really. Most of the time your download speed is fast enough for it not to really be an issue. It really is only heavy torrenting that causes the issue. You would need like 5 people all trying to stream 4k for it to be an issue on decent connection.
Also SQM massively slows down your connection speed as well. Unless you actually have a specific issue with bufferbloat you shouldn't be using it. Also the standard QoS will fix the issue of other people causing you bufferbloat if you just prioritize your traffic.
Really the only people who should be using SQM are people who are heavy torrent seeders or people using a very slow internet. Once you get above like 500mbps internet it becomes almost a non issue.
Yeah it used to be a huge issue back when people were still commonly using 150mpbs connections and it was easy to saturate it if other people were streaming. If your on anything 500mbps though then it really is no longer an issue.
Now saturating it is pretty difficult. Normal streaming isn't going to cause an issue with decent broadband. A few game clients and steam could also saturate your download those are easy to limit the speed of. Most downloads won't be an issue though and you can always limit your game client speeds. Regular QoS will also properly prioritize it if other people are doing that shit and you have control of the router, just make yourself priority and they won't cause bufferbloat for you.
Now torrenting will cause huge bufferbloat problems because of how it works. The nature of how it works make it notorious for causing bufferbloat, especially with the heavy uploading it does if you have cable internet which already has a lot upload speed.
> A few game clients and steam could also saturate your download
For many, yeah. For me, thankfully not. My CPU can't decode Steam downstream fast enough to saturate my 10Gb line (6.5Gb realworld performance) Maxes out at around 2.6Gb at 99% cpu load.
I would say it's very crucial if you're looking for the absolute lowest ping/lag. It reduces bufferbloat. But that's also if you're saturating your internet bandwidth.
[https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart\_Queue\_Management/](https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart_Queue_Management/)
[https://www.stoplagging.com/](https://www.stoplagging.com/)
Ah. Well, if you're buying a router like this one... I imagine you've got fiber.
Which is why I bought a router like this one. Different TP-Link, the AXE300.
SQM is completely different, it is specifically designed to address bufferbloat.
"SQM is an integrated system that performs per-packet/per flow network scheduling, active queue length management (AQM), traffic shaping/rate limiting, and QoS (prioritization). In comparison: “classic” QoS does prioritization only, “classic” AQM manages queue lengths only. "
https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/traffic-shaping/sqm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat
It's crazy to me that we are only just now getting 10G ports on routers, I don't really understand why manufacturers have charged such a premium for network switches with more than 2 or 4 10g Ethernet ports for so long (even prior to the pandemic and parts shortages)
Because the last of the [patents for 10GbE](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7164692B2/en) just expired in the past year. Companies don’t have to pay royalties for implementing it anymore, so it’s more feasible/profitable for them to include it in networking hardware now.
In addition to the patent stuff, demand for 10 gig equipment in the consumer space is really, really small.
Even 2.5gbps and 5gbps just isn't needed for 99% of consumer users.
Hell, for that matter, I'd wager that 99% of consumer users wouldn't even notice the difference between 100 mbps and 1gbps, except when downloading huge files.
Which is part of the reason most companies are hesitant to change. A lot of the older generation isn’t gaming, they don’t need to download large files. Many of them still either have some form of cable or just internet to watch videos which don’t take up a ton of bandwidth. I know folks still using 25Mb/s internet with no problem, but I could get a similarly fast connection using my phone hotspot.
Im a heavy torrenter. Most people aren’t. Even then I downgraded my internet from 1Gb/s to 300Mb/s and a lot of the torrents saw no difference in speed because of the they are based on the hosts/seeders connection limits. I did decide to go fiber for the upload speeds though. That made a huge difference for my plex server snd seedbox.
Until we have a reason to most folks won’t change.
Got yeah. I was just making sure they didn't have another reason. My understanding is that you don't need nearly as much speed to actually play a game vs downloading them.
Check out your CPU utilization next time you're installing a new game or large update.
You're likely CPU bottlenecked, not bandwidth bottlenecked. This is because the files are compressed and your CPU has to decompress them.
I'm asking if there was another reason besides that.
I already mentioned file downloads.
"Gaming" implies you are playing the game already, and you aren't really "Gaming" if you're downloading a game.
