TP-Link Announces the World's First 802.11 ad Router, The Talon AD7200

[ypsylon]

Technically to solve all heat issues which will most definitively arise just flip router up-side down. It can stand on antennas just fine.

Seriously tho who needs that? Unless you plan to suck internet dry in a week then go ahead.

 

[PP Mguire]

See PR above for example:
"The new 60GHz (4600Mbps) band is a perfect single-room Wi-Fi solution..."

THIS!

AD is line of sight with no walls.

I'll stick with AC and N no thanks!

Also TP link blocks 3rd Party firmware I wouldn't take it if I got it for free.

Guess you didn't read the OP or the post above.

But is she doing anything on her computer that would benefit from using AD over AC?

I have to connect a 50 foot cable from my switch to her machine and copy large games from my server. The AC adapter in my laptop is still slow compared to a cable because the bandwidth ceiling is sharing with the other devices in the house. The most it connects to is usually 500 or 700Mb which actual throughput isn't that high and if I got an AC card for her machine it would be the same. Since her machine would be the only one on AD and no cable it would have all the bandwidth on that band. I also have a 4 year old and a playful dog that like to trip over cables. So like I said, it doesn't mean I'd get it (because dropping a cable down the wall is much cheaper), but just saying there are certain scenarios it would work.

 

[newtekie1]

I have to connect a 50 foot cable from my switch to her machine and copy large games from my server. The AC adapter in my laptop is still slow compared to a cable because the bandwidth ceiling is sharing with the other devices in the house. The most it connects to is usually 500 or 700Mb which actual throughput isn't that high and if I got an AC card for her machine it would be the same. Since her machine would be the only one on AD and no cable it would have all the bandwidth on that band. I also have a 4 year old and a playful dog that like to trip over cables. So like I said, it doesn't mean I'd get it (because dropping a cable down the wall is much cheaper), but just saying there are certain scenarios it would work.

Actually, the AC in your laptop is slow compared to a wire because almost all AC adapters in laptops are 2 antenna designs. This gives a theoretical maximum of only 833Mbps, and the actual speeds around where you mention(depending on signal strength of course). A decent desktop PCI-E cards that uses 3 antennas gets very close to Gigabit ethernet. If you're already in the same room as the router, a 3 antenna AC card and a 3 antenna AC router can get right around the same speed as a gigabit wired connection.

 

[PP Mguire]

Actually, the AC in your laptop is slow compared to a wire because almost all AC adapters in laptops are 2 antenna designs. This gives a theoretical maximum of only 833Mbps, and the actual speeds around where you mention(depending on signal strength of course). A decent desktop PCI-E cards that uses 3 antennas gets very close to Gigabit ethernet. If you're already in the same room as the router, a 3 antenna AC card and a 3 antenna AC router can get right around the same speed as a gigabit wired connection.

You're still forgetting that the number specified for bandwidth on the router is the maximum theoretical bandwidth shared by all devices in the house on both frequencies. I have 6 AC devices in my house and when people are home at least 3 of them are constantly being used, one being a Fire TV streaming Plex or Netflix. 7 if we want to include my SO who's almost always on her phone watching Netflix. In my case maximum theoretical bandwidth is 1300Mb on the 5GHz band (I don't use 2.4) with a Ubiquiti AP in the center of my house. Regardless of how much bandwidth is being reserved for one heavy user it still won't be as good as a wire. In the case of this AD box, if theoretical max is 4200Mb and there's only one user it's down to interference and distance which if working properly should provide higher than what AC can provide and maybe even a standard Gb ethernet connection. To reiterate, it would still make more sense to take 15 minutes of my time and drop a cable for pennies on the dollar instead of buying a $350 piece of consumer junk. Just saying, there could be usecase and I'd love to see say a VR headset running wireless if possible in the future (cable on the Vive is annoying). This is one step toward bringing 60hz to consumers which I'm all for even if it seems dumb at first.

 

[Makaveli]

Guess you didn't read the OP or the post above.

I have to connect a 50 foot cable from my switch to her machine and copy large games from my server. The AC adapter in my laptop is still slow compared to a cable because the bandwidth ceiling is sharing with the other devices in the house. The most it connects to is usually 500 or 700Mb which actual throughput isn't that high and if I got an AC card for her machine it would be the same. Since her machine would be the only one on AD and no cable it would have all the bandwidth on that band. I also have a 4 year old and a playful dog that like to trip over cables. So like I said, it doesn't mean I'd get it (because dropping a cable down the wall is much cheaper), but just saying there are certain scenarios it would work.

