What's the best wireless ac router for SP2/SP3

[GreyFox7]

I can't see that. The issue of wifi speed will always be displayed the connected device. I m not saying that all routers output the max, but I sincerely doubt there will be much difference in the speeds the SP2/3 receives between x-number of the internal wifi-card samples. The controlling issues are so diverse that unless you had the SP2/3 sitting in the same spot at the same humidity, the same temperature and same orientation then you could make some quantitive assessments. But, only for that spot in time and place. With the whole idea of the SP2/3 being portable, the measurement of wifi speeds are instantly moot.

By all means collect numbers, but in the hardware world, it ain't gonna matter squat. One needs to understand the complexities of wifi transmissions and the things that shape the efficiency from zillionths of a second to the next, quantifying speeds has no relavence.

try going to the dd-wrt Wiki (yes, all my routers run dd-wrt) and read about the things that can be tweaked to shape performance of the router firmware. There are, at a guess 50+ and then consider that the receiving end also has an equal number of such tweakables.

Bottom line is that claimed router output and recorded speeds at the SP2/3 mean nothing. Move the SP2/3 6" in any direction and it will change.

I rest!

Theoretical mathematician vs Applied mathematician:
In front of you at some distance is your most desirable significant other.
Each step you take must be half the distance.

Theoretical mathematician thinks and says I will never get there and walks away.
Applied mathematician thinks and says I will be with in 2 inches in 8 steps, that's close enough for me.

By your logic there's no point in testing a wireless Router because YMMV.

You said your piece let the practical minds decide if they want to use theoretical performance to make their buying decisions or practical results.

 

[jnjroach]

Ummm, if the device being connected to an AC router only has a wifi-card for B,G,N (SP1,SP2,SP3 etc) then that's all they are **ever** going to see. The AC is only going to be seen when there is a compatible AC device connected. As in, AC-to-AC.

@olimjj: AC router has **nothing** to do with download speeds. That's handled buy the **MODEM** part. Not yelling, "MODEM" is an acronym.

You do realize the SP3 has a 802.11AC WLAN Capable Wireless Card?

 

[New2ToMe]

You do realize the SP3 has a 802.11AC WLAN Capable Wireless Card?

Ummm, didn't I say "device being connected to an AC router only has a wifi-card for B,G,N (SP1,SP2,SP3 etc)"

IF the card only does B,G,N then an AC router doesn't count. I have no idea if the SP3 does AC, but if it does, then I apologize for adding SP3 into that parens. brackets. I am too lazy to check specs so I deserve being checked.

 

[theveterans]

Just wanted to share my setup:

Router: Belkin Linksys WRT1900AC
Cable Modem: Arris SB6183

Link Speed with the router: Constant 866.5 Mbps

Local file transfers: 50-55 MB/s average or 400-450 Mbps

Internet Plan: TWC 300 down / 20 up

Screenshot :

 

[olimjj]

Ummm, if the device being connected to an AC router only has a wifi-card for B,G,N (SP1,SP2,SP3 etc) then that's all they are **ever** going to see. The AC is only going to be seen when there is a compatible AC device connected. As in, AC-to-AC.

@olimjj: AC router has **nothing** to do with download speeds. That's handled buy the **MODEM** part. Not yelling, "MODEM" is an acronym.

If you read my post, I connected an SP1, which does not have AC; but I used an AC capable adapter to connect to my AC router.

Link Speed with adapter 867 Mbps
Link Speed without adapter 270 Mbps

 

[GreyFox7]

The Linksys WRT1900AC is a beast but it has a beastly price on it as well.

There's benefit to a faster router but you need Internet BW to go with it unless you do a lot of local transfers. On my older router which was N150 Id connect at 130 and some times it would drop to 58 and sometimes I would not get the FULL 50 Mb to the Internet. With the faster router I'm getting a solid 300 connect with my Surface 2 some times on 2.4ghz it drops to 170 but on 5ghz hardly ever drops below 300 while the SP3 is usually connecting at 866, sometimes drops a little, and I always reach the service max to the Internet while local transfers are much quicker.

Not bad for $90 vs 180-225 for a few megabits more. I might keep it.
Even if I doubled my Internet BW to 100Mb I'm not sure I really need more router than the TP-Link Archer C7 (note the C8 is a newer ac 1750 router and about the same for 110, has a USB 3.0 port if that's important to you).

 

[GreyFox7]

Using Surface RT: @ 6.5 meters / 21 feet. 5ghz band
Connection Speed 270 Mbps.
Internet download 30 Mbps Upload 30 Mbps subscribed 50/50 Mbps.
Local Xfer Speed : 4-6 MBps/32-48 Mbps
Edited... initial test had windows updates running in the background.