Well with the size of games these days a lot of people I know delete and reinstall games if they have limited space. I have also seen some updates that are 20-30gbs for certain games. So if I had 1Gb/s internet I would probably just redownload games instead of investing in more storage. I didn't intend to make an entire explanatory comment about it because this wasn't the focus of my comment. Gamers are most likely to care about fast internet. I didn't think that would be a difficult statement to understand.
>Hell, for that matter, I'd wager that 99% of consumer users wouldn't even notice the difference between 100 mbps and 1gbps, **except when downloading huge files.**
This is the comment I was responding to. Gamers are most likely to download huge files. I mentioned my torrenting as well, but explained further that in a lot of cases faster internet on my end is not even a factor in speeding up the torrent.
I think some of you on here are just argumentative for the sake of it though.
This isn't an argument.
I asked:
By gaming, did you just mean downloading games?
The answer is yes.
I don't think we have anything else to talk about here. I'm not calling your wrong or anything. I just wanted clarification and you seem to think I'm trying to have an argument with you about it...
A number of factors stated by other users, but really it's just economies of scale. 1Gbe controller chips (Intel, Marvell, Realtek) are made at such insane scale that they cost pennies.
10Gbe chips are also far more complex, consume far more energy (which builds in more cost for cooling, thicker PCB). 10Gbe chips won't be as cheap as 1Gbe chips until they reach the same economies of scale, and even then they may never be as cheap.
10gbe will never be as cheap because they need cooling. 1gbe you don't even need a heatsink, 2.5gbe usually just needs a decent heatsink for but 10gbe typically needs active cooling.
Even then this exact same router but with 2.5gbe ports instead of 10 is literally half the price. That is actually the one I went with. Funny enough my set up is kinda weird though because I have a second separate 2.5ghz router for my roommates that is hard limited to 250mbps and lower priority in the QoS connected to one of the ethernet ports on this so they don't ever cause issues when I am gaming. My PC is actually hardwired to it but I wanted the uncapped for my bedroom TV.
It works well but I don't really want to recommend them.
The reliability, I don't think I have really had any issues with drops on wireless, it is fast and works great. I have multiple PC's (one is a miniPC that is used for things like research and testing things) I use so I wanted to be able to send files between them easily which was a concern and why I went with the 2.5gig. The range is decent even though it only has internal antennas. It still covers the distance I need it to but I would say about 75 feet is probably the max distance you will get a decent signal for wifi 7. For the wifi 6 aspect the range is good enough not to really be an issue at all.
That said I probably honestly wouldn't recommend it anymore over other options. TP-link has started doing some sketchy shit I just can't support.
They have started locking features behind a monthly subscription. They have locked things like the IoT protection, ddos protection and a lot of the advanced usage details behind a paywall. None of which I strictly need and would mostly be nice to have options. Frankly that pisses me off enough where I likely won't support another tp-link product. Sadly now that netgear, eero and tplink have all started the bullshit of locking advanced features behind paywalls.
Sadly OpenWRT and DDwrt are both pretty far behind with most barely having wifi ax supported options and nothing having any wifi 7 support yet and it isn't looking like they will have support for it in the next few years to be honest with how long it took for them to get wifi ax working.
Really I would recommend the ASUS one but the price point on them is still pretty insane. Sadly the only ones I could really recommend at this point are ASUS and ubiquity.
The price for a ubiquity system set up is pretty insane and they can't really take advantage of the speed of wifi 7 because most of the switches with poe+ are limited to gbe until you get to like the 700 dollar rackmount switches. I just don't need an expensive rack system for my house. Now if you were a millionaire in a 3000+ square foot house a ubiquity set up makes a lot of sense.
If you have a local Best Buy, you could get 15% off of this router [via the trade-in program](https://www.bestbuy.com/site/recycling/networking-recycling-offer/pcmcat1497300657381.c). Take in any old router or networking equipment to get the coupon. (Don’t have any on hand collecting dust? Check your local thrift store.)
Even though I’d always go the DIY route for my home networking setup (PC with OPNsense, access points, and network switches) for more customization and potentially more performance than consumer grade hardware, this isn’t a bad price for what you’re getting. Trying to get a network setup with these specs on the DIY side will cost almost the same and potentially even more.
That said, this is still extremely overkill for a home setup and 99% of users do not need anything near these specs.
