What are reasonable Mbps numbers for Wi-Fi generations?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
I

iljitsch

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
8,998
Subscriptor++
  • #1
    In 2003, I created this chart:

    bandwidth2003.jpg

    And then in 2014 I updated it:

    bandwidth2014.jpg

    It's again 11 years later, so time to do an update!

    But I'm having a hard time deciding what I should put in for Wi-Fi. Before 802.11n things were pretty simple: there was a maximum transmission rate that you would obviously never reach exactly, but could get pretty close to in optimal circumstances. But then we got MIMO (sending multiple data streams at the same time over the same channel using multiple antennas). So now the number of antennas and radios factors into the equation. And how many channels you are using at the same time. Originally those were 20 MHz, but these days you can go as high as 160 MHz, so combining 8 channels.

    Now obviously very few devices are going to have 8 antennas. So what's a reasonable number for the max bandwidth that a somewhat powerful device such as a laptop could reach for a given Wi-Fi generation. These are now the names for those:
    • Legacy (1997), 802.11 (2 Mbps @ 2.4 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 1 (1999), 802.11b (11 Mbps @ 2.4 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 2 (1999), 802.11a (54 Mbps @ 5 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 3 (2003), 802.11g (54 Mbps @ 2.4 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 4 (2009) 802.11n (2.4 and 5 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 5 (2013) 802.11ac (5 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 6 (2021) 802.11ax (2.4, 5 and 6 GHz)
    • Wi-Fi 7 (2024) 802.11be (2.4, 5 and 6 GHz)
    My 2007 MacBook Pro, despite predating the finished standard by two years, supports Wi-Fi 4 at 130 Mbps @ 2.4 GHz and 300 Mbps @ 5 GHz. So that's highly likely 2 antennas, and 40 GHz channels on 5 GHz.

    My 2013 and 2016 MBPs both do Wi-Fi 5 with 144 Mbps on 2.4 GHz, indicating 20 MHz and 2 antennas, but 1300 Mbps on 5 GHz, so that's 80 MHz channels and 3 antennas. My 2018 Apple TV 4K does 867 Mbps on 5 GHz so that looks like 80 MHz channels and 2 antennas.

    I'm assuming my Wi-Fi 6 2023 Apple TV 4K still has two antennas but my home router reports "1 Gbps", which indicates anything over 999 Mbps. Same thing for my iPhone SE 3G.

    My 2023 Raspberry Pi 400 does Wi-Fi 5 apparently with one antenna with 433 Mbps on 5 GHz.

    But I also have a bunch of devices from well beyond 2013 when Wi-Fi 5 arrived that still only do Wi-Fi 4. For instance, my Brother laser printer that I got last year. And some devices that will only do 2.4 GHz, such as my Nikon Z fc (although that seems to be a European restriction) or my 2018 Sony blu-ray player. Also generally smart home stuff.

    Fortunately, anything older than Wi-Fi 4 seems to have died out by now.

    So finally getting to my question:

    What kinds of link speeds are you guys seeing with newer laptops that support Wi-Fi 6 or 7?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: PlasticExistence and FinallyAnAccount
    Paladin

    Paladin

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    33,201
    Subscriptor
  • #2
    Basically the rule with wifi is you will only ever see real world speeds about half of the indicated link speed. So if your connection says 1 gigabit, you might get 500 megabit under ideal conditions.

    Ultimately, AC is about good enough for most people and the quality of the access point is more important than the version/base link rate. If you need more speed than AC can get you, go all the way to wifi 7, no point in buying something new that isn't the latest generation. Wifi 7 access points are getting reasonably priced now. The real speed improvements come from multi device optimization rather than actual ideal throughput. You only ever see ideal performance a few feet from the access point with the 6 ghz stuff so it is really more practical to just ignore that part of it.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: MR2DI4, FinallyAnAccount and GaitherBill
    I

    iljitsch

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    8,998
    Subscriptor++
  • #4
    Paladin said:
    Basically the rule with wifi is you will only ever see real world speeds about half of the indicated link speed. So if your connection says 1 gigabit, you might get 500 megabit under ideal conditions.
    Click to expand...
    No, that's only a very rough rule of thumb. It can be much worse with congest radio spectrum. But that's mostly a 2.4 GHz thing. Obstacles/distance will also drive speeds down.

    But just now I got 675 down with ac on my iPhone SE 3G, with an indicated link speed of 867 Mbps. So 78%.

    Paladin said:
    Ultimately, AC is about good enough for most people
    Click to expand...
    Sure. Still, ax is still better: I got 822 Mbps on that vs 675 as per above. And ac doesn't do 2.4 GHz so there you only get 144 Mbps n, but 229 Mbps with ax.

    be adds a lot of efficiency so that will be useful in congested places. For instance, it could make wired Ethernet much less necessary in big offices.

    But at home, sure, ac / Wi-Fi 5 is more than good enough. I'll stil take the newer stuff as it shows up, though.
     
    E

    ERIFNOMI

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    15,461
    Subscriptor++
  • #8
    Doing things the right way isn't always doing things the easy way. But you put all that work in once and you never have to fuck with it again. I have tons of Cat6 and even a little bit of fiber throughout my whole house. Yes, it was work running all of it. But my network is rock fucking solid for big bandwidth users that never move (deaktops, laptop docks, TVs/STBs, consoles) and I have APs where they need to be to have great WiFi coverage everywhere for devices that can't be wired.
     
    Paladin

    Paladin

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    33,201
    Subscriptor
  • #9
    iljitsch said:
    No, that's only a very rough rule of thumb. It can be much worse with congest radio spectrum. But that's mostly a 2.4 GHz thing. Obstacles/distance will also drive speeds down.

    But just now I got 675 down with ac on my iPhone SE 3G, with an indicated link speed of 867 Mbps. So 78%.


    Sure. Still, ax is still better: I got 822 Mbps on that vs 675 as per above. And ac doesn't do 2.4 GHz so there you only get 144 Mbps n, but 229 Mbps with ax.

    be adds a lot of efficiency so that will be useful in congested places. For instance, it could make wired Ethernet much less necessary in big offices.

    But at home, sure, ac / Wi-Fi 5 is more than good enough. I'll stil take the newer stuff as it shows up, though.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah I was assuming the average home setup. When you get into business setups, the quality of the access point and associated hardware can mean a good deal of improvement. I think (but can't say for sure) that a lot of devices will actually bump up their 'speed' when in use and lower it for power saving. So what starts off as being reported as 867 Mbps might actually bump up to 1.3 Gbps link speed when it gets used, in some cases. Depends on the device and AP of course. But yeah, with home setups, you are lucky if you see a dual radio AP in some corner behind the TV or whatever trying to blast out coverage to the other end of the house with 8 walls in between, etc. Even the 2.4ghz coverage is spotty and there are 14 smart devices on the network already. :D
     
    I

    iljitsch

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    8,998
    Subscriptor++
  • #10
    8 walls?? I know your North American walls are pretty pathetic, but that still sound like a lot.

    I have my ISP-provided AP in a closet all the way at one side of my apartment with a wood door that may or may not be closed and then two brick walls between my bedroom and home office. Bedroom isn't great but I don't need much bandwidth when asleep. As per the drilling, I have good wired bandwidth in the office...

    I have three extra APs that I could fire up (including a 2013 3-antenna = 1300 Mbps Airport Extreme) to get better coverage, but I'm too cheap to burn the additional watts.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply