CGM4331 Wi-fi speed
I could not find a clear cut answer about the Wi-Fi speed capability of the CGM4331.
I have Gigablast.
Would the Motorola MG8725 (AX6000) offer a faster Wi-Fi signal than the Cox CGM4331 Panor...
Forum Discussion
Does anyone know the speed rating AX#### of the CGM4331?
AX3500 as found here.
Great thank you. I wonder why that information is not made readily available. Wikipedia and the like are not generally recognized as authoritative sources.
Wifi speeds are not determined by the power of the router (AC1200 or AC5400), but by the physics of the frequencies involved. The higher the frequency, the better the speed. 5Ghz is good for somewhere between 550mbps and 650mbps, under optimal conditions. 2.4Ghz, while having greater range is limited usually to somewhere in the area of 65-70mbps, although I have seen it go higher.
Lots of environmental factors go into the speeds that you are going to get. Metal in the area, other devices that emit EMI (Electro-Mechanical Interference), radio gear, other routers using the same frequency and channel yours is using. All of that limits the capabilities of your router to deliver good clean signal. Environmental factors Cox can do little to nothing about, clearing that up is on the user.
5 ghz has more speed, because it more bands, and they stack the bands. It would do the same with 2.4 if the stacks bands 1--6-11 together. The downside, is so many things use 2.4 ghz, and the distance it travels make it more prudent to use 5ghz due to it's lesser distance.
5 GHz isn't "faster" than 2.4 GHz because both frequencies travel at the speed-of-light. 5 GHz, however, does have more capacity per second.
5 GHz has twice the cycles per second than 2.4 GHz. The more cycles per second, the more carrier-waves (wavelengths) per second. The more wavelengths per second, the more modulation of the wavelengths to represent data. The more data per second, the more capacity. Therefore, since 5 GHz has twice the cycles of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz would have twice the capacity of 2.4 GHz.
The problem with more wavelengths per second is the wavelengths are "shorter" and shorter waves don't penetrate stuff as well as longer wavelengths. This is why the most powerful radio antennas in the world use extremely-, super-, ultra- and very-low frequencies. However, because these lower frequencies have "longer" wavelengths, there isn't much modulation per second to carry data.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stack the bands"...nobody does...but channels 1, 6, and 11 are non-overlapping channels, and non-overlapping channels just keep your routers on discreet frequencies to avoid interfering (overlapping) with one another. However, non-overlapping don't do you any good if you only have 1 router and can't control what channel your neighbor(s) use.
2.4Ghz, while having greater range is limited usually to somewhere in the area of 65-70mbps, although I have seen it go higher.
You've seen it go higher on wider channels, aka channel-bonding.
2.4 GHz on a 20 MHz channel can achieve 65 Mbps, and 2.4 GHz on a 40 MHz channel can achieve 150 Mbps. This higher bandwidth, however, is only achievable if your 2.4 NIC can negotiate a wider channel.