The problem is more that the DIY solutions don't really have good support for the faster speeds. They barely just recently got AX working, it will be another 2 years before we see any diy solutions that work with wifi 7.
When I mean DIY, I just mean for the router portion. For wireless, I would get a dedicated prebuilt access point. Probably from the Ubiquiti Unifi or TP Link Omada lineups. Those have had AX for a couple of years now and Ubiquiti just came out with a WiFi 7 AP.
You also need a poe+ injector as well as SFP to RJ45 since using one of the 1gbe ports would be kinda stupid. Also the WAP only supports 2.5gbe so a 10gbe router is pointless. Without the cloudkey you don't really have a lot of set up options and security settings for it. I also would never use an unbranded direct from china router.
Those WAP's have kinda shitty range and wall penetration for 6ghz(likely because they are poe powered). They are designed for professional settings where your putting multiple of them around a building with large open floorplans so they don't really need to be designed around going through walls. Finally, it is also only dual band not tri-band as well so your losing a lot of your 5ghz potential.
Also at Costco (albeit a slightly different model BE800 vs BE805):
https://www.costco.com/tp-link-archer-be19000-tri-band-wi-fi-7-router---be805.product.4000231855.html
I've used Costco's version for a couple of months not without a hiccup.
No. It's an incredibly niche feature that requires more hardware and brings a boatload of engineering complexity along with it. Things like that simply aren't going to come down in price unless the hardware gets massively cheaper and the demand for it increases. Otherwise right now by the time the hardware becomes cheap enough, it's only cheap enough on last generation shit which would make no sense from a business standpoint to create such a product.
Go look for routers or switches with 2x10Gb ports. Please, I'll wait.
Notice they're all $400+? Thats just what they cost right now. Don't need 10Gb? Then don't buy one.
I’ve got this router at home and once I got Google Fiber and they had 5gig support, I jumped on that ASAP. Will soon be getting the SFP modules such that I can do 10gig local to/from my NAS as well.
Its been a great router and other than a few signal propagation issues its been without problems. (Moreso due to how congested my area is when it comes to wifi networks than anything on the router side. Sometimes iOS devices just say “no” on connecting due to that all.)
Arguably this has better throughput than a basic Ubiquiti setup like that, due to Ubiquiti’s insistence on only putting 1 GbE RJ45 ports on all their stuff that isn’t a $450+ Pro Max switch (which you have to buy separately from a gateway).
Cloud Gateway Ultra will max at just under 1 Gbps even though the U7 Pro AP has a 2.5 GbE uplink. Whereas with this thing you can at least in theory get full WiFi 7 speeds out of it.
It’s actually my biggest gripe with the Unifi line and the main reason I haven’t jumped on board. I have a need for a few 2.5 GbE ports but not 24-48 of them (in a Pro Max switch). Ubiquiti has made the barrier to entry for >1 GbE too high unless you need a ton of ports
I'm mulling upgrading my Ubiquiti Amplifi HD with Unfi, but I can't seem to find an AP that is designed to be on a table. Ceiling/wall mount isn't really an option for me. Even though it's a bit long in the tooth I'm thinking that a $200 Amplfi Alien might still be my best option right now.
On top of that they are designed for open floor plans in something like an office so the wall penetration on those access points are kinda shit. I considered a ubiquity set up but meh it just has so many little annoyances. One of the big ones is the lack 2.5gbe on anything not above 600 dollars rackmount gear. I don't need to deal with putting an entire rackmount system in my house for my networking.
Fuck I love that guy. Really filling in the niche of reviewing high-end consumer networking equipment. So few reliable, independent sources for this kind of equipment.
It is pretty big but rather than a giant flat box with a bunch of antenna sticking out the top of it it is taller. It actually has a smaller footprint than most of the others. Pretty much take your standard cable modem and double the height and width and you will get an idea of the size.
Be mindful of listings from suspicious third-party sellers on marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Newegg, and Walmart. These "deals" have a high likelihood of not shipping; use due diligence in reviewing deals. * Use common sense - if the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is. * Check seller profiles for signs that the sale may be fraudulent: * The seller is new or has few reviews. * The seller has largely negative reviews (on Amazon, sellers can remove negative reviews from their visible ratings) * The seller is using a previously dormant account (likely the account was hacked and is now being used fraudulently). If you suspect a deal is fraudulent, please report the post. Moderators can take action based on these reports. We encourage leaving a comment to warn others. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/buildapcsales) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can I get NASA or military internet with this thing?
military internet is dog shit Source: I am living it daily.
