Dual Band Worth It?

[RobDMB]

I'm looking to upgrade to Wireless N and am wondering if a Dual Band router is worth it. Any opinions? Also, is there any dual band routers that are recommended, I had been looking at the Airport Extreme but am open to other options as well.

 

[imagoon]

This will answer all of your questions:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2084851&highlight=

 

[Griffinhart]

It depends on your needs. If you're just using it to connect a few machines with normal web surfing/gaming uses, probably not. You really only want dualband if you are using a lot of wireless network intensive apps.

I use one because I stream TV to a couple of rooms in the house and using a single wireless network won't do. You can often get poor video quality on a single wifi network when copying file(s) at the same time as watching streaming video. Dual band routers will let you use one wireless network for video streaming and the second for standard machine connections. That way one task doesn't interfere with the other. That said, you can also just use two wireless routers and accomplish the same thing, though more configuration is needed as well as it being a second item to plug in on the power strip.

 

[boomhower]

I like mine. I use the 5Ghz band for file transfers and the 2.4Ghz band for streaming, works very well.

 

[willjackon]

i think the 5 ghz. network has a wider range and less interference

 

[JackMDS]

First step try to educated yourself what the difference is.

Second Step evaluate your needs, and see how they are pertaining to the issue of Dual band.

Then if you need focused help I am sure that some one can provide the answer.

 

[Griffinhart]

I tend to get better connections on my 5ghz network, but, you don't need to spend extra cash on a dual band network for that. There are several sub $100 N routers that run in the 5Ghz band.

It's worth noting though, There are a ton of notebooks with .11N and various adapter cards that don't run in the 5Ghz range. Especially the lower cost notebooks. A dual band router would cover that problem.

Honestly, I'd look more into getting a router with features that you may use more. There are some great routers out there with guest access, for example. It's pretty cool to have a wifi AP set up for friends and visitors without exposing machines on your home network. Others like the option of 3rd party firmware for some routers.

Then again, you may actually need a dual band router as mentioned before.

 

[Synomenon]

I use my dual band to expand my network's range. I have a Cisco e3000 upstairs. The 2.4GHz band for my PCs and the 5GHz connected to a Linksys WET610N downstairs that is providing the network connection for a WRT160N.

 

[Emulex]

most routers run at a specific power output; 5-6ghz takes requires twice the power as 2.4 for the same distance. so its great if you are at point blank range.

 

[RobDMB]

Essentially my current setup consists of: 2 tivos (1 wired and 1 wireless), 2 laptops connecting wirelessly, an xbox360 connecting wirelessly, and a desktop computer connecting wirelessly. Two of the computers and the xbox use wireless N, the rest uses wireless G. I'm noticing some spotty performance with my existing cheap router and am considering two alternatives: the first is a beefy wireless N non-dual band router such as the Asus RT-N16 which I would flash with Tomato or DD-WRT. The second option is just to go all out and get an Airport Express Dualband router or something similiar. The Dualbands are almost twice as expensive though so I'm not sure if its worth the expense or not.

 

[Griffinhart]

It sounds like a Dual Band Router is a reasonable solution for your setup. A cheaper route would be to get a second N-router and still use your existing router as an access point. Probably using the new router for streaming video to your Tivo and or 360's and keeping your existing PC traffic on the existing network.

You can also get a dual band and retire your existing router. Dedicate one band for Tivo/360's and the other for the rest. That would still leave the option of using the existing router as an additional AP to split your wireless traffic a bit more.

So, the cheapest route would be keep your current and just get a second single band router. Dual band routers would give you a little more flexibility when paired with your current router, but as you said, they are more expensive. It really depends on your budget. I'm always prone to spend more money on tech than I need, but both solutions will fit your needs.

 

[RobDMB]

With dual band routers must you assign the traffic, or will the routers automatically do this for you?

 

[Griffinhart]

They are essentially two wireless routers in one box. You join what machines you want to each.

 

[spidey07]

They are essentially two wireless routers in one box. You join what machines you want to each.

Not really. It just has two radios. 2.4 and 5 Ghz. 802.11n can use both bands at the same time for increased speed.

I don't think I'd even purchase a router that wasn't dual band these days with 2.4 getting so noisy. It's almost a necessary requirement now, especially if you want the higher performance of N.

 

[Griffinhart]

Not really. It just has two radios. 2.4 and 5 Ghz. 802.11n can use both bands at the same time for increased speed.

I don't think I'd even purchase a router that wasn't dual band these days with 2.4 getting so noisy. It's almost a necessary requirement now, especially if you want the higher performance of N.

Not the Dual Band routers I've used. I've used both a linksys and netgear dual band. They are two radios running different frequencies each with thier own SSID's and security. These two routers don't have a way to combined the 2.4 and 5 ghz bands into one super wireless mode.