I read it but for single rooms I used wired connections so this would never appeal to me.

 

[newtekie1]

You're still forgetting that the number specified for bandwidth on the router is the maximum theoretical bandwidth shared by all devices in the house on both frequencies.

No, I'm not. I specifically address theoretical vs. real bandwidth. That is why I said you get close to gigabit ethernet with a 3 antenna card, even though the theoretical maximum is 1300Mbps.

I have 6 AC devices in my house and when people are home at least 3 of them are constantly being used, one being a Fire TV streaming Plex or Netflix. 7 if we want to include my SO who's almost always on her phone watching Netflix. In my case maximum theoretical bandwidth is 1300Mb on the 5GHz band (I don't use 2.4) with a Ubiquiti AP in the center of my house. Regardless of how much bandwidth is being reserved for one heavy user it still won't be as good as a wire.

Not much different from me. I've got 2 laptop, 2 phones, and 2 HTPCs. All on AC, all on 24/7, and often being used at the same time. I can still do a file transfer on the desktop with a 3 antenna card and get near Gigabit speeds. No, it won't be as good as a wire, but it is very very close. Sustained transfer speeds of 100MBps+.

Even by your own numbers it works out. You say you get 500-700Mbps now on a two antenna card, so theoretical 833Mbps connection. Thats 60-85% of the theoretical maximum. So add a 3rd antenna and you get a 1300Mbps theoretical maximum. So 60% of that would be 780Mbps, and 85% would be 1105Mbps, better than gigabit ethernet.

 

[remixedcat]

note:wifi is half duplex

 

[PP Mguire]

No, I'm not. I specifically address theoretical vs. real bandwidth. That is why I said you get close to gigabit ethernet with a 3 antenna card, even though the theoretical maximum is 1300Mbps.



Not much different from me. I've got 2 laptop, 2 phones, and 2 HTPCs. All on AC, all on 24/7, and often being used at the same time. I can still do a file transfer on the desktop with a 3 antenna card and get near Gigabit speeds. No, it won't be as good as a wire, but it is very very close. Sustained transfer speeds of 100MBps+.

Even by your own numbers it works out. You say you get 500-700Mbps now on a two antenna card, so theoretical 833Mbps connection. Thats 60-85% of the theoretical maximum. So add a 3rd antenna and you get a 1300Mbps theoretical maximum. So 60% of that would be 780Mbps, and 85% would be 1105Mbps, better than gigabit ethernet.

Not if you have other devices taking up that bandwidth too. The number is shared between all active devices on the band. I get 500-700 on a laptop when I'm the only one home. On the weekends when this would actually matter the actual throughput isn't going to be as high because the FireTV is constantly streaming, 3 phones on AC, and if I added an AC card to her machine it wouldn't get as much bandwidth as you're implying. The number would drop due to the bandwidth being shared, which is why I stated that specifically in which you said "no, I'm not". Apparently you were. Lastly, with wireless being half duplex that bandwidth you are getting is halved. So even if you were to get 1300Mb it's still halved going both ways. If we apply the AD half of 4200 is still fast than Gbe and I'd be willing to bet latency isn't as bad due to no interference (idk anything that runs in the 60Ghz range) and no cross traffic from other devices on the channel, including LoS preference. I'd also be willing to bet packet transmission is prioritized over 5GHz and 2.4GHz above all else.

 

[newtekie1]

Not if you have other devices taking up that bandwidth too. The number is shared between all active devices on the band. I get 500-700 on a laptop when I'm the only one home. On the weekends when this would actually matter the actual throughput isn't going to be as high because the FireTV is constantly streaming, 3 phones on AC, and if I added an AC card to her machine it wouldn't get as much bandwidth as you're implying. The number would drop due to the bandwidth being shared, which is why I stated that specifically in which you said "no, I'm not". Apparently you were. Lastly, with wireless being half duplex that bandwidth you are getting is halved. So even if you were to get 1300Mb it's still halved going both ways. If we apply the AD half of 4200 is still fast than Gbe and I'd be willing to bet latency isn't as bad due to no interference (idk anything that runs in the 60Ghz range) and no cross traffic from other devices on the channel, including LoS preference. I'd also be willing to bet packet transmission is prioritized over 5GHz and 2.4GHz above all else.

