Skip to main content

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.

  • dingumf
    Tyra is an over confident wh0r3 and is not hot.

    You sir are an idiot
    Reply
  • pirateboy
    just what we need, more retarded failnoobs clogging up the airwaves with useless braindead movieclips...yaay
    Reply
  • chinesemafia69
    wow....this owns

    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • Mr_Man
    In defense of your wife, you didn't HAVE to use that particular channel to view all the "detail".
    Reply
  • @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
    Reply
  • antiacid
    awesome article! Thanks for exposing us to this great technology :)
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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!
    Reply
  • jerther
    There is so much invisible to understand in wireless technology!
    Reply