Synology RT6600ax Wireless Router

[crmaris]

A bit early to the party, the Synology RT6600ax router doesn't support Wi-Fi 6E, which utilizes the 6 GHz band for even faster transfer speeds. This doesn't mean it isn't fast since the 5.9 GHz band offers a—for the time being—clean 160 MHz channel and more range than the 6 GHz band.

Show full review

 

[zlobby]

'High-performance internal antenna'... I stopped reading after that.

 

[bug]

Have routers become so cheap, $140 is expensive? I remember I paid ~$200 for my Nighthawk (R8000).

 

[mechtech]

“The Synology MR2200ac retails for $140.”

??
review is 6600ax router. I’m confused.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Have routers become so cheap, $140 is expensive? I remember I paid ~$200 for my Nighthawk (R8000).

It's from a previous review. This thing should be $299.

'High-performance internal antenna'... I stopped reading after that.

Template leftovers, since it clearly has six external antennas.

 

[zlobby]

It's from a previous review. This thing should be $299.


Template leftovers, since it clearly has six external antennas.

I assumed so.

Can @crmaris please post the .ps scripts he used for the test?

 

[dirtyferret]

It's from a previous review. This thing should be $299.

I was going to say at first glance the RT2600AC is $200, this thing is a bargain; but then you see the wrong model number is listed in the conclusion page.

Template leftovers, since it clearly has six external antennas.

Plenty of bad routers have external antennas and plenty of solid ones have internal antennas.

 

[crmaris]

'High-performance internal antenna'... I stopped reading after that.

The antennas are external, my bad there.

Guys, I am sorry for some minor mistakes in the review, I am currently away on a business trip and just realized that its NDA has passed. I will be better next time

I assumed so.

Can @crmaris please post the .ps scripts he used for the test?

you are referring to the DiskSPD scripts?

 

[zlobby]

The antennas are external, my bad there.

Guys, I am sorry for some minor mistakes in the review, I am currently away on a business trip and just realized that its NDA has passed. I will be better next time


you are referring to the DiskSPD scripts?

Thou are forgiven, my bi-polar... transistor?
Don't worry, I've fucked way bigger companies up while on a holiday!

And yes, I was talking about the DiskSPD scripts.

 

[Jomale]

So one USB3-Data-storage for a Home "NAS" and than manually backup that disk?
Sorry I'm not experienced with owncloud solutions. Is it understandable for beginners to config a new hdd?

 

[Chrispy_]

Why do all these new WiFi6 routers only have one single 2.5GbE port?
Are 2.5GbE controllers so expensive that even three more of them would break the bank?

 

[thegnome]

Single 2.5Gbe is literally useless. No other device (unless you use WiFI, which I doubt will go above gigabit as well) could use the extra speed. Atleast two and for this price all ports 2.5Gbe. Ditch the extra WiFi speed (which in reality will never really be used) and give us better ethernet damn it.

Also, the only proper way to use network devices in mesh is wired, just like tradional access points but smarter.

 

[Chrispy_]

Also, the only proper way to use network devices in mesh is wired, just like traditional access points but smarter.

Yeah, ignoring the fact that people might want to move files between two devices faster than 1Gb/s, backhaul over wired ethernet is by far the best performance choice for a mesh network.

 

[syrup]

Official web interface support for creating and managing separate, isolated networks, on both WiFi and wired ports, is a killer feature for me nowadays and might change my upgrade path to this router rather than the AX86U, unless ASUS gets off its butt.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Why do all these new WiFi6 routers only have one single 2.5GbE port?
Are 2.5GbE controllers so expensive that even three more of them would break the bank?

Because a lot of the SoCs can only handle one port.
The new SoCs will rectify that problem.

 

[Woomack]

Why do all these new WiFi6 routers only have one single 2.5GbE port?
Are 2.5GbE controllers so expensive that even three more of them would break the bank?

I don't get why some years ago we could see a movement to 5GbE and 10GbE and suddenly when Intel started pushing their 2.5GbE LAN then all the new routers have 2.5GbE ports (the same for other brands). I have 2 year+ old Netgear with 5GbE, all motherboards, NAS, and switches with 10GbE ports ... and now we get "lightning-fast" 2.5GbE?

