Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Wireless Networking: Nine 802.11n Routers Rounded Up
By ,
1. Router Reignition

Looking back through the archives, we noticed that it had been a long time—indeed, a long, lonely time—since we’d taken a hard look at the wireless networking space, and for that we apologize. With so many amazing things happening in the worlds of CPUs, GPUs, storage, and such, it’s easy to overlook networking. After all, with 802.11n now a finalized standard and the nearly identical Draft 2.0 spec appearing in retail products since mid-2007, there haven’t exactly been any bombshells in the wireless world lately.

And yet...the rest of the market hasn’t stood still. Since the dawn of Draft 2.0, we’ve seen the rise of netbooks, smartphones embracing dual-radio cellular and WiFi, an ever-increasing array of wireless home theater and VoIP devices, and even the first steps toward making cars into hot spots (think Microsoft SYNC). Add to this the unstoppable march to widespread high-def video streaming across any number of platforms and devices. The need for a solid WiFi foundation in your home is bigger than ever.

When early draft 802.11n gear first came available, we were decidedly underwhelmed. It was only marginally better than 802.11g on a good day, especially if you were using one of the dual-channel “turbo” versions. Without channel bonding, it was common for us to see real world, sustained 802.11a or g throughput in the 15 Mb/s range. By 2006, we had multiple antennas and MIMO technology (spatial multiplexing and the sending of discrete data sub-streams along different paths within a single radio link) along with an upgrade to the fetal 11n spec, and sustained throughput jumped to anywhere from the 40s to the 80s in Mb/s. Performance was all over the board and patch updates seemed to be raining from the sky for a while, but everyone eventually realized that we were never going to get even remotely close to that promised 300 Mb/s 11n spec. The wireless-loving public realized, yet again, that vendors had overhyped and underdelivered...and interest in 11n waned.

The thing is that, for better or worse, vendors still need to sell product. Perhaps they were at the mercy of the radio chip manufacturers on wireless performance, but they could still innovate and improve designs in other regards. Now in 2010, the days of simple routers that do little more than offer a few switched LAN ports and handle wireless communications are all but over. If the idea of wireless performance is to make computing life more convenient, then secondary router features definitely serve this same purpose—or should. As we discovered, not all feature implementations are equally brilliant.

We lined up recent releases from Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys, Netgear, Ruckus Wireless, TP-Link, TRENDnet, and ZyXEL, crafted our testing setup, and let the cage match begin. Without further ado, let’s dig in and see what a broad walk through today’s WiFi router scene has to offer the discerning power user.

2. Asus RT-N13U And RT-N16

The Asus RT-N13U is almost exactly what we expect from a mature, mainstream product category. At $57.75, the N13U looks to provide middle of the road performance with enough low-cost (but useful) features to make the device desirable. We don’t mean features like WPA and WPA2 encryption, or NAT and SPI firewall protection. These built-ins have been around for so long that we now expect them to be part of any router and would only call them out if they were omitted. This is also true of Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) support for easier WLAN security setup and client connecting.

More interesting is that the N13U is 2.4 GHz-only and uses a pair of 3 dBi antennas, so we wouldn’t necessarily expect roaring performance. All four rear LAN ports are 10/100. We admit that 10/100 is still amply fast for most home users. After all, you’re unlikely to have a high-def video stream with more than a 60 Mb/s bit rate (Blu-ray tops out at 40 Mb/s), but we still chafe at settling for slower connections in this time of terabyte-sized NAS backups.

Asus does integrate one USB 2.0 port for printer sharing, allowing you to make any printer wireless or Ethernet-based. You can also use the port for add-on USB storage, turning the router into a NAS device and (thanks to the fairly friendly bundled software) FTP server. Probably our favorite feature is the switch on the bottom that lets the router jump into repeater or access point modes. We suppose the AP feature might make sense if you had a Gigabit switch and wanted to dangle an 11n access point from it. With 11n access points starting at $45, why not buy the router? We prefer the repeater function, because someday you’re going to upgrade that router, and when you do, you’ll have a repeater standing by to help fill in dead spots in your WiFi coverage.

Asus throws in some nifty networking utilities that help simplify setup and maintenance so you don’t need to manage option menus. If you’re a chronic downloader, the BitTorrent download client might come in handy. We’re more interested in the “EZQoS” function for prioritizing certain traffic types, such as games or FTP, although we wish this QoS engine were more granular.

