Now let’s check out the same PerformanceTest data in the 5.0 GHz band and see if we still get results similar to those in our transfer tests.
Sure enough. Go back to our transfer tests and you’ll see that Intel took a header there, as well. As the transfer and PerformanceTest groups were conducted days apart, we can rule out any sort of short-term environmental fluctuation. The 6300 simply falls flat in this band. Conversely, the Cisco adapter holds up surprisingly well, even in Location 3.
Once again, performance in the UDP set gets slaughtered at Location 3, but watch Qualcomm make Cisco and Intel into its little tennis ball boys. It’s not even funny. Let’s check out the x-ray view in this case at Location 2.
If you look at the amount of variance above and below the average line as a percentage of the total throughput, Intel is weaving drunkenly across 50% of the road. In comparison, Cisco looks like an old lady out for a Sunday roll down the interstate and Qualcomm, after accidentally hitting the nitrous out of the gate, immediately settles into an unbeatable rhythm around the racetrack. Keep the varying x-axes in mind and realize that Killer’s average line is roughly 18x higher than Intel’s.
- Killer Wireless: Is It Able To Usurp Intel's Centrino?
- Killer Wireless-N 1103: Nebulous Claims To Superiority
- What And How We Tested
- Benchmark Results: 2.4 GHz Transfer Tests
- Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
- Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 2.4 GHZ
- Benchmark Results: PerformanceTest, 5.0 GHz
- Benchmark Results: GaNE, 2.4 GHz
- Benchmark Results: GaNE, 5.0 GHz
- Where Does Qualcomm's Hardware Make Sense?