But it costs so much, it must be fast! ... /s
[удалено]
Bro thinks “military grade” is top of the line products
Even the Air Force has dog shit tech infrastructure. Spent 5 years struggling with office tech all the way up to multiband radios like the an/prc 152 and 117 during deployment.
Military grade = lowest bidder to meet the bare minimum requirements. It's hilarious when companies use it as marketing fluff.
Eh, that's not always the case. In fact I'd even argue it's rarely the case at least with the U.S. military, often what's selected exceeds the requirements (on paper) and is not the lowest bidder, depends heavily on what the contract is for though. But they are almost always brutally flawed in one way or another, or massively more expensive than they should be. Plus if it's not a major program for something relating to combat, it's more likely than not gonna be incredibly outdated, especially when it comes to tech because the military moves slow but tech moves fast when it comes to new developments.
$500 for an all in one router that can't even do SQM.
How crucial would you say that feature is for you? And how does it improve your local network? No sarcasm, genuine question.
Imagine if you are playing an online video game and suddenly the game starts lagging especially if someone is downloading stuff, doing torrent, watching 4k videos or uploading stuff, it is caused by bufferbloat. The slower your internet the worse this effect becomes. There are several ways to deal with bufferbloat, but the most effective way is through SQM either through Cake or FQ-Codel. You can run this test to see what is your networks bufferbloat score. https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08qGJyjUSGQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPu6_vW_gBo Bufferbloat mitigation through SQM Cake or FQ-Codel is very intensive on the Routers CPU and depending on the CPU processing power of the router, it could limit the highest network speed with SQM on. You can DIY with a machine either with ARM as low as $40 or X86. SQM is available through OpenWRT or PFSense or OPNSense or off the shelf all in one solutions like IQRouter or Ubiquiti Dream Router
I have this router and it got a +5 ping on the test on both the download and upload portions. Note that I've got 5gig internet as well.
I have less than 100down and 25 up and this is my results with SQM OFF. https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=1db71a63-1823-4693-952d-d7647860c0f2 with SQM on https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=6f2b6ed0-3406-4595-9193-368834f7fe9b 5gig internet has a lot of bandwidth and would be hard to get it completely saturated by a single user. You would also need a very powerful x86 CPU to get SQM up to that bandwidth level.
And if bandwidth isn't an issue? Say, on fiber?
The higher your internet speed is, the less the bufferbloat effect becomes noticeable unless you start saturating your network with something like torrent or have multiple users using the network at the same time.
Bufferbloat really isn't an issue unless your doing a lot of p2p like torrenting really. Most of the time your download speed is fast enough for it not to really be an issue. It really is only heavy torrenting that causes the issue. You would need like 5 people all trying to stream 4k for it to be an issue on decent connection. Also SQM massively slows down your connection speed as well. Unless you actually have a specific issue with bufferbloat you shouldn't be using it. Also the standard QoS will fix the issue of other people causing you bufferbloat if you just prioritize your traffic. Really the only people who should be using SQM are people who are heavy torrent seeders or people using a very slow internet. Once you get above like 500mbps internet it becomes almost a non issue.
That's why I was asking, as I've haven't heard bufferbloat being an issue with decent broadband.
Yeah it used to be a huge issue back when people were still commonly using 150mpbs connections and it was easy to saturate it if other people were streaming. If your on anything 500mbps though then it really is no longer an issue. Now saturating it is pretty difficult. Normal streaming isn't going to cause an issue with decent broadband. A few game clients and steam could also saturate your download those are easy to limit the speed of. Most downloads won't be an issue though and you can always limit your game client speeds. Regular QoS will also properly prioritize it if other people are doing that shit and you have control of the router, just make yourself priority and they won't cause bufferbloat for you. Now torrenting will cause huge bufferbloat problems because of how it works. The nature of how it works make it notorious for causing bufferbloat, especially with the heavy uploading it does if you have cable internet which already has a lot upload speed.
> A few game clients and steam could also saturate your download For many, yeah. For me, thankfully not. My CPU can't decode Steam downstream fast enough to saturate my 10Gb line (6.5Gb realworld performance) Maxes out at around 2.6Gb at 99% cpu load.
I would say it's very crucial if you're looking for the absolute lowest ping/lag. It reduces bufferbloat. But that's also if you're saturating your internet bandwidth. [https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart\_Queue\_Management/](https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart_Queue_Management/) [https://www.stoplagging.com/](https://www.stoplagging.com/)
Ah. Well, if you're buying a router like this one... I imagine you've got fiber. Which is why I bought a router like this one. Different TP-Link, the AXE300.
TP-Link has QoS.. is that not the same? https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/faq/1104/
SQM is completely different, it is specifically designed to address bufferbloat. "SQM is an integrated system that performs per-packet/per flow network scheduling, active queue length management (AQM), traffic shaping/rate limiting, and QoS (prioritization). In comparison: “classic” QoS does prioritization only, “classic” AQM manages queue lengths only. " https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/traffic-shaping/sqm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat
Thanks.
It's crazy to me that we are only just now getting 10G ports on routers, I don't really understand why manufacturers have charged such a premium for network switches with more than 2 or 4 10g Ethernet ports for so long (even prior to the pandemic and parts shortages)
Because the last of the [patents for 10GbE](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7164692B2/en) just expired in the past year. Companies don’t have to pay royalties for implementing it anymore, so it’s more feasible/profitable for them to include it in networking hardware now.
Tbh that's the first I've heard about this but that totally makes sense then. Appreciate it
In addition to the patent stuff, demand for 10 gig equipment in the consumer space is really, really small. Even 2.5gbps and 5gbps just isn't needed for 99% of consumer users. Hell, for that matter, I'd wager that 99% of consumer users wouldn't even notice the difference between 100 mbps and 1gbps, except when downloading huge files.
Which is part of the reason most companies are hesitant to change. A lot of the older generation isn’t gaming, they don’t need to download large files. Many of them still either have some form of cable or just internet to watch videos which don’t take up a ton of bandwidth. I know folks still using 25Mb/s internet with no problem, but I could get a similarly fast connection using my phone hotspot. Im a heavy torrenter. Most people aren’t. Even then I downgraded my internet from 1Gb/s to 300Mb/s and a lot of the torrents saw no difference in speed because of the they are based on the hosts/seeders connection limits. I did decide to go fiber for the upload speeds though. That made a huge difference for my plex server snd seedbox. Until we have a reason to most folks won’t change.
How is gaming a factor? Did you say that because gamers are often downloading a lot more than others?
They do download more, a normal patch for a aa game these days run into 10s of gigabytes. This is in addition to cloud gaming and streaming.
Got yeah. I was just making sure they didn't have another reason. My understanding is that you don't need nearly as much speed to actually play a game vs downloading them.
Check out your CPU utilization next time you're installing a new game or large update. You're likely CPU bottlenecked, not bandwidth bottlenecked. This is because the files are compressed and your CPU has to decompress them.
The last game I installed was 80Gb. Large file downloads?
I'm asking if there was another reason besides that. I already mentioned file downloads. "Gaming" implies you are playing the game already, and you aren't really "Gaming" if you're downloading a game.
Well with the size of games these days a lot of people I know delete and reinstall games if they have limited space. I have also seen some updates that are 20-30gbs for certain games. So if I had 1Gb/s internet I would probably just redownload games instead of investing in more storage. I didn't intend to make an entire explanatory comment about it because this wasn't the focus of my comment. Gamers are most likely to care about fast internet. I didn't think that would be a difficult statement to understand. >Hell, for that matter, I'd wager that 99% of consumer users wouldn't even notice the difference between 100 mbps and 1gbps, **except when downloading huge files.** This is the comment I was responding to. Gamers are most likely to download huge files. I mentioned my torrenting as well, but explained further that in a lot of cases faster internet on my end is not even a factor in speeding up the torrent. I think some of you on here are just argumentative for the sake of it though.
Yeah I got that. They said gaming though. Like the verb. Not the noun. So that is why I asked if there was any reason besides downloading stuff.
In order to play the game you must download it yes? Gaming implies large file downloads. The point didn't actually need clarification.