 

[olimjj]

@GreyFox7
Yes, you are correct. It is analogous to the High End stereo equipment you see advertised in Stereophile. Outrageously expensive, for the promise of achieving " state of the art " in detail; if your hearing is good enough (mine is not). I could have purchased a less expensive one, but there weren't many rated/reviewed dual band AC routers with its complement of features at the time. It was a Birthday gift to myself to replace my older N Router; which I gave to a friend. After all I could not be cheap with myself.

 

[GreyFox7]

@GreyFox7
Yes, you are correct. It is analogous to the High End stereo equipment you see advertised in Stereophile. Outrageously expensive, for the promise of achieving " state of the art " in detail; if your hearing is good enough (mine is not). I could have purchased a less expensive one, but there weren't many rated/reviewed dual band AC routers with its complement of features at the time. It was a Birthday gift to myself to replace my older N Router; which I gave to a friend. After all I could not be cheap with myself.

I begrudge no one buying a high end router, stereo, or any other device.

My hope is that this will continue to grow with a variety of routers that work well with Surfaces. Some routers reportedly result in suboptimal experience with a Surface. I don't really care if it's the Marvell chip, the Driver, the Router, or all the above causing issues. I would just like to see a collection of that which does work well and hope some people find it useful.

What I'm seeing so far, at this preliminary stage, is that top rated routers are also working well with the Surface although not surprisingly that may not always be the case.

 

[theveterans]

The Linksys WRT1900AC is a beast but it has a beastly price on it as well.

There's benefit to a faster router but you need Internet BW to go with it unless you do a lot of local transfers. On my older router which was N150 Id connect at 130 and some times it would drop to 58 and sometimes I would not get the FULL 50 Mb to the Internet. With the faster router I'm getting a solid 300 connect with my Surface 2 some times on 2.4ghz it drops to 170 but on 5ghz hardly ever drops below 300 while the SP3 is usually connecting at 866, sometimes drops a little, and I always reach the service max to the Internet while local transfers are much quicker.

Not bad for $90 vs 180-225 for a few megabits more. I might keep it.
Even if I doubled my Internet BW to 100Mb I'm not sure I really need more router than the TP-Link Archer C7 (note the C8 is a newer ac 1750 router and about the same for 110, has a USB 3.0 port if that's important to you).

Well I like that's it's holding up its regular price as well. I had a 30% off promotion on mine and only paid $175 without tax online. Well, file transfer speed is WRT1900AC's strength but you can get close to its performance and have more features with Netgear or ASUS. Well I'm not a router tinkerer and my WRT1900AC connection is stable as a rock so I'm extremely pleased with it.

 

[jnjroach]

One thing about the higher end Routers is they tend to have better SoC's. My Netgear Nighthawk R7000 uses a Dual Core CPU running at 1GHz with 256MB RAM, this allows them in theory to perform networking tasks faster. Many of the moderate to low end routers are running at 400-800 MHz with many having as little as 64MB RAM.

 

[GreyFox7]

One thing about the higher end Routers is they tend to have better SoC's. My Netgear Nighthawk R7000 uses a Dual Core CPU running at 1GHz with 256MB RAM, this allows them in theory to perform networking tasks faster. Many of the moderate to low end routers are running at 400-800 MHz with many having as little as 64MB RAM.

Fair enough, there must be some incremental salient value to the higher end devices, lest the consumer be duped into paying too much for absolutely no reason. The TP-Link C7/C8 SoC CPU is 720 mhz and has 128MB RAM but there are detailed reviews elsewhere so I'll just refer to them to stay closer to home with how it works with a Surface. SmallNetBuilder is a good resource among others http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/view

Although with all wireless 1900 ac routers today clients cannot take advantage of the full potential. Surfaces are equipped with 1 radio and support 2 x 2 mimo (which defines limiting characteristics) and more practically may only be communicating on the 2.4 ghz or hopefully 5 ghz band so your max speed selections are limited. That could be expanded to all wireless routers which operate anywhere that's not an ideal lab environment. Cue the dance of the theoretical wireless sugar plum fairies.

Client Max speed per band Mbps
config 802.11n 802.11ac
............ 2.4ghz .... 5ghz
1 x 1......150.......... 433
2 x 2.....300..........867
3 x 3.....450.......... 1300
Remember you'll only get the max speed when the moon is blue, the temp is 72, and the skies are clear.

perhaps I should add that if you're doing other things with your router like actively sharing a USB HDD and Printer or have numerous clients connected simultaneously etc. the extra SoC speed would be more important but even a lowly SoC will comfortably handle a family's wireless usage. (C7 max simultaneous connections is an insanely high 32,412).