 

[Chrispy_]

Because a lot of the SoCs can only handle one port.
The new SoCs will rectify that problem.

Good, I have a 5-port 2.5GbE switch for home, but it's messy to have multiple boxes whilst taking up space and another power socket.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Good, I have a 5-port 2.5GbE switch for home, but it's messy to have multiple boxes whilst taking up space and another power socket.

I have a router, a switch (with 10 Gbps ports), a router as an AP and a range extender as an AP...
Small, but tall house made out of steel and concrete which makes it terrible for WiFi signals, so multiple devices are a must.

There are already a couple of Asus routers with two 2.5 Gbps ports, but it looks like the WiFi 7 routers will be the ones to bring a full set of 2.5 Gbps ports and maybe even a pair of 10 Gbps ports on the really expensive ones.

I don't get why some years ago we could see a movement to 5GbE and 10GbE and suddenly when Intel started pushing their 2.5GbE LAN then all the new routers have 2.5GbE ports (the same for other brands). I have 2 year+ old Netgear with 5GbE, all motherboards, NAS, and switches with 10GbE ports ... and now we get "lightning-fast" 2.5GbE?

Cost. 2.5 Gbps cost very little to implement in comparison, both as an IC and as an overall solution in comparison. Thermals are also a lot lower, so no need for heatsinks, regardless of what the 2.5 Gbps network cards ship with...
Also no need to change any cables compared to 1 Gbps, although the same should largely apply for 5 Gbps.

Netgear only added a single port as well, which made it mostly useless. 5 Gbps is usually based on the same chip as 10 Gbps, just with 10 Gbps disabled, so it's a truly stupid standard. The cost difference doesn't justify it.

 

[Chrispy_]

5 Gbps is usually based on the same chip as 10 Gbps, just with 10 Gbps disabled, so it's a truly stupid standard. The cost difference doesn't justify it.

Yeah, 5Gbps was stillborn because of this and nobody touches it with a ten-foot pole.

I keep waiting for 2.5Gb to replace 1Gb everywhere and it's stupid shit like SoCs only handling one port that's holding things up. Affordable motherboards have been including 2.5GbE for several years now which makes it all the more frustrating.

 

[bug]

Yeah, 5Gbps was stillborn because of this and nobody touches it with a ten-foot pole.

I keep waiting for 2.5Gb to replace 1Gb everywhere and it's stupid shit like SoCs only handling one port that's holding things up. Affordable motherboards have been including 2.5GbE for several years now which makes it all the more frustrating.

I'm guessing SoC makers are just soak testing their solutions for the time being. If it's fubar, you have the other, tried and tested, ports to fall back to.
And yes, a single 2.5Gbps port doesn't make much sense.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Yeah, 5Gbps was stillborn because of this and nobody touches it with a ten-foot pole.

I keep waiting for 2.5Gb to replace 1Gb everywhere and it's stupid shit like SoCs only handling one port that's holding things up. Affordable motherboards have been including 2.5GbE for several years now which makes it all the more frustrating.

This is the SoC in this case. It's somewhat anemic when it comes to the integrated WiFi as well and was really intended for devices at around the $200 mark imho. The one PCIe interface is used by the 5.9 GHz capable radio.
In theory, they could've swapped the Gigabit switch for a 2.5 Gbps switch, as the SoC should be able to support it, but decided against it for some reason, possibly because Qualcomm didn't have such a switch IC. So far I only know of Broadcom and Realtek 2.5 Gbps switching ICs, but it's not as if these things are being promoted. In theory, any SGMII+ capable switch should work.

I'm guessing SoC makers are just soak testing their solutions for the time being. If it's fubar, you have the other, tried and tested, ports to fall back to.
And yes, a single 2.5Gbps port doesn't make much sense.

Broadcom announced a range of decent looking SoCs for WiFi 7, which might improve life for everyone wanting faster wired networking towards the end of the year.
You can read the full news post below, but that SoC has support for up to four native, unswitched 2.5 Gbps ports.
However, my concern is that we're seeing routers with only two ports these days, because everyone is using WiFi, right?
Qualcomm has something similar too, although with a bit more powerful SoC. That said, their configuration seem to be missing the mark somewhat, as they appear to have a fixed port config of 4 x 2.5 GE + 5 GE + 10 G, which is far from ideal. Same PCIe count though, so it might be possible to add a second 10 Gbps port via PCIe, assuming PCIe 4.0 is supported.

Broadcom Launches its First WiFi 7 Chipsets and corresponding SoC

It appears that 2022 might be the year WiFi 7, or 802.11be as it's also known, launches, despite the fact that the specification isn't set to be ratified until 2024. Broadcom has just unveiled its first set of WiFi 7 radios, as well as accompanying SoC and it looks like the new hardware will...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Chrispy_]

IMO the reason 2.5GbE is so important is because modern mechanical storage streams large files at ~250MB/s. Even ancient 2TB drives from 15 years ago were hitting the limitations of Gigabit Ethernet.

If you need wired ethernet, it's because your device needs a large quantity of external data, and for consumers that's most likely to be sourced from a mechanical drive in another machine or NAS. The cheapest, slowest, lowest-capacity drives these days like the 2TB SMR WD Red (vanilla Red, not Plus or Pro models) still stream data at 180MB/s, and that's a worst-case scenario because nobody looking for performance would choose one of those.

Sorry, I've just realised that I'm derailing this thread about a router into a rant about 2.5GbE instead! Probably the focus should be on the routing and WiFi rather than the integrated switch.

 

[bug]

IMO the reason 2.5GbE is so important is because modern mechanical storage streams large files at ~250MB/s. Even ancient 2TB drives from 15 years ago were hitting the limitations of Gigabit Ethernet.

If you need wired ethernet, it's because your device needs a large quantity of external data, and for consumers that's most likely to be sourced from a mechanical drive in another machine or NAS. The cheapest, slowest, lowest-capacity drives these days like the 2TB SMR WD Red (vanilla Red, not plus or pro models) still stream data at 180MB/s, and that's a worst-case scenario because nobody looking for performance would choose one of those.

Theoretically yes, but realistically, no one client needs to stream at that rate.
Like @TheLostSwede said, 2.5Gbps is supposed to be a cheap, drop-in replacement for 1Gbps. Yet, that's not how it's implemented. There's no market pressure to adopt 2.5Gbps (who has that much download bandwidth?). Even though it would speed up backups quite nicely.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Theoretically yes, but realistically, no one client needs to stream at that rate.
Like @TheLostSwede said, 2.5Gbps is supposed to be a cheap, drop-in replacement for 1Gbps. Yet, that's not how it's implemented. There's no market pressure to adopt 2.5Gbps (who has that much download bandwidth?). Even though it would speed up backups quite nicely.

I think you're sort of on the right track, but many countries have faster than Gigabit internet access these days and based on the WiFi 7 hardware that's coming, 2.5 Gbps will slowly become the new Gigabit replacement. For those of us that want faster speeds, it looks like there will be a few consumer products coming as well, but they're not going to be cheap. This isn't just due to the 10 Gbps ports, but also because the same products will be the one with the fastest WiFi and most antennas, which add further cost, even though it might not make sense for those looking at fast wired speeds.

The price of routers are getting a bit silly though, at least if you want something with 3x3 or 4x4, which most people ought to want, so they take advantage of MU-MIMO and other actually useful technologies, rather than 4K QAM which is unlikely to bring anything useful to the table in most scenarios. WiFi has become all about marketing the highest speed numbers, but it seems like the companies make the products have forgotten about the user experience.

 

[bug]

I think you're sort of on the right track, but many countries have faster than Gigabit internet access these days ...

"Many" is an exaggeration. I live in a country with very fast Internet, but the fastest you can get (without paying through the nose) is still 1Gbps. Fwiw, I get half of that and feel no need to go any faster.

I'm sure there are countries with faster then Gbit internet, but I don't think there are "many' at the moment.