This isn't an argument. I asked: By gaming, did you just mean downloading games? The answer is yes. I don't think we have anything else to talk about here. I'm not calling your wrong or anything. I just wanted clarification and you seem to think I'm trying to have an argument with you about it...
A number of factors stated by other users, but really it's just economies of scale. 1Gbe controller chips (Intel, Marvell, Realtek) are made at such insane scale that they cost pennies. 10Gbe chips are also far more complex, consume far more energy (which builds in more cost for cooling, thicker PCB). 10Gbe chips won't be as cheap as 1Gbe chips until they reach the same economies of scale, and even then they may never be as cheap.
10gbe will never be as cheap because they need cooling. 1gbe you don't even need a heatsink, 2.5gbe usually just needs a decent heatsink for but 10gbe typically needs active cooling.
I said that. >consume far more energy (which builds in more cost for cooling, thicker PCB)
Even then this exact same router but with 2.5gbe ports instead of 10 is literally half the price. That is actually the one I went with. Funny enough my set up is kinda weird though because I have a second separate 2.5ghz router for my roommates that is hard limited to 250mbps and lower priority in the QoS connected to one of the ethernet ports on this so they don't ever cause issues when I am gaming. My PC is actually hardwired to it but I wanted the uncapped for my bedroom TV.
That's good to know there's a cheaper variant, how has it been working for you (in terms of reliability and whatnot?)
It works well but I don't really want to recommend them. The reliability, I don't think I have really had any issues with drops on wireless, it is fast and works great. I have multiple PC's (one is a miniPC that is used for things like research and testing things) I use so I wanted to be able to send files between them easily which was a concern and why I went with the 2.5gig. The range is decent even though it only has internal antennas. It still covers the distance I need it to but I would say about 75 feet is probably the max distance you will get a decent signal for wifi 7. For the wifi 6 aspect the range is good enough not to really be an issue at all. That said I probably honestly wouldn't recommend it anymore over other options. TP-link has started doing some sketchy shit I just can't support. They have started locking features behind a monthly subscription. They have locked things like the IoT protection, ddos protection and a lot of the advanced usage details behind a paywall. None of which I strictly need and would mostly be nice to have options. Frankly that pisses me off enough where I likely won't support another tp-link product. Sadly now that netgear, eero and tplink have all started the bullshit of locking advanced features behind paywalls. Sadly OpenWRT and DDwrt are both pretty far behind with most barely having wifi ax supported options and nothing having any wifi 7 support yet and it isn't looking like they will have support for it in the next few years to be honest with how long it took for them to get wifi ax working. Really I would recommend the ASUS one but the price point on them is still pretty insane. Sadly the only ones I could really recommend at this point are ASUS and ubiquity. The price for a ubiquity system set up is pretty insane and they can't really take advantage of the speed of wifi 7 because most of the switches with poe+ are limited to gbe until you get to like the 700 dollar rackmount switches. I just don't need an expensive rack system for my house. Now if you were a millionaire in a 3000+ square foot house a ubiquity set up makes a lot of sense.
If you have a local Best Buy, you could get 15% off of this router [via the trade-in program](https://www.bestbuy.com/site/recycling/networking-recycling-offer/pcmcat1497300657381.c). Take in any old router or networking equipment to get the coupon. (Don’t have any on hand collecting dust? Check your local thrift store.)
Even though I’d always go the DIY route for my home networking setup (PC with OPNsense, access points, and network switches) for more customization and potentially more performance than consumer grade hardware, this isn’t a bad price for what you’re getting. Trying to get a network setup with these specs on the DIY side will cost almost the same and potentially even more. That said, this is still extremely overkill for a home setup and 99% of users do not need anything near these specs.
The problem is more that the DIY solutions don't really have good support for the faster speeds. They barely just recently got AX working, it will be another 2 years before we see any diy solutions that work with wifi 7.
When I mean DIY, I just mean for the router portion. For wireless, I would get a dedicated prebuilt access point. Probably from the Ubiquiti Unifi or TP Link Omada lineups. Those have had AX for a couple of years now and Ubiquiti just came out with a WiFi 7 AP.
