Benchmark Results: 5.0 GHz Transfer Tests
Craziness, right? At first glance, it seems pretty obvious that the Intel 6300 is not the adapter you want for 5 GHz work. Download performance on our 2 GB archive is remarkably similar in our same-room tests, but just one wall of obstruction sends our 6300 into a tailspin. However, we should point out that all three adapters were able to successfully upload from Location 3 transmitting over the 5.0 GHz band, which may be counterintuitive given that 2.4 GHz is supposed to be better at longer distances. This shows just how much damage ambient 2.4 GHz interference has on modern Wi-Fi connections.
We should also point out that we had a 5.0 GHz wireless bridge device in operation about eight feet away from our Location 3 test point. So this is means all adapters were holding connections even in the face of a nearby interference source.
With the 200 MB folder, we see a similar story. The Cisco USB-based adapter performs surprisingly well, while the Intel 6300 struggles, even though it partially redeems itself by downloading quickly in the third location.
Again, we see Cisco and Qualcomm moving many small files at almost the same throughput as one large archive, even at Location 3. And compare the Location 3 download times at 5 GHz against the 2.4 GHz results. There’s no question which radio band we’d prefer, regardless of distance. In surveying all of these results, though, Qualcomm emerges as the clear leader, even if it falls a second or two behind in particular cases. Cisco and Intel shine occasionally, but the Killer card does well consistently.
