Let’s examine the GaNE data on the 5.0 GHz band.
There’s little way to describe Qualcomm here except in terms of quickness and resistance to distance and obstruction. It’s really a marvel to behold. In Locations 1 and 2, Cisco holds up surprisingly well and doesn’t suffer until way out at Location 3. And Intel? The 6300 still continues to search for its sea legs on the 5.0 GHz band.
Once more, keep your eye on that y-axis. In Location 3, it looks like the Killer line (red) is practically dead, which really means minimal latency. In fact, this is nearly true, as the adapter is pulling in an amazing 1.2 ms ping average, even at our maximum distance. Still, there is some jitter, as you can see in the Location 1 test against Cisco. But this minor fluctuation all but vanishes when compared against the others. Obviously, Cisco’s AE2500 isn’t exactly stellar. Not even Intel had a blip where it took almost a full second to complete a ping.
You’ll notice that the ping performance in the 5.0 GHz band is better than what we saw in 2.4 GHz. Often, 5.0 GHz is mentioned as an option for video streaming because it has less congestion and thus less chance of frame drops. But there’s no question that 5.0 GHz should also be examined as a preferred choice for gaming. Poor 2.4 GHz is simply overworked with too few channel options.
- 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?