Wi-Fi 7 to get the final seal of approval early next year, new standard is up to 4.8 times faster than Wi-Fi 6::There are a lot of ‘draft’ Wi-Fi 7 devices around, but ‘Wi-Fi 7 Certified’ devices will only come to market sometime next year.
How am I supposed to keep track without the two letter suffix that’s non sequential?
Look at mister fancy pants over here with 2 letters while the rest of us are using the totally understandable “b” or “g” or “n.”
I’m only mad that they changed it because I put the effort in to learn the 802.11 standard.
People will rush out to buy the newest thing and it won’t change performance with their fancy router in the basement. People have no clue how to set up networks properly.
I just upgraded to a WiFi 6E router. Both my phone and my laptop support 6E.
Speeds are great, until you leave the living room (where the router is). Go up to my bedroom, and 6E won’t even connect. So it’s fast, but 6Hz has trouble going through walls.
Most of the other devices in the house are on 5GHz and that’s still super fast and able to reach basically everywhere.
the difference between 5Ghz (5150-5895) and 6Ghz (5925-7125) is not really sufficient to blame for most home uses. It’s expected as a rule to lose about 10-20% more power than 5Ghz through walls (where 5Ghz lost 100% more power than 2.4 Ghz does). It’s much more likely that your new WAP just does less power or worse antenna than the old one did.
Wireless defines how you access the point… Not that the access point itself is wireless.
A switch is technically a “standard” access point (or just ports in the wall connected back to the switch).
We use “Wireless” access point to denote access to the network without physical connections.
WAPs can connect to the network via wired or wireless means. Where most people will reference “WAP” as a wired (wired uplink) connected wireless access point… and Mesh (Wireless uplink) WAPs as wireless connected wireless access points.
Damn, I don’t think I even have WiFi 6 yet, haha. I’ve just not had any need for faster speeds.
I’m sure something will come along that’ll make use of it though!
Wait till you’re streaming 8k video in each eye of your VR headsets. And, the whole family is watching in their headsets. You’ll need it some day.
That’s why I’m dropping fiber in my house when I do my ethernet drops. Might as well pull 2 wires and future-proof it.
This is primarily meant to replace wired local data transfer solutions like thunderbolt. Example, sending video data from a camera to an editing workstation.
The transfer speed of WiFi 7 is just over Thunderbolt 3.
The transfer speed of WiFi 7 is just over Thunderbolt 3.
This is so wrong that it’s absurd it’s been here for 3 hours and nobody has called it out. The claim is “more than 40Gbps” (I believe 46Gbps is the number floating around) for wifi7. This will likely require 8x8 at 320MHz or even possibly 16x16 ( I don’t remember if this was floated as an idea or not) which would require more or less the entire frequency range. Fine… But that’s 46Gbps aggregate, meaning for up and down speeds. The split would then be 23/23 gbps, this is paper best case.
The reality is that you’re going to lose about 50% of that off the top because wireless always does. So 12/12 if you’re lucky.
What speeds does Thunderbolt 3 support? 40/40… 80gbps aggregate on paper. 22/22 in practice for a data-only channel (other modes can still access 40/22 quite readily). It’s not even close.
Woah. I assume Thunderbolt will still have latency benefits. For example, we’re not going to have wireless eGPUs, surely? I hope I’m wrong, because wireless PCIe lanes would be amazing.
I am just glad that 6E and 7 have access to 6GHz so that once my devices support it i can disable both 2.4 and 5GHz to lower interference from neighboring networks. The higher it goes in frequency the less interference everyone will get.
Less RF interference, sure, but a lot more wall and physical object interference as the higher frequencies aren’t able to go through them nearly as well.
Overall, it’s great to have more spectrum available, especially in a less crowded range. More options means more optimal solutions to be had.
Just wait until we enter the gamma spectrum, then it should be quite penetrative.
Thats true. And the higher it goes the more money you have to spend to properly network. I have heard 60GHz requires you to be in the same room as the AP but gives fantastic speeds. What i eventually plan on doing is buying say a 24 port PoE switch and running 2 cables to the ceiling in each room (for redundancy) and putting an AP in every room. I know that will cost a good chunk of money, but with an AP in every room that would future proof the network for higher and higher frequencies in the future.
If you’re wanting to future proof, run conduit not just wires. For now a setup like that is overkill and probably straight up won’t work well, since roaming is a client decision and the clients make really silly choices sometimes.
60GHz is more of a PTP or PTMP use case spectrum i.e. outdoor, long range, high throughput, but requires line of sight.
I have an enterprise style network stack like you described, albeit a bit more. It allows me to be dedicate a single spectrum per SSID e.g. my IoT network is only 2.4GHz, or use multiple spectrums across multiple access points for a single SSID e.g. guest wifi uses 2.4GHz & 5GHz across several across points for roaming.
I also live in a location where that’s required, or at least, warranted do to the coverage area and physical layout.
So with that said, you can’t future proof yourself with an AP, as standards evolve and change - but you can somewhat protect yourself by running the right cable (Cat 6a). Regardless, if you’re just trying it get wifi in two rooms, you probably only need a single access point, but far be it for me to lecture someone on excessive home IT spending.
It’d be real freakin awesome if every IoT device didn’t still rely on 2.4Ghz
Cheaper wi-fi NIC for cheap devices. Won’t change. Those devices use so little bandwidth and often are placed all over the house so 2.4G’s greater ability to pass through walls / floors makes 2.4G ideal for those devices.
But also prone to interference whenever the microwave is used. My wireless headphones lose their shit when the microwave kicks on
You wont want to disable 2.4 and 5GHz on wifi 7. The reason it gets so much higher speeds than 6e is that it can send data on all 3 spectrum simultaneously. If you turn off 2.4 and 5GHz you would essentially be limiting yourself to 1/2 speed.
Are the 320mhz wide channels going to be actually usable in the real world though? wider channels increase chance of interference. That’s why nearly everyone recommends 80mhz wide channels on 5ghz even though 160mhz channels have been available for a while. You dont usually see speed increases in the real world with the 160mhz channels except in specific situations.
Some day most people will upgrade their devices and it will become smarter to go back to 5GHz
Would be funny, anyway