Yeah, I have other devices using the bandwidth, I said this. It is not that draining unless another device is pulling large files across the network(in which case, they are likely pulling from the server anyway, which has a single shared 1Gbps connection).

Cellphones use almost no bandwidth, they are designed that way. Even music streaming apps use such high compression because they are expected to work even if you have only a 3G connection. We're talking sub-128kbps here. The video streaming services(netflix/youtube/Amazon/etc.) all use very little bandwidth at all, usually a 1080 stream is under 3Mbps, a 720p stream is about 1.6Mbps. So even with a little faster of a download to buffer, say 4Mbps on a 1080 stream, it won't actually affect bandwidth that much. So the other devices are not actually going to make a big impact. So it goes down from 1100Mbps to 1080Mbps if you have all your devices streaming at the same time. Still just about as good as a wire. Just because a device is connected to the wifi doesn't mean it is slowing the wifi down for all the other devices. The wifi speed isn't divided in 4 just because you have 4 devices connected. It doesn't work that way. Those extra devices will only use the bandwidth they need, the wifi won't reserve a quarter of the bandwidth for a device that doesn't need it.

Also, half-dublex does not mean the bandwidth is halved. It means you get the full bandwidth in each direction, but you can only send in one direction at a time. So a 1000Mbps connection doesn't max out at 500Mbps, you can still do a file transfer and get 1000Mbps as long as you aren't also using an equal amount of bandwidth in the reverse direction. If you, for instance, transfer a large file from computer a to computer b, and at the same time transfer a large file from computer b to computer a, then each transfer would get 500Mbps. But if you are only doing a transfer from a to b, you will get the full 1000Mbps bandwidth.

Lastly, the range drop off for AD is so great that lower speeds caused by signal degradation become a major problem. The range is about 10 ft, and it has absolutely no penetrating power. If you are at 10ft away, you aren't even going to get half the speed, you probably won't even get a quarter of the rated speed.

 

[PP Mguire]

Yeah, I have other devices using the bandwidth, I said this. It is not that draining unless another device is pulling large files across the network(in which case, they are likely pulling from the server anyway, which has a single shared 1Gbps connection).

Cellphones use almost no bandwidth, they are designed that way. Even music streaming apps use such high compression because they are expected to work even if you have only a 3G connection. We're talking sub-128kbps here. The video streaming services(netflix/youtube/Amazon/etc.) all use very little bandwidth at all, usually a 1080 stream is under 3Mbps, a 720p stream is about 1.6Mbps. So even with a little faster of a download to buffer, say 4Mbps on a 1080 stream, it won't actually affect bandwidth that much. So the other devices are not actually going to make a big impact. So it goes down from 1100Mbps to 1080Mbps if you have all your devices streaming at the same time. Still just about as good as a wire. Just because a device is connected to the wifi doesn't mean it is slowing the wifi down for all the other devices. The wifi speed isn't divided in 4 just because you have 4 devices connected. It doesn't work that way. Those extra devices will only use the bandwidth they need, the wifi won't reserve a quarter of the bandwidth for a device that doesn't need it.

Also, half-dublex does not mean the bandwidth is halved. It means you get the full bandwidth in each direction, but you can only send in one direction at a time. So a 1000Mbps connection doesn't max out at 500Mbps, you can still do a file transfer and get 1000Mbps as long as you aren't also using an equal amount of bandwidth in the reverse direction. If you, for instance, transfer a large file from computer a to computer b, and at the same time transfer a large file from computer b to computer a, then each transfer would get 500Mbps. But if you are only doing a transfer from a to b, you will get the full 1000Mbps bandwidth.

Lastly, the range drop off for AD is so great that lower speeds caused by signal degradation become a major problem. The range is about 10 ft, and it has absolutely no penetrating power. If you are at 10ft away, you aren't even going to get half the speed, you probably won't even get a quarter of the rated speed.

Sigh, you have no understanding of how consumer wireless routers operate then. In a perfect world you will never get the same throughput as a Gbe connection and I have tried and cheap consumer routers that are programmed to do many things at once (unlike enterprise APs that have one function) don't handle the load very well on a heavily networked house. They eventually start to slow down which will slow down the transfer speeds for all devices in the house as it has to handle all that throughput at once. If wireless was so great and worked as perfectly as you wanted to claim everybody would be ditching cables left and right, but the reality is it isn't.

At this point, I don't even know why you're even still arguing. I'm sorry, at 10ft perfect LoS a 5Ghz 1700Mb AC connection won't come close to an AD 4200Mb connection even if was degraded because it would still be faster with absolutely no interference. You're also heavily assuming how bad the signal will degrade over a short distance which is quite naive as nobody even has this yet.

In a thread of naysayers I gave but one example as to how it would benefit somebody. If there's a market even in the slightest they will produce it and people will buy it. That's how we get new things. I'm not sure why people don't quite understand how this works yet. Just like N, AC, and now AD there are those that say it's useless and those that embrace it. I for one am happy wireless tech is at least trying to expand in some form to combat the nasty cable even if it is in baby steps. I experience this day in and day out at work, people saying 4k is pointless until they see a real 4k (370Mb/s bitrate) movie playing on an 84" 4k screen and go wow how can I get this. Then I tell them 4k Bluray is coming and their wallets are ready. All I can do is shake my head.

 

[Makaveli]

Sigh, you have no understanding of how consumer wireless routers operate then. In a perfect world you will never get the same throughput as a Gbe connection and I have tried and cheap consumer routers that are programmed to do many things at once (unlike enterprise APs that have one function) don't handle the load very well on a heavily networked house. They eventually start to slow down which will slow down the transfer speeds for all devices in the house as it has to handle all that throughput at once. If wireless was so great and worked as perfectly as you wanted to claim everybody would be ditching cables left and right, but the reality is it isn't.

At this point, I don't even know why you're even still arguing. I'm sorry, at 10ft perfect LoS a 5Ghz 1700Mb AC connection won't come close to an AD 4200Mb connection even if was degraded because it would still be faster with absolutely no interference. You're also heavily assuming how bad the signal will degrade over a short distance which is quite naive as nobody even has this yet.

In a thread of naysayers I gave but one example as to how it would benefit somebody. If there's a market even in the slightest they will produce it and people will buy it. That's how we get new things. I'm not sure why people don't quite understand how this works yet. Just like N, AC, and now AD there are those that say it's useless and those that embrace it. I for one am happy wireless tech is at least trying to expand in some form to combat the nasty cable even if it is in baby steps. I experience this day in and day out at work, people saying 4k is pointless until they see a real 4k (370Mb/s bitrate) movie playing on an 84" 4k screen and go wow how can I get this. Then I tell them 4k Bluray is coming and their wallets are ready. All I can do is shake my head.

i c your point.

As for the 4k you have to be on a big screen to benefit most people have tv's that are 60 inches an under.

On a 84 - 100 inch screen no problem!

 

[newtekie1]

Sigh, you have no understanding of how consumer wireless routers operate then.

I'm a network engineer. I have a perfect understanding of how consumer and professional wireless equipement works. You're the one that thinks half duplex means you instant cut the bandwidth in half, and just because you have extra clients connected they are going to slow the network down even if they are sitting idle.

In a perfect world you will never get the same throughput as a Gbe connection and I have tried and cheap consumer routers that are programmed to do many things at once (unlike enterprise APs that have one function) don't handle the load very well on a heavily networked house. They eventually start to slow down which will slow down the transfer speeds for all devices in the house as it has to handle all that throughput at once. If wireless was so great and worked as perfectly as you wanted to claim everybody would be ditching cables left and right, but the reality is it isn't.

Why would you talk about cheap routers? The MSRP on this AD router is $350... That ain't cheap.

At this point, I don't even know why you're even still arguing. I'm sorry, at 10ft perfect LoS a 5Ghz 1700Mb AC connection won't come close to an AD 4200Mb connection even if was degraded because it would still be faster with absolutely no interference. You're also heavily assuming how bad the signal will degrade over a short distance which is quite naive as nobody even has this yet.

Except it does exist. There have been 60GHz devices available for quite a while now. Their range is horrendous. Dell has already put out a wireless dock designed to wireless stream 4K content using the 60GHz band. Even at line of site, it is barely able to work at 10ft. And something as simple as someone walking in the room or walking across the room, breaking line of site, caused the connection to drop completely. At 60GHz not only does the water in the air absorb the signal, but so does the Oxygen. And forget about putting the antenna behind the TV, that would never work.