Thread: N9: Wi-Fi 802.11 N slower than 802.11g
View Single Post
ladoga is offline ladoga
2012-12-28 , 12:21
Posts: 230 | Thanked: 302 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
#33
Originally Posted by qspb View Post
But I know that some other N9 users said they had no problems with their 802.11n routers.. maybe in neighbour topics on this forum. Can somebody evaluate actual Wi-Fi N speed in a similar way and post the results here so that we can compare different users' experience?

P.S. "M/s" means "Megabytes per a second" - it's not a bitrate, it's a real file transfer speed.
A while ago I tested download speeds of different devices in my network downloading a same file 3 times in a row from the internet. The internet connection isn't a bottleneck here for wifi (not sure about raspberry pi's 100 Mbit ethernet.). Router is a Netgear wndr3800 running openwrt.

Not a good wifi benchmark per se, but it gives some idea about the relative performance. N9's 802.11n peaks at about 4.3 MB/s. The wifi signal isn't the best possible (router next room, behind a wall) and seems to affect n9's wifi performance more compared to a laptop using g standard wifi, which is slower but gives more consistent readings.



[edit]

Pinging my router from N9 (device active):
Code:
~ $ ping openwrt
PING openwrt (192.168.0.254): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.350 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.174 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=2 ttl=64 time=10.223 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=3 ttl=64 time=8.728 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=4 ttl=64 time=9.796 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=5 ttl=64 time=10.315 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=6 ttl=64 time=10.345 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=7 ttl=64 time=10.406 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=8 ttl=64 time=10.407 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=9 ttl=64 time=10.224 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=10 ttl=64 time=10.315 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=11 ttl=64 time=10.284 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=12 ttl=64 time=10.253 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=13 ttl=64 time=9.003 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=14 ttl=64 time=10.376 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=15 ttl=64 time=10.254 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=16 ttl=64 time=10.254 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=17 ttl=64 time=10.437 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=18 ttl=64 time=10.529 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=19 ttl=64 time=8.819 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=20 ttl=64 time=10.223 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=21 ttl=64 time=8.759 ms
^C
--- openwrt ping statistics ---
22 packets transmitted, 22 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 2.350/9.339/10.529 ms
Pinging my router from N9 (device idle, LPM screen):
Code:
~ $ ping openwrt
PING openwrt (192.168.0.254): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=0 ttl=64 time=183.289 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=1 ttl=64 time=185.638 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=2 ttl=64 time=201.447 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=3 ttl=64 time=209.808 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=4 ttl=64 time=220.704 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=5 ttl=64 time=11.292 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=6 ttl=64 time=19.958 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=7 ttl=64 time=43.305 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=8 ttl=64 time=52.582 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=9 ttl=64 time=62.317 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=10 ttl=64 time=72.266 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=11 ttl=64 time=80.841 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=12 ttl=64 time=91.584 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=13 ttl=64 time=101.318 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=14 ttl=64 time=111.236 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=15 ttl=64 time=120.880 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=16 ttl=64 time=130.829 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=17 ttl=64 time=140.533 ms
^C
--- openwrt ping statistics ---
18 packets transmitted, 18 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 11.292/113.323/220.704 ms
Last edited by ladoga; 2013-02-20 at 14:10.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ladoga For This Useful Post: