If you were deploying all new APs today, N or AC?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
-
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Depends on your needs but typically N. The cost is too much lower and almost no one has a need for AC yet. But those that do, it may be worth it.
At a price differents of $50 per AC AP? Wouldn't it make sense to step on up to the newer tech? Especially if you are planning to lease the equipment for 3 - 5 years?
-
@Dashrender said:
Also, what kind of switches do you guys like to power these and VOIP phones? Is Gb to the desktop really worth the expense over 100 Mb?
As of a decade ago, yes. FastEthernet violates my home line principle. Gigabit to the desktop costs almost nothing, literally.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Depends on your needs but typically N. The cost is too much lower and almost no one has a need for AC yet. But those that do, it may be worth it.
At a price differents of $50 per AC AP? Wouldn't it make sense to step on up to the newer tech? Especially if you are planning to lease the equipment for 3 - 5 years?
Agreed. There are already plenty of laptops shipping with AC wifi cards installed in them. It's not the norm YET but given another year or two and it will be.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
AC might improve range, maybe, but to do so wouldn't it have to exist on both ends? Otherwise your AC system is using N and you are still limited by the N devices.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
AC might improve range, maybe, but to do so wouldn't it have to exist on both ends? Otherwise your AC system is using N and you are still limited by the N devices.
Absolutely. You'd still be limited to N speeds, but you'd have a greater range physically, which means you can actually use fewer APs to cover the same amount of space. Theoretically.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
FYI these are not channels, these are bands. The 2.4GHz band has eleven standard channels inside of it.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
One main advantage of AC over N is that even though you may not gain the speeds of AC, you get a highly extended (as far as range) N network. The difference in range between N and AC is huge! Oh, and Gigabit to the desktops? ABSOLUTELY! Sure, you'll almost never actually utilize full gigabit, but even 200 or 300Mb/sec improves performance SIGNIFICANTLY over just Fast Ethernet.
Nope not true. AC has less range than N and its 256-QAM (more chance of interference)
Not from what I've seen. This was one of the primary reasons I bought an AC router recently was to improve range. It made a HUGE difference.
Again. We've been over it before. That was likely the annetas. Nothing to due with AC. high met frequnices has less range. You can't change physics.
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
2.4 on a AC AP is still N. AC is only 5Ghz.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
FYI these are not channels, these are bands. The 2.4GHz band has eleven standard channels inside of it.
My bad. I misused the term. I do know the difference. I'm just doing too much at once right now.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Absolutely. You'd still be limited to N speeds, but you'd have a greater range physically, which means you can actually use fewer APs to cover the same amount of space. Theoretically.
No, the limit would be both the speed as well as the range. Can't think of any physical way that going to AC on the AP can change the range of the mobile device.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
2.4 on a AC AP is still N. AC is only 5Ghz.
Does AC on 5GHz even go as far as N on 2.4GHz then?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
No. Fiber is really only needed if the distance requires it. Install multiple runs of Cat7 (even stp) will be cheaper than fiber if its within limits.