Think of the RT-N16 ($94.99) as the N13U’s big brother. You now get two USB 2.0 ports instead of one, three antennas instead of two, and four gigabit LAN ports. This is still a 2.4 GHz-only product, but Asus builds in a 480 MHz processor, theoretically sufficient for the next time you want to run two or three hundred thousand concurrent P2P streams. The EZQoS help carries over, as does the printer sharing, FTP, and all the other GUI goodies. We’ll see if almost twice the price gets you twice the performance.

3. Belkin N150 And N1 Vision

We’re not going to burn a ton of time on these units, since Belkin is now preparing for a total router line refresh. Having tested these two current models, we can see why. For starters, we have the N150 ($44.99), one of the first routers to use the 11n spec with only a single antenna. You’ll see these marketed as “lite” or “150" models because, with only one radio and antenna, they’re incapable of leveraging 3x3 MIMO and don’t meet true 802.11n specifications, even when using a 40 MHz channel mode. The only conceivable reason to do this is to drop total unit costs, but when you can get a true, decent 11n router for only $10 more, you’d have to be mental to buy a 150 variant. And yes, Belkin has it’s “Basic” model with 150/Lite coming out soon for $34.99 MSRP. Whatever. The N150 has four 10/100 ports, the integrated essential features, and approximately nothing else.

The N1 Vision ($119.99) makes different mistakes. Without question, this is an impressive-looking unit, with a svelte, upright orientation, three unobtrusive antennas affixed to the back, and a very slick LCD that shows WAN and LAN speeds, the number of attached devices, the speeds of those devices, recent usage traffic, and a clock. One can never be surrounded by enough clocks. Other vendors have taken their own stabs at LCD routers. D-Link even touts some of its OLED- and LCD-based models as being “green.” Someone please explain to us how adding an unnecessary display assists with energy savings. You can toggle between the screen’s various readouts via a four-way control pad located to the right of the display. Hopefully, you keep your router within easy reach, not in a closet.

Is the N1 Vision more than just a pretty face? Belkin delivers four gigabit ports, a CD-less installation routine, and multiple SSIDs. We really like this last feature for people who frequently have guests joining on to the network or simply want a decoy for war drivers. You can create a visible “guest” SSID for these infrequent visitors while your own SSID stays hidden and/or encrypted. Overall, the N1 Vision is a very friendly router. The shame is that its price tag matches its sexy appearance, but not its performance. We hope that the new Belkin routers deliver more performance than the current lineup, but the specs listed on Belkin’s site now don’t give us much reason to anticipate radical change. Headline “apps” such as “Torrent Genie” and “Bit Boost” look to us like new names for older features.

4. D-Link DIR-685

Give D-Link points for creativity. A router that serves overtime as a photo frame? Sure, why not? It’s already on the network. And if you thought the LCD display on Belkin’s N1 Vision was cool, D-Link’s widgety-looking 3.2" LCD on the DIR-685 ($209.99) is downright futuristic. The question is whether you think a 3.2" display—roughly the size of your palm—makes a practical, viewable photo frame within your environment. If not, then you’re probably back to using the display for router control...if you use it at all. 

Fortunately, there’s a lot more to the DIR-685 than being a quarter-sized photo frame. While there’s no external switch for an easy short-cut, you can still configure the router’s options to turn it into an access point. There are menu options for configuring Internet access via a 3G USB adapter, as well as QoS support for specifically optimizing VoIP and streaming traffic.

Of course, the headline feature of this unit is that it’s a “storage router.” Normally, that means the vendor integrates a USB port or two and provides remote access to USB-attached storage. D-Link gives you two USB ports but then takes the unique step of adding a 2.5" hard drive bay into one edge. You could plant a top-end drive in that bad boy and have yourself 640GB or more of instant network-attached storage accessible by up to 64 user accounts or general FTP. With only one internal drive, there’s obviously no RAID support, so use this drive for redundant data you want easily accessible for outsiders, not as your primary storage location.

Other hot router features include a UPnP server and iTunes server for media streaming to compatible players on the LAN. The seemingly obligatory BitTorrent download manager is present (this requires a 2.5" HDD to be installed). We like that the DIR-685 can email alert and firmware patch messages to the admin. And yeah, getting LAN, WAN, and wireless performance speedometers on the LCD (and several other widgets besides) is still pretty cool, too.

