Wireless Performance - 5 GHz
Figure 8 shows the IxChariot aggregate plot for all 5 GHz band downlink tests using 20 MHz channel width. Just as with the Cisco E4200, despite the use of outboard 5 GHz amplifiers, the WNDR4000 could not reach into Locations E and F.
The large dropouts you see in the Location A run below were seen in multiple test runs and could really put a crimp in HD video streams. Note also the significant drop in throughput at Location D.
Figure 8: NETGEAR WNDR4000 wireless throughput - 5 GHz, 20 MHz mode, downlink
Best case 5 GHz performance was 83 Mbps running downlink in 40 MHz bandwidth mode at Location A, about 10 Mbps higher than with the 2.4 GHz radio. I measured 111 Mbps total throughput in 40 MHz mode running simultaneous up and downlink tests at Location A, again, significantly higher than the 2.4 GHz side.
Here are links to other IxChariot wireless test plots if you'd like to explore further:
- 5 GHz / 20 MHz uplink
- 5 GHz / 20 MHz up and downlink
- 5 GHz / 40 MHz downlink
- 5 GHz / 40 MHz uplink
- 5 GHz / 40 MHz up and downlink
For a competitive comparison, I generated a Performance table, selecting the Cisco Linksys E4200, and WNDR3700v2. Figure 9 shows the 2.4 GHz comparison. Although the E4200 seems to be the overall winner, a closer look comparing each of the test locations shows the E4200 and WNDR4000 more alike then different under strong to medium signal conditions.
Figure 9: Wireless Competitive Comparison - 2.4 GHz
Figure 10 shows a Location C comparison of 2.4 GHz downlink performance using one of the new Router Chart features. The three routers really run neck-and-neck, as they also do in Locations A and B.
Figure 10: Location C 2.4 GHz downlink comparison - Cisco, Linksys and NETGEAR only
But if you're interested in range, you need to focus in on Location E and F performance. And going back to Figure 9, it's clear that Cisco did something right with the E4200. Because it clearly delivers much higher throughput than the WNDR4000.
Figure 11 compares the same the routers in the 5 GHz band. The Performance tables show a split decision, with the E4200 doing better in 20 MHz mode and the WNDR4000 better in 40 MHz mode (or Up to 450 Mbps mode in NETGEAR-speak).
Figure 11: Wireless Competitive Comparison - 5 GHz
Running a Performance vs. Location Chart on the three products displays the data for a more visual comparison (Figure 12). In the default 5 GHz band mode, the WNDR4000 clearly pulls ahead of the E4200 as signal levels drop. But, as is typical of almost every dual-band N router I've tested, neither reach to Locations E and F.
Figure 12: Performance vs. Location - 5 GHz, 40 MHz B/W, Down
Use the Wireless Charts to further compare and explore the E4200's performance.
Average user rating from: 4 user(s)
NOTE! Please post product reviews from actual experience only.
Questions, review comments and opinions about products not based on actual use will not be published.
|User Rating [Back to Top]||Overall:||4.7||Features :||4.8||Performance :||5.0||Reliability :||4.3|
this router is wonderful
March 12, 2012
Report this review
I love the performance of this netgear n750
Excellent piece of kit
August 16, 2011
Report this review
I went from a WNDR3700 to the 4000 and file transfer speeds from my 2011 MBP to my WHS improved dramatically.
I highly recommend this router. Works perfectly with a selection of iDevices, Macbook Pros and Mac Mini.
Unlike the Apple Airport Extreme, it allows you to use any subnet AND disable DHCP if you wish.
excellent transfer performance with some kinks
June 04, 2011
Report this review
I got 2 of these routers to setup my network as follows:
the base router to work as a wireless AP on the 2.4 GHz band, and to connect with the second router (as WDS) on the 5GHz band. The second router acts as a WDS repeater and serves my media center (through wired connections).
I can transfer files to my HTPC (over wireless WDS) with 25MBytes / second !!!. I've never seen more than 7 MBytes with any other configurations. Let me repeat : 25 MB (mega bytes, not bits). This is 2 rooms away over 2 walls at about 30 to 45 degree angle through the walls , same floor.
The bad :
WDS does not works with WPA or WPA2 on this router. Since WEP is removed on this router, WDS works only when there is NO security (on 5GHz band for me). Very lame !
Reliability issues : this is a potential bug: about once a day, the base router changes the security on my 2.4GHz bank to NONE (from WPA2). This is probably because of the WDS enabled on the 5Ghz band. Still, this is a BIG issue for me (as it's exposing my network).
Conclusion : great transfer rates but issues with the firmware ... I am returning these routers.. might get them again once the firmware matures,
Note : firmware version tested : 220.127.116.11 (on both routers)
The Importance of Proper 3 Stream Gear
April 21, 2011
Report this review
What would otherwise be an excellent article is marred by the lack of quality three stream gear by the reviews. I'm pulling 20 megaBYTES per second sustained from my WHS over wifi, which is forty feet and three rooms away.
I'm using the Intel 6300N in a mini-pci-e to normal pci-e adapter with 3 Air802 5DB antennas.
Also, an article needs to be done on the particular wifi card solution I'm using. It seems to be the highest performance adapter in existence, yet nobody knows about the possibility of using it in a desktop via adapter.
Related Items:Cisco Linksys E4200 Maximum Performance Wireless-N Router Review Follo
Three Stream N Performance: Two More
Three Stream N Performance: A First Look
New To The Charts: Cisco Linksys E3200 High Performance Dual-Band N Ro
ASUS RT-N56U Black Diamond Dual-Band Gigabit Wireless-N Router Reviewe