Belkin AC1200 DB
Bad news first. We spent about an hour on the phone with Belkin’s tech support and ended up getting a replacement unit when the first unit wouldn’t connect to our client in the long-range tests. The second unit had the same problem, which is why we won’t bother with the usual "well, maybe this particular unit was a lemon" spiel. No, the problem was that Belkin tried to undercut its 802.11ac competition ($150 at Amazon) with a 2x2 antenna design and did a terrible job of implementing it. This has "marketing decisions trumped engineering" written all over it. We don’t like bashing hardware, and we don’t have to in this case. The results depicted in our charts will speak for themselves.
In case you were curious as to why Belkin’s advertising talks about the benefits of 802.11ac rather than its own model’s specific results ("up to 2.8x faster physical data rate when compared to 802.11n Wi-Fi routers using two antennas to transmit and receive data"), now you know.
Belkin AC1200 DB - Front
Belkin AC1200 DB - Rear
We won’t belabor the pointless. Yes, the AC1200 has four gigabit ports, some basic QoS features, parental controls, WPS push-button support, and so on. Yes, it can handle traffic on both bands simultaneously. The menu screens are nothing special. But why discuss this further? Our support rep mentioned that the company is working on a 3x3 update to this product. Wait for that if you’re interested. This 2x2 AC1200 functions at close range, but any decent 802.11n router will blow it out of the water for far less money. Weak sauce, Belkin, weak sauce.
Buffalo AC1300/N900
On the other hand, Buffalo’s AirStation AC1300/N900 (WZR-D1800H; $160 at Newegg) holds a few pleasant surprises. While a bit on the boxy side, the relatively low price is very attractive for a model that delivers a fair amount of performance. Setup is straightforward, we like the inclusion of guest SSID access, it can serve as an access point, and it’s DLNA-certified for easy media streaming.
For us, Buffalo’s chief weakness is its menus, which are occasionally confusing, always unattractive, and comparatively slow to refresh. We do like the explanatory text that Buffalo builds into the right side of its interface, but overall, the firmware (v1.89) is in need of a major makeover (Ed.: As of publication, the newest firmware version is 1.91, though all vendors had to compete using versions submitted by a cut-off date). If you have your doubts, check out how Asus and Linksys do things, then ask yourself which approach you'd rather take. Still, Buffalo does use a 3x3:3 antenna design.
- 802.11ac: The Beginning
- 802.11ac Advances
- Broadcom: Insider Comments
- Broadcom: Insider Comments, Continued
- Broadcom: Insider Comments, Continued
- Test Setup And Methodology
- AirLive N450R And Asus RT-AC66U
- Belkin AC1200 DB And Buffalo AC1300/N900
- Linksys EA6500/AC1750 And Netgear R6300
- Results: 2 GB Folder Copy
- Results: PerformanceTest 7, Same-Room
- Results: PerformanceTest 7, Across-House
- Results: PerformanceTest 7 Graphs
- Results: IxChariot, Same-Room, 5.0 GHz
- Results: IxChariot
- Results: IxChariot, Across-House, 2.4 GHz
- 802.11ac: A Substantial Step Up From 802.11n




I think this review proved that it is time to wait for 2nd generation wireless AC routers to appear before rushing to purchase.
Never again...
I'll give ac a year or two before I jump on it...
I have a dual-band router (Netgear N600). I also purchased a couple of dual-band client USB adapters Linksys AE2500 or something to that effect.
So the USB adapter works fine for a desktop, but having that crap sticking out the side of a laptop, netbook or tablet? Busted in 10 minutes. I hooked one up to my netbook and fried it within a couple of weeks because I'm a Netbook in bed guy. You wouldn't think it could get so hot from a USB port but it does.
So the reality is that you have all these devices that can't be upgraded to dual-band and enjoy very little if any benefit from the new-fangled dual-band router.
The other beef I have with routers is that they're terrible with the way they split up bandwidth between multiple devices. Instead of responsively reassigning bandwidth to the device that needs it, the router continues to reserve a major slice for a device that I'm not using.
If you live in an apartment building, it's actually rather rude to use the full 300Mbps capacity of the wireless N band, since you may well succeed in effectively shutting your neighbor down. There's so much happening in the 2.4GHz band nowadays, it's unreal. Your own cordless keyboards/mice/controllers etc can malfunction from being unable to get a packet in edgewise.
For these dual-band routers to be really useful, we need manufacturers of smartphones, tablets, laptops, netbook and such to build dual-band clients into them because adding the functionality with some sort of dongle just doesn't work.
I think this review proved that it is time to wait for 2nd generation wireless AC routers to appear before rushing to purchase.
Never again...
I'll give ac a year or two before I jump on it...
Exactly. The 'client' adapter they used if anyone didn't catch it was a Cisco/Linksys router-sized device. Not practical by any means. It'd be totally insane to make any product recommendations prior to real client adapters being available, or more accurately, embedded ones are available. I think a wireless salesman wrote this article.