D-Link did the right thing by putting four gigabit ports in place, although that’s pretty much expected at this price point. And for the price (which still shows as $299.99 on D-Link’s site), we would have expected 2.4/5.0 GHz dual-band support. As it is, the DIR-685 is 2.4 GHz-only, which seems a gaping oversight for a supposedly media- and streaming-savvy router. On the other hand, we dig D-Link’s SharePort feature, which makes attached USB devices appear as local assets to client systems running D-Link’s SharePort software. For these and several other small but useful perks, we found the DIR-685 to be one of this roundup’s most intriguing routers. If nothing else, it sets a positive example for the networking industry in how to innovate for a more experienced consumer audience.

5. Linksys WRT610N

Linksys has long been a popular home router brand. The products tend to be simple, durable, well-supported, and at least meet performance expectations. In working with prior Linksys models, we’ve had few complaints but also not many occasions to gush with praise. Just looking at the WRT610N ($169.99) out of the box, we wondered if things were about to change. This dual-band beauty doesn’t seek to distract with fancy LCD displays. Rather, a sleek profile, glossy and rounded like a fine sports car, conveys simple elegance and speed.

There are two kinds of dual-band routers: those that let you connect via 2.4 GHz or 5.0 GHz and those (like the WRT610N) that let you do both simultaneously. Simultaneous dual-band (SDB) doesn’t mean you get to bond both radios into one super-fast connection and get a 600 Mb/s router out of two 300 Mb/s functions. However, you can have different clients connecting to whichever frequency is better suited to the occasion. For example, you might want video streaming to a media extender running over 5.0 GHz, since there’s likely to be less traffic in this range, while general PC data goes across 2.4. Because of our test environment, we expected to see much faster performance on the 5.0 GHz band, but results showed similar numbers for both bands across several (but not all) tests. Perhaps this is why some people have written off SDB as an unnecessary expense. We disagree. In a setting crowded with 2.4 GHz traffic, having that full performance 5.0 GHz alternative can be a life-saver.

Under its gleaming hood, the WRT610N sports four gigabit Ethernet ports, custom QoS settings according to program and port range, and a single USB port for external storage. With this, you can create rights-based NAS, an FTP server, and a UPnP/DLNA media server. The WRT610N doesn’t dazzle with breakthrough features, but it covers all the basics, hits the extra server, QoS, and storage features power users want most, and, as we’ll see, has the performance goods that really justify its price tag.

Note: Just days before publication, Cisco unveiled its new E-series routers. The top-end model from this group is the E3000, which, except for a slight cosmetic change and the inclusion of Cisco’s Connect software (primarily for guest access and parental control setup), looks to be a complete repeat of the WRT610. In fact, Cisco Connect is simply a spruced up version of the Network Magic Basic software bundled with the WRT610. We can’t say for certain that the two models perform identically, but with both featuring six internal antennas in a 2x2 array configuration, an extreme similarity sure wouldn’t surprise us.

6. Netgear WRN2000v2 And WNDR3700

In several ways, Netgear is almost identical to Linksys in our minds: good quality networking gear that tends to step a step or two behind the bleeding edge. A few products bomb, but most are reliable and more than sufficient. The company does a great job with addressing mainstream networking needs, as well as urging the mainstream into slightly new directions.

The WRM2000v2 ($69.82) falls into the former category. This is a straight up, no frills 11n router. The four LAN ports are 10/100, and there’s no USB port. The two biggest call-outs Netgear seems to have for this unit are its WPS button (dubbed “Push ‘N’ Connect”) and its green features. However, it’s telling that the two green features seem to be comprised of the packaging being manufactured with at least 80% recycled materials and the fact that the router features a “convenient power on/off switch to conserve energy.” OK, we like Netgear, but we question any marketing team that promotes a power switch as a “green” feature. This does not bode well for our benchmarking.

We had higher hopes for the WNDR3700 ($159.99), which on paper appears to give Linksys’s dual-band powerhouse a run for its money. This router is also touted for its green features, but we tend to appreciate D-Link’s ability to detect Ethernet cable length and modify signal power accordingly more than Netgear’s promotion of wireless signal strength adjustment as a power-saving feature. Of course, it is saving power, but this little option setting has been promoted for years as a security feature long before eco-friendliness came back into vogue.