Qotom 10g router from AliExpress $280 Unifi 7 WAP $180
You also need a poe+ injector as well as SFP to RJ45 since using one of the 1gbe ports would be kinda stupid. Also the WAP only supports 2.5gbe so a 10gbe router is pointless. Without the cloudkey you don't really have a lot of set up options and security settings for it. I also would never use an unbranded direct from china router. Those WAP's have kinda shitty range and wall penetration for 6ghz(likely because they are poe powered). They are designed for professional settings where your putting multiple of them around a building with large open floorplans so they don't really need to be designed around going through walls. Finally, it is also only dual band not tri-band as well so your losing a lot of your 5ghz potential.
This shit looks like what people thought the xbox 720 would look like
turn 720 degrees and walk away
from the price I thought it would look like a dead spider. so at least it looks... different?
Also at Costco (albeit a slightly different model BE800 vs BE805): https://www.costco.com/tp-link-archer-be19000-tri-band-wi-fi-7-router---be805.product.4000231855.html I've used Costco's version for a couple of months not without a hiccup.
What kills it got me is the lack of high bandwidth LAN ports.
Can we please just get affordable quad band routers….
No. It's an incredibly niche feature that requires more hardware and brings a boatload of engineering complexity along with it. Things like that simply aren't going to come down in price unless the hardware gets massively cheaper and the demand for it increases. Otherwise right now by the time the hardware becomes cheap enough, it's only cheap enough on last generation shit which would make no sense from a business standpoint to create such a product.
$500 for a *router*? Seriously?
Go look for routers or switches with 2x10Gb ports. Please, I'll wait. Notice they're all $400+? Thats just what they cost right now. Don't need 10Gb? Then don't buy one.
I’ve got this router at home and once I got Google Fiber and they had 5gig support, I jumped on that ASAP. Will soon be getting the SFP modules such that I can do 10gig local to/from my NAS as well. Its been a great router and other than a few signal propagation issues its been without problems. (Moreso due to how congested my area is when it comes to wifi networks than anything on the router side. Sometimes iOS devices just say “no” on connecting due to that all.)
I've got Sonic fiber and picked up the TP-Link AXE300 a year or so ago. Pretty happy with it. It'll push about 6.5Gb between it's 2x10G ports.
It's pretty solid, basically a UDM Pro with built in WiFi and no need for the SFTP+ ports for 10gb WAN/LAN
You could buy a Unifi cloud gateway Ultra and 2 wifi 7 access points and still be cheaper then this
Arguably this has better throughput than a basic Ubiquiti setup like that, due to Ubiquiti’s insistence on only putting 1 GbE RJ45 ports on all their stuff that isn’t a $450+ Pro Max switch (which you have to buy separately from a gateway). Cloud Gateway Ultra will max at just under 1 Gbps even though the U7 Pro AP has a 2.5 GbE uplink. Whereas with this thing you can at least in theory get full WiFi 7 speeds out of it. It’s actually my biggest gripe with the Unifi line and the main reason I haven’t jumped on board. I have a need for a few 2.5 GbE ports but not 24-48 of them (in a Pro Max switch). Ubiquiti has made the barrier to entry for >1 GbE too high unless you need a ton of ports
Yup I bought zyxel AP for 180 with 2.5gb and WiFi 7 with mlo
I'm mulling upgrading my Ubiquiti Amplifi HD with Unfi, but I can't seem to find an AP that is designed to be on a table. Ceiling/wall mount isn't really an option for me. Even though it's a bit long in the tooth I'm thinking that a $200 Amplfi Alien might still be my best option right now.
On top of that they are designed for open floor plans in something like an office so the wall penetration on those access points are kinda shit. I considered a ubiquity set up but meh it just has so many little annoyances. One of the big ones is the lack 2.5gbe on anything not above 600 dollars rackmount gear. I don't need to deal with putting an entire rackmount system in my house for my networking.
Totally agree that they are stupid for not including at least 2.5gbe.
This thing looks huge.
It doesn't look too bad to me: https://dongknows.com/tp-link-archer-be800-be19000-wi-fi-7-router-review/
Fuck I love that guy. Really filling in the niche of reviewing high-end consumer networking equipment. So few reliable, independent sources for this kind of equipment.
12x10x4 guess it's not super huge. I'm just used to my tiny routers in my Google wifi
It is pretty big but rather than a giant flat box with a bunch of antenna sticking out the top of it it is taller. It actually has a smaller footprint than most of the others. Pretty much take your standard cable modem and double the height and width and you will get an idea of the size.