Page 4 - Performance Tests
For the tests, the EnGenius ESR580 wireless router was placed on the main floor of my house. My media PC with a Gigabyte UD Pro 256GB SSD was connected to the router via a CAT5e cable on a Gigabit Ethernet connection. On the client side, a 2018 13" HP Envy 13 with an Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX200 network adapter card installed running Totusoft's LAN Speed Test application was used to transfer 500MB test files to evaluate real-world throughput. In our results, "upload" is defined as data transfer from the client to the server via the wireless router; conversely, "download" is defined as data transfer from the server to the client via the wireless router.
Since wireless channels are generally characterized by path loss, large scale fading, and small-scale fading, the router was tested in six different locations described above to comprehensively measure its true throughput performance. This includes a combination of line of sight and non-light of sight spots, different distance and positions relative to the router, as well as shadowing caused by objects between the laptop and the router. In order to overcome inconsistencies due to small scale fading, a relatively large 500MB test file was used. Furthermore, movement of people and objects within the vicinity of the devices during testing was eliminated whenever possible. As this was a mesh unit, I decided to place the primary one in my living room, where the single-unit routers sat, while the mesh unit was placed in an adjacent room with direct line of sight between both nodes. This should allow for better coverage on the other end of my house.
A brief description of the test locations is as follows:
- Location 1: Line of sight to router, approximately 2m distance
- Location 2: Non-line of sight to router, bedroom, one floor up
- Location 3: Non-line of sight to router, bedroom, one floor up, end of house
- Location 4: Non-line of sight to router, bedroom, one floor down
- Location 5: Non-line of sight to router, patio balcony, same level
- Location 6: Non-line of sight to router, attached garage, one floor down
Compared Hardware:
- EnGenius ESR580 (Single) (AC2200)
- EnGenius ESR580 (Double) (AC2200)
- TP-Link Archer AX6000 (AX6000)
- D-Link DIR-X5460 (AX5400)
As you might expect, location 1 was where all routers provided the best combined performance between upload and download. Considering this is the only location with a direct line of sight, this is not surprising. Interestingly enough however, you can see we had a pretty large increase with the second node attached for downloads. Results from locations 2 and 4, which are almost directly above or below the router, respectively, show the antenna array strength when the laptop is above or below, even if it does not have direct line of sight. When I tested directly above the primary node, the performance was similar to our first location, showing the strength of the network above the router. However, the location directly underneath was a different story with a drop in download performance when testing with one and two nodes. Upload performance was a bit lower, although the delta was not as extreme. At location 3, while it was previously a weaker location for single routers due to a greater lateral and vertical distance from the router, we were able to alleviate this a bit by placing a secondary node in this area. Interestingly enough, location five and six proved to be more challenging, although it should not be too surprising, considering the distance and various barriers. Our results from location 5 was weak in both upload and download. One thing to note is with the addition of the secondary node above location 6, we almost doubled the download performance. Interestingly enough, we also had upload numbers that were competitive with the newer Wi-Fi 6 routers at this location.
Overall, the EnGenius ESR580 performed about as expected for a Wi-Fi 5 or 802.11ac device. Its peak download numbers of 366.43Mbps and 507.92Mbps on one and two mesh routers, respectively, was good. Unfortunately, at further distances and more obstacles, the Wi-Fi 6 routers were clearly dominant, even though those routers were contained in a single unit. It is clear that having the second node did provide a bit more speed as we saw raw number increases, albeit some less than others, at almost every location for both upload and download. Another bright spot is the upload speeds stayed above 100Mbps with two nodes attached, while download speeds were also above 150Mbps. As such, it is possible the backhaul between the secondary and primary mesh nodes was a limiting factor, which is why we do not necessarily see double the performance with a second unit added. Adding more nodes may increase the signal strength and range, but unfortunately, we will see diminishing returns in terms of speed performance. Obviously, this will also depend on the size of your house and how you set up your routers.
Page Index
1. Introduction, Packaging, Specifications
2. Physical Look - Hardware
3. Configuration and User Interface
4. Performance Tests
5. Conclusion