Enough semantics. The WNDR3700 is a simultaneous dual-band router with eight antennas and a 32-bit, 680 MHz processor for enabling gobs of concurrent sessions. You can have four SSIDs, perform remote router management from across the Internet, stream media to ReadyDLNA devices, and keep an eye on recent WAN traffic volume. QoS tools include a couple of pull-down menus with common applications for establishing new QoS rules. You can also mandate QoS prioritization for a given LAN port or MAC address, which are nifty extras. And of course, there’s a USB port for creating network storage and shares, and Netgear throws in its ReadyShare applet for local volume mapping.

Because of the restrictions in our test setup, we had to pair both of these Netgear routers with Netgear’s own WNDA3100 USB adapter. To make a long story short, this was disastrous, we went through three of these adapters before finding one that yielded even moderately decent results. As soon as we switched to our notebook’s internal 11n adapter, performance bounded forward. Unfortunately, we have to stick with our same-brand results. The WNDA3700 is a good router. Just be sure to use it with someone else’s client adapter.

7. Ruckus Wireless 7811

Last summer, we took a long look at the beamforming technology Ruckus Wireless employs in its Wi-Fi products. Ever since, we’ve been curious to see how the consumer version of this technology would play out in a competitive arena. After all, the skeptic in the backs of our heads kept wondering, “If Ruckus beamforming is consistently as amazing as we saw first-hand, why hasn’t it swept the planet and blown every other vendor off the map?” Perhaps this would be our chance to find an answer.

The 7811 ($154.81 at www.geminicomputersinc.com) is the only item in this roundup that is not a router. It’s an access point. So a lot of our discussion about QoS and storage features and all the rest simply doesn’t apply here. The only reason we’re including it is to investigate a possible higher-performance alternative to the usual 802.11n router choices.

To be fair, though, we have to give a caveat and qualify what Ruckus thinks of as quality. To reuse Ruckus’s phrase, the company is a lot more interested in raising the performance floor than raising the ceiling. Ruckus wants to enable high-def, wireless streaming video, a notoriously difficult application from a quality of service standpoint. Achieving the 20 to 40 Mb/s necessary for a HD stream isn’t hard, even in the 2.4 GHz band, but keeping it there is. Achieving fast, sustained wireless throughput is like trying to calculate your taxes in a room full of hungry toddlers.

Beamforming should help to block out all of that background chaos and provide concentrated, elevated throughput, plus it should allow for longer signal reception through obstacles. Ruckus opted to make the product 5.0 GHz-only to help minimize interference even further. In general, we know that 5.0 GHz tends not to have the distance reach of 2.4 GHz, but beamforming helps overcome this to the degree that Ruckus states the 7811 should be able to provide coverage throughout a 4,000-square foot home.

Note that we used Ruckus’s 7111 client bridge. This isn’t your usual USB dongle. The 7111 looks very similar to the taco-shaped 7811 AP, complete with AC adapter and 10/100 Ethernet port. The bridge’s form factor may not be convenient in some settings, especially on a notebook, but remember that it was designed for home theater deployment. At the same time, being restricted to 5.0 GHz may exclude compatibility with some of your existing clients. Proceed accordingly.

8. TP-Link WR741ND

Before prepping this article, we’d never reviewed any TP-Link gear before. The company, based in Shenzhen, China, has obvious aspirations to be the next D-Link by way of being the low-cost leader of the networking world. They approached us months ago with this hot new technology called “Lite-N.” Enough said, right? Still, we make every effort to clear our minds of high-performance prejudices and remember that most of the world just needs cheap gear that gets the job done. This is TP-Link’s target. In thumbing through the catalog that reps sent us along with the WR741ND ($44.99), we couldn’t find a single visually interesting product. It’s all built to be generic. That’s not necessarily bad, but it clearly shows where TP-Link is aiming.

The WR741ND uses a 2x2 MIMO array, but with a single external antenna. You get four 10/100 LAN ports, no USB connectivity. As with Belkin’s N150, this is an ultra-basic, entry-level, 2.4 GHz router. The QSS (Quick Secure Setup) button on the front is rebranded WPS. About the only thing that stands out here is TP-Link’s integration of very simple QoS.

On the other hand, all of that simplicity makes for a very quick setup. Just for giggles, we handed the router to a total networking newbie here at the office and asked her to set it up. She had it running in under 20 minutes. And to TP-Link’s credit, the manual is surprisingly well-produced, with none of the glaring errors and typos we’re used to seeing from lesser-known vendors. The manual even shows screen captures of successful and failed ping tests, which is exactly the sort of thing novices need to see.

We’ll let the cat out of the bag on this one. The WR741ND was the worst-performing router of this roundup, and that was even with using the company’s own TL-WN721N USB adapter. Still, you can find this router online for $35. If all you need is to connect a handful of clients and don’t care so much about the speed at which it happens, yet you at least don’t want to pack a lunch for a 100MB file backup, then this may still be sufficient.

9. TRENDnet TEW-654TR And TEW-671BR

We wanted to throw in at least one wild card in this roundup. TRENDnet’s TEW-654TR ($58.89) is a travel router measuring just 2.4 x 3.2 x 0.7 inches. The pocket-sized marvel weighs just 1.6 ounces. It features two internal 2.4 GHz antennas and is rated to cover about a 160-foot radius under indoor conditions—plenty big to cover the hotel rooms it’s meant for unless you’re hob-nobbing at the top of the Venetian.

The idea is that instead of being stuck at a tiny desk with an uncomfortable chair, you plug the router into the room’s Ethernet feed and kick back in your bed with either your laptop’s built-in Wi-Fi or the TEW-624UB dongle TRENDnet throws in with the kit. Of course, if you’ve got several people in the room with you (presumably not in the bed), they can hop on the wireless connection with their own clients.

Be aware that there are no LAN ports on this unit. You get one WAN port and the rest is wireless. Apart from Wi-Fi Multimedia QoS, WPS setup, and the ability to flip the router into an access point mode, there’s not really much else here to discuss. OK, the carrying case is nice, too. And no, the performance we witness was nothing to write home about. This is meant to be a business solution, not a gaming product, and we viewed it as such. All things considered, we thought the little TEW-654TR put in a respectable showing.

We’d hoped to review the TEW-673GRU, TRENDnet’s latest router. The company was kind enough to send us a pre-release model a couple of months ago, but we were unable to get satisfactory results from it. By no small coincidence, the 673GRU still has yet to release as of this writing. Instead, we tested the TEW-671BR ($83.80) TRENDnet had already sent us. We were intrigued to see how this unit fared because, while it’s a simultaneous dual-band model, it only features two 2 dBi external antennas rather than the usual three. However, there are another two 4 dBi internal antennas. For SDB, $84 is a screaming deal—if the router actually performs.

Admittedly, the SDB functionality is sort of the whole TEW-671BR story. The four LAN ports are 10/100. You get the usual base-level QoS features, integrated security, and WPS. Tack on TRENDnet’s three-year warranty and this emerges as a strong budget offering.

10. ZyXEL X550N

In reviewing ZyXEL products over the years, we consistently come away with the impression that the company should be more popular than it is. This is another one of those D-Link-ish “we do some of everything” vendors—soup to nuts, print servers to powerline adapters. The margins must be so slim in networking gear that the industry’s players have to span the entire product range just to make a buck. When you try to do everything at once, the tendency is to do nothing particularly well unless you have fairly deep pockets.

ZyXEL, while never dazzling us with unique innovation, has never disappointed us, either. The X550N ($99.93) fits the pattern: boring on the outside, interesting on the inside, with high enough performance and build quality at a low enough price to make the whole package attractive.

As an indication of how serious ZyXEL is about its gear, this router’s manual is over 300 pages and features over 300 tables and illustrations. Having QoS is now ordinary, and a bandwidth monitor is almost expected now, but how about a bandwidth monitor for different traffic types? Interesting, right? The setup wizard comes in six languages. There’s a router/AP mode selector in the maintenance menus (although we still prefer a physical exterior switch). ZyXEL goes beyond the usual basic QoS functionality by not only providing general Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) QoS—prioritizing by voice, video, “best effort,” and background—but several common application profiles and a custom configuration area where you can create user-defined QoS profiles. This sort of management depth reflects ZyXEL’s larger presence in the business products world. If you dislike 24x7 wireless broadcasting, use the integrated scheduling matrix to disable it during off hours. All told, there’s just so much great functionality buried in this router that it’s easy just to geek out and get lost in it, forgetting along the way that ZyXEL omits a USB port for NAS and FTP functionality, has no media serving capabilities, or any of the other modern consumer amenities. The overall impression is that this is a router for business and productivity, not entertainment.

From the outside, the X500N is totally ordinary: bland white non-styling, three detachable 2 dBi antennas, a WPS button, and five total gigabit Ethernet LAN and WAN ports. It would have been really interesting to try out the X550NH, which replaces the X550N’s 2 dBi antennas with 6 dBi high-gain alternatives, but we weren’t able to land this variant for our review. You can buy the ANT1106 antenna upgrade for $45.10, which is odd when the entire X550NH package runs only $117.27.

