Beamforming: The Best WiFi You’ve Never Seen

Chariot At 2.4 GHz

By the time I got to Chariot, I was already 1.5 days into a 2-day testing window. In four hours, my test space and many thousands of dollars of on-loan equipment were going to turn into pumpkins. So, as much as I’d like to tell you there was some technical reason for why I only tested the 7962 against the 1142 with beamforming enabled, the truth is that I ran out of time and had to make a choice. I decided the few hours I had left for Chariot testing would be a battle of the beamforms—on-chip versus on-antenna. Fight!

Quite the difference between TCP and UDP numbers, no? Also, remember that 2.4 GHz tests at close range can show half the TCP throughput speed of 5 GHz. This is why Netgear put its HD/Video wireless kit on the 5 GHz band. No one should be too surprised when Ruckus only manages an average throughput of 67 Mbps at location 1, although this is double what Cisco pulls in. Numbers decline incrementally at locations 2 and 4, with Ruckus showing more of a drop-off. The contenders reverse roles at location 3, with Cisco showing the greater loss over distance.

Down in location 5, both access points are able to hold a connection. The numbers we see here show Cisco hitting about half of the throughput we saw with Zap on 50% tests while Ruckus only falls off by about one-third.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
49 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • antiacid
    awesome article! Thanks for exposing us to this great technology :)
    10
  • Other Comments
  • dingumf
    Tyra is an over confident wh0r3 and is not hot.

    You sir are an idiot
    -32
  • pirateboy
    just what we need, more retarded failnoobs clogging up the airwaves with useless braindead movieclips...yaay
    -20
  • chinesemafia69
    wow....this owns
    2
  • bucifer
    This article started up pretty good with lots of technical data and the beamforming technology in theory but after that the goodness stopped.

    1.You cannot compare two products by testing them with a in-house developed software. It's like testing ATI vs nVIDIA with nvidia made benchmark.
    2.If you do something get it done, don't just go with half measures. I don't care if you didn't have time. You should have planned this from the beginning. The tests are incomplete, and the article is filled with crap of Rukus and Cisco.
    -6
  • Mr_Man
    In defense of your wife, you didn't HAVE to use that particular channel to view all the "detail".
    -5
  • Anonymous
    @Mr_Man: With a name like yours, I'd think that you'd sympathize with Chris a bit more :P Unless (Mr_Man == I likes men) :D
    2
  • antiacid
    awesome article! Thanks for exposing us to this great technology :)
    10
  • Pei-chen
    Both Tyra and Heidi have personal issues and would be pretty difficult friend/mate.

    The network idea sounds better. I couldn’t get my 10 feet g network to transmit a tenth as much as my wired network without it dropping.
    -4
  • zak_mckraken
    There's one question that I think was not covered by the article. Can a beamformaing AP can sustain the above numbers on two different clients? Let's say we take the UDP test at 5 GHz. The result shows 7.3 Mb/s. If we had two clients at opposite sides of the AP doing the same test, would we have 7.3 Mb/s for each test or would the bandwidth be sliced in 2?

    The numbers so far are astonishing, but are they realistic in a multi-client environnement? That's something I'd like to know!
    3
  • jerther
    There is so much invisible to understand in wireless technology!
    -1
  • ebattleon
    You can of course get the same effect by having better antenna on both ends of the network. This would increase gain which would improve signal to noise ratio, which would improve data flow speeds. You would also get the same effect by boost in the power but that could get you in trouble with the law.
    -6
  • Anonymous
    I'm not an expert on beamforming, but I'm surprised that it is useful at these frequencies. After all, the wavelength at 2.4 GHz is ~12 cm (~5 inches). That means that the pockets of constructive interference (the beam) are very small. Moving the receiver a few inches should make a big difference.

    Are you sure the differences you are seeing aren't simply due to higher power output? Couldn't the same improvements be obtained with a directional antenna like a Yagi?
    1
  • Rancifer7
    So far quite an interesting technology. Its nice to know that at someone in the wireless world is striving to make something innovative!

    When all the major players sell items that look almost the same, act similarly, and perform almost the same, there is something wrong with the industry.
    1
  • chaohsiangchen
    Beam forming technology have been for a long time, but they are mostly used in military equipments. Phased Array radars, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Plane Array Antenna and antenna for data link. Most consumer products still use Yagi or disk antenna. Cost is a major issue in the application. Military don't care that much about the cost.
    1
  • scotty123
    sounds nice - but i won't get excited until it's available at Best Buy!

    One niggling concern, I felt reasonably safe with the unfocused cloud of RF surrounding me wherever I go, but I am not so sure about the tightly focused beam that the Ruckus provides. What happens to the poor joe who sits directly in the path of such a beam for 8 hours a day?
    0
  • williamvw
    Mr_ManIn defense of your wife, you didn't HAVE to use that particular channel to view all the "detail".

    LOL! True enough. It honestly was a reference file I had on hand for such testing situations. Angelini obviously showed a bit more wisdom in his choice of in-house test content.
    1
  • williamvw
    scotty123sounds nice - but i won't get excited until it's available at Best Buy! One niggling concern, I felt reasonably safe with the unfocused cloud of RF surrounding me wherever I go, but I am not so sure about the tightly focused beam that the Ruckus provides. What happens to the poor joe who sits directly in the path of such a beam for 8 hours a day?

    My absolutely unqualified opinion is "probably nothing." While the conditions are somewhat different, you might want to read a Tech Myths column segment I did over on Tom's Guide that touches on this issue. http://www.tomsguide.com/us/decibels-noise-canceling,review-1338-10.html
    -1
  • williamvw
    zak_mckrakenThere's one question that I think was not covered by the article. Can a beamformaing AP can sustain the above numbers on two different clients? Let's say we take the UDP test at 5 GHz. The result shows 7.3 Mb/s. If we had two clients at opposite sides of the AP doing the same test, would we have 7.3 Mb/s for each test or would the bandwidth be sliced in 2?The numbers so far are astonishing, but are they realistic in a multi-client environnement? That's something I'd like to know!

    Excellent question, and one I hope to dive into in a later article. For now, I can only give you the anecdote on my opening page, running the same HD stream to two clients. Ruckus states that BeamFlex can sustain a 50 Mbps minimum per access point. Do the math on your client streams accordingly, I suppose.
    2
  • bounty
    williamvwLOL! True enough. It honestly was a reference file I had on hand for such testing situations. Angelini obviously showed a bit more wisdom in his choice of in-house test content.


    Honestly honey, it's just a reference file, I swear it's not porn. I challenge you to find HD streaming content from the internet that highlights the subtle nuance of flesh tones.
    -1
  • williamvw
    bountyHonestly honey, it's just a reference file, I swear it's not porn. I challenge you to find HD streaming content from the internet that highlights the subtle nuance of flesh tones.

    Hey, the VS catalog mails to her, not me. I was merely trying to be a good husband and participate in her interests. ;-) ANYWAY. Back to beamforming, shall we?
    2