Killer AX1650 Info And Review

Discussion in 'Networking and Wireless' started by WhatsThePoint, Apr 27, 2019.

  1. WhatsThePoint

    WhatsThePoint Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    3,111
    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Here's a few photos of the Killer AX1650 cards that will be used in my tests once I get the RAX120 setup.
    All reviewing of the AX1650 should be a collection of information and questions form all forum members as was the case for the Killer 1550 review..

    Intel wireless driver 21.10.0.2 is installed
    Intel BT driver 21.10.0.6 installed

    EDIT:attached new thumbnail of theoretical link speed.

    IMG_20190427_112216.jpg IMG_20190427_121008.jpg Screenshot - 4_27_2019 , 10_34_34 AM.jpg IMG_20190427_141023.jpg Screenshot - 4_27_2019 , 4_12_03 PM.jpg
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
    jaybee83, Aivxtla and Ultra Male like this.
  2. WhatsThePoint

    WhatsThePoint Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    3,111
    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Here's the screenshot of Data Rate in the inSSIDer app

    Screenshot - 4_27_2019 , 4_40_59 PM.jpg
     
    jaybee83 likes this.
  3. Aivxtla

    Aivxtla Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    308
    Messages:
    379
    Likes Received:
    532
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Nice Im also gonna test when I get mine on Monday. Going to test using both the RAX120 and RAX80 doing transfers to and from, a connected Samsung T5 SSD to bypass Ethernet bottleneck when on HT160.

    The RAX80 seems to do better with USB 3.0/external storage transfer rates so it might actually be the better one to test the 1650 with to check wireless throughput. The RAX120 is pretty solid but still needs some firmware tweaks.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2019
    jaybee83 and WhatsThePoint like this.
  4. jaybee83

    jaybee83 Biotech-Doc

    Reputations:
    3,946
    Messages:
    11,425
    Likes Received:
    8,973
    Trophy Points:
    931
    looking forward to your real life throughput results guys! please also include any results from older cards u might still have laying around :)
     
  5. Aivxtla

    Aivxtla Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    308
    Messages:
    379
    Likes Received:
    532
    Trophy Points:
    106
    I just finished retesting the 9260ac as a comparison on 2.4 GHz / 5 GHz / 5Ghz w/HT160, one floor below the RAX120 roughly 15-20ft away. I will do similar tests with RAX80. Tomorrow my AX1650 arrives and Ill do similar tests and Ill post them by Friday.

    I will just re-edit this post with the results.

    I expect no more than 20-25% gain on 5Ghz with ax. Also note that 1024 QAM is more sensitive to noise. Bigger difference in improvement will probably be on the 2.4 GHz band...

    Can’t wait to see @WhatsThePoint’s results as well.

    Differences in testing environment and housing materials have an impact as well so more people putting up results the better, in order to get a good picture.


    UPDATE: I have attached my testing results below:

    Routers Used: RAX80, RAX120
    Client: DELL Inspiron 7577 w/Intel 9260ac then replaced with KIller AX1650 (Intel AX200)
    Storage: Netgear Ready NAS 524X and 1TB Samsung T5 SSD
    Test Location: 1 floor below router, roughly 12-15ft away

    Interpretation: In case you don't want to look at table -

    5 Ghz: In my testing AX200 in AX mode gives less than a 25% gain on 5Ghz on HT160 AX vs AC (more like 11-15%) & about 25-26% gain on HT80 AX vs AC in my case when looking at the downlink test with the RAX80).

    2.4 GHz: 2.4 Ghz results however show much higher gains. Between n and ax on 2.4 Ghz @ HT20 there was a pretty big delta, almost a 2x gain. Between n and ax on HT40 difference was much lower, probably due to the fact that there are numerous APs nearby including my Arlo cameras’ base station.

    I could probably get greater improvements using a "Multi-Gig" switch to bridge the RAX120's 5Gb eth port to my NAS's 10Gb eth port but thats a costly venture just for a benchmarking purpose.

    Without an AX (WiFi-6) router the AX200 is practically the same as the 9260ac performance wise. With an AX router expect at most around a 25% gain on 5Ghz and up to 2x gain on 2.4 GHz at HT20. Maybe a bit more performance can be squeezed out on HT160 if the RAX120’s USB storage performance was fixed.

    I was getting max link rates through most of the testing period.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: May 9, 2019
  6. erick_e

    erick_e Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    11
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I just swapped out my 9260 for an AX1650 card in my Precision M5530. The 9260 would connect at 1733/1733 and I would average about 140MB download speed of a 6GB movie file directly from my Synology NAS. The AX1650 connects at 2402/2402 most of the time, and averages about 165-170MB download speeds. FWIW, I also changed the driver on the AX1650 to utilize AC mode only, and it averaged the same 140MB download speed. It seems that AX is about 20% faster than AC when conditions allow.
     
    jaybee83, WhatsThePoint and Aivxtla like this.
  7. WhatsThePoint

    WhatsThePoint Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    3,111
    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    181
    erick_e,which router are you using,settings?

    Have you tested date rate speeds with it and the AX1650

    I'm using 5ghz channel 48.

    Pairing a Netgear RAX120 routerwith an AX1650 I've not achieved over 1,838.0 Mbps that's measured in the inSSIDer app.

    My Internet speed tests are about the same as they were with a Killer 1550 as expected but transfer speeds of files to and from USB router attached storage are much better.Also client to client are higher just shy of 140 MB/s.
     
    Encryptonite likes this.
  8. erick_e

    erick_e Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    11
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    16

    I forgot to mention. I'm using the Asus GT-AX11000, channels 36-42 and DFS channels 116-122.
     
  9. WhatsThePoint

    WhatsThePoint Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    3,111
    Messages:
    3,193
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    181
    I've tried channels 36-48,60 and 116 with WPA2(AES) and WPA2(AES) + WPA3.
    When I set to only WPA2(AES) I get better results besides when I use WPA2(AES) + WPA3 I can't get my MS Surface Pro 5 to connect at all on either band.With only WPA2 it connects easily.
    The Surface Pro uses a Marvell AVASTAR AC chip
     
  10. erick_e

    erick_e Notebook Geek

    Reputations:
    11
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I'm not too familiar with Netgear's equipment.

    This is what my settings look like using my router, which is tri-band. I also tried setting the DFS channels to the lower band 52-58 and using channel 149-153 as well, but I get a stronger signal using these settings.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 5-1.jpg
      5-1.jpg
      File size:
      1.2 MB
      Views:
      168
    • 5-2.jpg
      5-2.jpg
      File size:
      1.3 MB
      Views:
      165
Loading...

Share This Page