11. How We Tested

We’ll state right up front that we didn’t use dd-wrt (www.dd-wrt.com) or any other “hacks” on these routers. There are always decisions to make in coming up with a standard testing methodology, and we ultimately decided that our roundup would proceed from the assumption that most users would want warrantied product used according to manufacturer recommendations. This meant going with the most current firmware offered by the vendor at the time of our testing. In some cases, yes, we could have obtained faster results with dd-wrt, and perhaps that will be an interesting study for a different day. For now, we’re going vendor-approved only.

For similar reasons, we required that vendors provide us with a “matching” client adapter. The last thing we wanted was for testing to get derailed by accusations of “well, our router has issues with that XYZ adapter” or some such thing. Fine. Theoretically, if the vendor provides the router and client adapter, this should provide the highest assurance of compatibility and optimization. So that’s how we designed our testing. Too bad it doesn’t always pan out that way in real life.

We tested across three locations from a ground floor corner dining room in a two-story, 2,600-square foot home in a neighborhood smack in the middle of Oregon’s “SiliconForest” area. Thus our test neighborhood was populated with Intel, Radisys, Tektronix, IDT, and plenty of other tech industry employees, seemingly all of which run at least one home wireless network. Throughout our week-long testing period, there was never a time in which we detected fewer than ten competing WLANs with at least a 60% signal strength, and those are just the ones we could see.

We used two notebooks for testing: an HP Compaq nc8000 as the server and a Dell Latitude E6400 as the client. Location 1 placed the client 10 feet away from the server—at the opposite end of the dining room table. Location 2 was straight across the ground floor, about 70 feet from the server with one wall separating the PCs. Location 3 moved the client upstairs, with multiple barriers and about a 50-foot separation.

We had several concerns to address in testing. We wanted firm numbers on sustained throughput for both TCP and UDP, so we started with a 1GB folder and measured transfer time both to and from the server notebook, which was Ethernet-connected to the router. We actually did this twice, first with the folder stocked with scores of various system and media files, just to reflect the extra overhead of a normal folder transfer, and then with the folder containing a single 1.00GB ZIP file. A 1GB folder is pretty big in wireless testing scenarios, but we felt the jumbo size was important to help average out anomalies from environmental fluctuations, such as a neighbor using a microwave oven. We converted the results into MB/s readings.

Next, we swung in with Ixia’s IxChariot to examine both throughput and response time. Note the interesting difference between IxChariot’s shorter, more synthetic transfer rates and those obtained with our 1GB folder transfers.

Then we brought in Ruckus Wireless’s Zap command line benchmarking tool, seen on Tom’s Hardware in a couple of prior wireless articles, and used it to derive average throughput speeds for both TCP and UDP data. However, because some readers justifiably question our use of a Ruckus-made tool in testing Ruckus gear, we circled back with the Advanced Networking Test in PassMark’s PerformanceTest suite, a great benchmark collection that deserves more attention than it gets.

All routers and adapters were patched with the latest factory firmware and driver versions before testing. Similarly, all routers were configured for maximum channel width.

For curious programmers, we created a custom routine to automate the running of some of these benchmarks, since each location run-through took about four hours. Here’s a look at the diagram used to create our test set.

12. Benchmark Results: 1GB Transfer, Many Files

Not so long ago, we viewed the 10-foot location 1 test as more theoretical than practical. After all, why would anyone run a wireless device 10 feet from a wired router? Well, with sustained 11n speeds now outstripping 10/100 Ethernet and an explosion in the number and type of Wi-Fi-enabled devices throughout our lives, the practicality and importance of near-range scores only seems to be increasing. So whereas we used to dismiss location 1 results, we now consider all three result sets to be equally important. Wireless devices get used everywhere in the home.

We’ll warn you now: get ready to see a lot of the Linksys router in our discussion here. The ideal thing we want to see are three closely grouped bars at high throughput levels. The norm is to see best results at close range and a steep fall-off as distance and obstacles increase. Check out the D-Link “from router” results for a perfect example of this. Obviously, we want great results at every location. In our 2.4 GHz file transfer tests, both to and from the router, Linksys emerges as the force to beat, never dropping under a 50 Mb/s average in either direction.

ZyXEL and Asus’ N16 put in very respectable showings, both managing to sustain well, save for the N16's drop at location 2. The perplexing thing is how an under-performer like the Belkin N150 takes a big performance leap at location 2 in the “to router” test while disappointing in locations 1 and 3. Go figure.