The Netgear Dual-Band has one B/G/N 2.4 Ghz and one A/N 5 Ghz channel specifically tuned for Video.

 

[spidey07]

That's totally idiotic then. The reason N gets the high speeds if is you use both bands simultaneously. That's how it works with business APs.

That is just simply completely stupid.

 

[Griffinhart]

The .11N standard get's its higher speed not by that method, but by using MIMO which is multiple antenas at both the transmiter and reciever.

 

[JackMDS]

The .11N standard get's its higher speed not by that method, but by using MIMO which is multiple antenas at both the transmiter and reciever.

Yap, that is the way Entry Level 802.11n Wireless per-se works.

So what the problem is?

Well it is as if a car manufacturer will take their entry level car, will add 10-20% to the engine HP, and will try to market it as the fastest car in the world.

In other words, the Wireless improvement per-se from 802.11g to 802.11 MIMO is very little increment of improvement and in many cases worth very little.

Nevertheless, the “best” thing that happened in our society is that Market Verbiage, sprinkled with white lies, lack of condition disclosure, Reviewers (and even some forum’s members) that their livelihood depends on the hardware, works very well on the Ignorant.

 

[spidey07]

The .11N standard get's its higher speed not by that method, but by using MIMO which is multiple antenas at both the transmiter and reciever.

The higher speeds require 4 MIMO channels of 40 Mhz. This requires you use both 2.4 and 5 Ghz bands, normally two from each.

Which brings up the other point, you simply can't get the high speeds of 802.11n without a 5 Ghz radio because of the need for 40 Mhz channels. 2.4 simply cannot support more than two and 4 are required. If 2.4 is noisy then you can move all 40 Ghz channels to the 5 Ghz band.

All in all there is simply no reason to not have dual band, you severely limit your speed and performance if you don't.

 

[EJ257]

The higher speeds require 4 MIMO channels of 40 Mhz. This requires you use both 2.4 and 5 Ghz bands, normally two from each.

Which brings up the other point, you simply can't get the high speeds of 802.11n without a 5 Ghz radio because of the need for 40 Mhz channels. 2.4 simply cannot support more than two and 4 are required. If 2.4 is noisy then you can move all 40 Ghz channels to the 5 Ghz band.

All in all there is simply no reason to not have dual band, you severely limit your speed and performance if you don't.

Just to clarify, you need 4 streams on the 40MHz channel to achieve the 600Mbps theoretical max. Currently only the 5.0GHz band supports 40MHz wide channels and only allow 2 streams so you'll only get 300Mbps max out of it. There are other benefits of the n extension that you can still take advantage on the 2.4GHz band.

This is a nice read if you have the time: http://www.wi-fi.org/files/kc/WFA_802_11n_Industry_June07.pdf

 

[Emulex]

remember 5ghz analog or cheap digital phones will decimate the 5-6ghz range. keep your phones DECT to avoid 2.4ghz and 5-6ghz bleed. bluetooth and other 2.4ghz devices (non-wifi mice) will nuke the 2.4ghz band real good too depending on location.

 

[Synomenon]

W/ my Linksys e3000, I've set both the 5GHz radio and the 2.4GHz radio to 40MHz wide and don't get any interference. The Linksys WET610N downstairs is also set to 5GHz w/ 40MHz wide and gets a strong signal from the e3000. The WET610N is the internet connection for the WRT160N downstairs.

I get a steady 300mbps connection anywhere in the house w/ both our laptops and with the desktop computers upstairs.

 

[JackMDS]

I get a steady 300mbps connection anywhere in the house w/ both our laptops and with the desktop computers upstairs.

Did you actually measured it or you are reporting what ever the drivers table displays through the regular interface.

If you have 300Mb/sec. bandwidth all of the computers that are not close to the Router should provide a stable functional transfer of 400MB file in 11sec.
Give it a try.

 

[Emulex]

i'd like to see a map of bandwidth with various sources of interference. turn on a wii; turn on the microwave; etc..

i'd be curious to see the effects on your sustained bandwidth. for video sake - you'd set an absolute minimum and average bitrate. nobody likes to watch their videos skip/pause - and average bitrate could cover up 20 situations where video would be poopy so lowest sustained bitrate should be considered as well.

(wii is 802.11b; microwave blazes channel 6 2.4ghz).

maybe throw in a few 2.4 or 5ghz portable phones and some bluetooth or logitech cordless mice too.

 

[Synomenon]

Did you actually measured it or you are reporting what ever the drivers table displays through the regular interface.

If you have 300Mb/sec. bandwidth all of the computers that are not close to the Router should provide a stable functional transfer of 400MB file in 11sec.
Give it a try.

Other than trying to time a file transfer myself, is there a utility that can show me the actual bandwidth? I know what Windows shows in the Local Area Connection Status windows isn't accurate.