They can't put lipstick on this pig.
No actually , If you transfer from hardrive to hardrive you probably get a max output of 45MB/s The asus is close to 35MB/s wich is almost maxing out ur drives power. Ofcourse if you have a good performance you can get upto 80MB/s or a little more Not counting SSD to SSD transfer rates- Also remember that you will be able to transfer 4k HD content with the same amount of data that 1080p took
Shibby save us with another awesome tomato release!
Probably so. However, on the graph it's written Mb(Megabits), not MB(Megabytes). Since tehnically 8b=1B, 35Mb/s=4.38MB/s and that's very slow. That's why I asked if the graph meant Mb/s or MB/s.
Most networks - in my experience - are some sort of hodgepodge of different devices. So ac speeds are only really relevant if the results also translate over to the other spaces.
1) Wired performance: All of these things sport wired gigabit connectivity, but as with wireless we all know that wired performance can have wired bottlenecks and problems of its own. I am sure they are all better than wireless or 100/t... but what kind of throughput are we talking about? Personally (and I know I am not alone on this), I like wireless for portable devices, but for something that never moves like a TV or a PC it is really not that much extra effort to run a line under carpet or through a vent.
-Specifically I am curious to know if any of these routers can run their ethernet in a gang mode so that I can have 2 gigabit lines to a server, and 2 lines to my PC (and 1 line to my wife's PC) so I can have enough throughput to offload all of my HDDs to a central location and have a truly silent PC without having to use a seperate switch or router. I do video editing, and obviously cannot afford 10GbE in the home, so this type of setup is needed to get the 150+MB/s throughput needed for real video editing (until consumer 5GbE or 10GbE becomes available... where is that tech anyways?). I am currently using a wireless G router, and then an old (and noisy) gigabit switch (using 5 ports on a 24 port switch lol), and to be able to consolidate both devices would be really nice.
2) High traffic performance: We all know that G and N suffer once you populate a network with a lot of devices, or have multiple networks congesting the same area. While I personally have very low traffic in my area (very low-tech neighbors), I know a ton of readers live in apartments, or have businesses with a ton of machines, and it would be nice for them to know how many devices you can have before having to worry about a serious performance fall-off. As most devices are still on N it would also be curious to see if these new routers can support more devices on N before seeing fall-off than traditional N devices.
3) Internet performance: I have 'decently fast' internet at my home, but that is still only ~25Mb/s. But when wireless G is at 54Mb/s it makes it rather hard to justify getting anything faster than G for your average home user that is simply using wireless on 1-3 devices for internet access, and there is very little file sharing going on. Are there any real-world tests to show some significant performance boost for such simple 'internet only' uses? Perhaps lower ping rates, or more consistent performance at that 25Mb/s level?
4) Power savings: I think more than anything that 11ac is going to show most of it's usefulness in power savings for future portable devices (and I think that ties in a lot with why they are marketing it as 5G to tie in with the cell network speak of 3G and 4G). I look at my friends phones that are only 1-2 years old, and they have to disable the wifi to get a full day's battery out of the phone because wifi's idle simply takes too much power. Compare that to new phones (or even higher quality old phones) which you can leave the wifi on all day and not have a significant battery issue. Even my 5 year old laptop gains an hour or more of battery life (a near 1/3 life boost) simply by turning off the wifi switch, so obviously the new radios in devices are getting much better at battery life without sacrificing much in the way of performance. Also cell providers like ATT and VZW have a lot of incentive to push 5G on phones and in houses to off-load cell traffic.
Anywho, I guess what I am curious about is if the actual network speed is what gains the battery performance, or if it is merely having a more modern radio which brings such gains. As mentioned already, I am running 11g both at work and at home, and so 'all things being equal' the battery impact of wireless appears to have more to do with how modern the device is rather than the speed of the wireless network. I understand the 'race to sleep' argument, but if your internet coming in is only ~5-30Mb/s then I relay wonder if the end device will be able to sleep much at all. Because no matter if your network is 54Mb/s or 1300Mb/s the slow drip of the internet connection is going to keep those radios awake the entire time the internet is up. So is the 5G battery improvement really going to be from the network speed? Or is it merely going to be a factor of having a smaller and more efficient radio package to begin with regardless of what network it hooks up to?
-Note: this is not the same thing as comparing 3G to 4G/LTE networks where the actual internet speed is faster allowing the device to gets it's job done faster and go to sleep faster. When on a network the internet speed is a relative constant (and almost always slower than 11g), and I am curious if changing the wireless from 11g to 11n/ac provides any battery gain on any given device for a set workload.
Anywho, Great article! My old wireless G router is starting to have troubles, and needs to be reset every 4-6 weeks, so I am really curious about getting either a high end 11n device, or a midrange 11ac device before the year is out. And if I can find one that can last the 8+ years that my current linksys G router did then all the better! We don't see a lot of wireless articles here on Toms, and it is something that is increasingly important as people put heavier workloads and take bigger machines off of wired connections.