On the 5 GHz side, Linksys and Ruckus seize the first and second spots. Apparently, the “from router” tests were tougher on three of these four units, Ruckus being the constant exception that makes pretty much every test look easy.

13. Benchmark Results: 1GB Transfer, Single File

We went into these tests not expecting much from the N150 units, and we ultimately learned to accept the weakness of Netgear’s adapter being the root of its poor showing here. Honestly, though, we expected better from D-Link. Getting spanked by the Belkin N150 is kind of embarrassing. TRENDnet’s TEW-654TR has the excuse of being a low-power travel router with no external antennas. Belkin’s N1 Vision also gets off to a rocky start here, although that 66 Mb/s location 1 result is as freakish as it is encouraging. In any case, this does not give us a lot of faith in routers with pretty LCD displays.

The interesting unit to watch here is Asus’s N13U. With a sub-$60 price, the nondescript router manages to keep pace with its more expensive N16 brother. This may turn out to be the best performance bargain of the roundup.

As an aside, we know that some people aren’t aware of the overhead impact multiple small files can have versus transferring a single file. Compare the two here and you’ll see a small but noticeable difference. If a 10% performance hit matters to what you do, consider making close friends with a decent compression program and bundle all of those loose files into one big .ZIP or .RAR.

14. Benchmark Results: IxChariot Throughput

All right, enough of real world file copying. Let’s see what the esteemed IxChariot has to say.

Linksys and ZyXEL again stomp the 2.4 GHz yard, but this time around TRENDnet’s 671BR jumps out with a great location 1 result, even edging out the Asus N16 overall. Netgear’s WNDR3700 starts to push a little higher in the ranks here. Belkin’s N150 nudges aside the N1 Vision and tells the fancy pants router to go home and check itself in the mirror.

Over on the 5 GHz side, Netgear whips out a surprise win, making it the only router to break 100 Mb/s in IxChariot and even beating Linksys and Ruckus when averaged across all three locations. Still, check out that tight Ruckus grouping in the 58 to 68 Mb/s range. There’s a lot to be said for a router that will deliver good results everywhere rather than great results only when the conditions are exactly right.

15. Benchmark Results: IxChariot Response Time

IxChariot also gives us some insight into latency, which will primarily matter to wireless gamers needing instant response times. Shorter is better here.

Interestingly, Linksys and Netgear average into a perfect tie in the 2.4 GHz test, making either a winning choice. ZyXEL takes the bronze and, honestly, we’re not sure we’d trust our reflexes to any of the others. If 80 ms is the threshold for imperceptible delay, giving up 20 ms or more starts to look ominous.

There’s not much to add for 5.0 GHz. Only TRENDnet jumps out of the group with oddly high lag times.

16. Benchmark Results: Zap TCP

Ruckus’s Zap tests definitely keep things interesting. In the TCP 2.4 GHz range, we immediately see the Asus N13U leap into a third-best location 1 score, only to crash and burn in location 2. Linksys again sprints to victory, but only with Netgear’s WNDR3700 nipping closely at its heels. TRENDnet’s 761-BR puts in a decent performance, but ZyXEL strangely decides to coast along in this test, perhaps to chat with the nearby Belkin N150. Disappointingly, D-Link turns in the lowest performance of this group.

For everyone who questions if Zap is inherently slanted in Ruckus’s favor, this chart should set your doubts to rest. Linksys and Netgear both sail past Ruckus with its rock solid 60-something Mb/s dependability. That said, none of these four contenders look shabby.

17. Benchmark Results: Zap UDP

A lot of streaming media apps gravitate toward the UDP protocol for its faster performance. But the catch with streaming media is that you have very little tolerance for throughput drops. If 20 Mb/s is our expected baseline for HD video, we need to build in a buffer to allow for fluctuations. Because of this, we don’t want to see sustained results dropping under 40 Mb/s, just as a general rule. The only two routers that fail this criterion are the N1 Vision and the two TRENDnet routers, although we again forgive the 654TR since it’s a travel router.

Interestingly, Netgear again edges out the mighty WRT610N in our 5 GHz UDP test. Ruckus clumps in the mid- to upper-80s (hey, there’s nothing wrong with being stuck in the ‘80s). Even the 671BR meets expectations. So it seems that if you’ve got a 5 GHz-capable router, odds are good you’ll be pleased with the streaming media results.

18. Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest TCP

Can our Zap numbers be trusted? Well, the two tests agree on ZyXEL’s fair but unexceptional turn-out. The Asus N13U doesn’t quite pop out the same way here, although it still leaves one wondering, “Why exactly am I paying 60% more forthe N16? Ah, right—the GbE ports. And the extra antenna. Why exactly do I need the extra antenna?” That remains a very good question.

D-Link and the N1 Vision still mystify, looking far worse at distance tests here than they did with Zap. Linksys and Netgear’s WNDR3700 once more shine brightest. We keep wanting to praise the location 1 performance of TRENDnet’s 671BR, but those dang distance tests keep spoiling the fun.

Now, just for giggles, we also recorded PerformanceTest’s CPU utilization scores, not really expecting to see anything other than a direct correlation between speed and CPU usage since more packets means more processing. Interestingly, this isn’t always the case. Look how Netgear’s WNDR2000v2 has the lowest speed but highest CPU utilization at location 2, topping the chart at a whopping 29 percent. We’re intrigued by the resource efficiency of ZyXEL, Linksys, and the Asus N16. This may be something to keep in mind if you’re running other resource-heavy tasks alongside your networking app(s).

19. Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest UDP

Now we finish where we started, with Linksys stealing the show and ZyXEL putting in a strong bid for runner-up. Netgear’s WNDR3700 practically drops off the map here. And what happened to D-Link? Well, we ran into a bizarre little software glitch. For some reason, PerformanceTest reported back D-Link UDP results well above 2,000 Mb/s, which is obviously impossible. Along with these stratospheric scores, CPU utilization rocketed above 80 percent. No other router exhibited this oddity, and we reran the test several times, always getting similar numbers. D-Link claims it has been unable to replicate our results in its own lab. Anyway, we threw the numbers out as obviously being meaningless. In the 5 GHz scores, only Netgear’s repeated client adapter lethargy comes as a bit unexpected after some of its other excellent scores under Zap.

Linksys again shows how to do it up right with its terrific CPU efficiency, although Ruckus just might deliver more bang for the processor cycle buck. Either way, you can’t go wrong.

20. Conclusion

To make our point about the importance of consistent throughput, we used a little tool called Bandwidth Monitor to grab a few seconds of activity from several file transfer tests. Check out these two comparisons, one showing a transfer from the router (red bars) and the other to the router (green bars).

It’s pretty obvious what type of throughput you want. The Belkin N1 Vision shows peak throughput very near to that of the Netgear WNDR3700, only trailing by 10 or 12 percent. But whereas Netgear looks very smooth and solid (save for that one fleeting drop-out), Belkin’s signal is a train wreck. We’d hardly trust that signal with VoIP, never mind video. The TP-Link signal is even worse than Belkin’s. In fact, we include these TP-Link and Linksys graphs simply to illustrate the worst and best of the bunch.

Without question, the Linksys WRT610N emerges as the obvious winner of this roundup, and there’s no reason to think that the carbon copy E3000 won’t follow suit. As a result, the WRT610N wins our rare and coveted Recommended Buy award. In second place, we’d likely pick the Ruckus 7811 strictly on a performance basis, but we can’t ignore the fact that Ruckus now has a serious problem. The company has positioned its access point and client as a video solution for demanding video consumers. Linksys now delivers equal or better performance without the beamforming, and Linksys packages this performance in a router with tons of additional functionality. Ruckus merely has an access point.

Could Netgear give Linksys a run for its money? With a different client adapter, we suspect so. Some of our data sure hints at it. As a mid-range compromise, ZyXEL has a lot of potential, although the company really needs a new model with more consumer focus offering the same performance at the same price.

Speaking of price, D-Link needs a major reassessment. Being able to insert a drive is nifty, but we’d rather see more convenience and scalability from a USB 3.0 or eSATA port or two. We’re totally unconvinced by the LCD display as being anything more than unnecessary and costly eye candy. We know D-Link can make better gear than this. Ditto that for TRENDnet, which doesn’t suffer from D-Link’s price-to-performance disparity with the TEW-671BR, but the router clearly needed a push to help it along...a third antenna, perhaps. And while TRENDnet’s travel router can only putter along with the most basic performance, we still like it for its mobility.

Finally, if you’re strapped for cash, the Asus RT-N13U arrives as a welcome and pleasant surprise from a field that left us feeling mostly disappointed in the low-end.