Intel sees enough time before Wi-Fi 7's release date to improve processing speeds.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Wi-Fi 7 PCs should be available by 2025, could surpass 5.8Gbps, Intel says
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
91
(106
/
-15)
Upvote
183
(185
/
-2)
There's a lot of value for home networking - obviously wired is better, but for laptops, etc, having super fast WiFi for access to network storage is great.
Upvote
79
(80
/
-1)
I don't necessarily need a fast WAN to enjoy a fast LAN. That said, I'd rather have 40GbE, or even 10GbE than multi-gigabit WiFi, especially if it can't penetrate a single concrete wall (which is every wall in my home).
Upvote
68
(70
/
-2)
As disappointingly alien as the concept now is to many people even on Ars, there remains this thing called a "LAN" which stands for local area network, and does not depend on ISPs at all. Very useful things still happen on the LAN at much higher them gigabit speeds (I write from a Mac with all home folders and other data on an APFS formatter iSCSI LUN on a NAS accessed via a TB3 <> fiber adapter). With the rise of NVMe everywhere it's become quite trivial for clients to saturate even 40 Gbps, regardless of whether networks have caught up. Lots of other useful stuff could be done if faster speeds were more universal and cheaper, including monitors running of the network or offloading computing with better video for AR etc down the road, but at a low enough price even just plain having much faster backups or network drive access isn't nothing. And while "speed" tends to be the leading number thrown out for WiFi 6e or 7, another more practical matter is that 6 GHz will offer dramatically lower congestion and higher density, a real problem in a lot of settings.
So yes please, bring on the widespread 6 GHz support and the sooner the better.
Upvote
60
(73
/
-13)
Daily reminder that stadiums, convention centers, etc. will benefit from Wi-Fi tech that you may not need or benefit from in your single family detached home in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness.
Upvote
81
(87
/
-6)
Speed isn't always about speed. A faster connection means you can have more bursty radio usage while still achieving the same average throughput as a slower connection, potentially reducing network congestion and improving battery life.
Upvote
59
(60
/
-1)
LOL. I bought a Wi-Fi 6 router literally yesterday to replace my 10-year old router.
Upvote
26
(28
/
-2)
I've been using wifi since 802.11b and every upgrade has been "meh" until Wifi 6. That's the real deal. I reliably get 600Mbps between devices on my network. Wifi 7 should make ethernet truly unnecessary outside of the server space.
Edit: Downvotes? don't believe me? I just tested from my iPhone to Windows 10 box: https://i.imgur.com/ASsR2TQ.png
Edit: Downvotes? don't believe me? I just tested from my iPhone to Windows 10 box: https://i.imgur.com/ASsR2TQ.png
Upvote
-10
(19
/
-29)
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
Probably not the greatest security setup but I get the stuff my ISP dishes out included in the service. I like the price.
They are promoting WiFi 6 for higher tiers and special packages and whatever so with 7 on the way some day they will start giving it away so I guess I will upgrade to WiFi 6 by then.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Citation needed...
I'm going to assume they mean throughput as measured before any protocol overhead. My actual real world testing of Wifi6 in the 5ghz band shows it's 75 - 80% efficient, which is better than the 60% number I would use for calculations of previous generations. That accounts for overhead from WPA2 and modulation inefficiencies.
It's likely they can reach 90% in some conditions (Like no security) but I'd like to understand how they are testing to convert to something that is actually used in the real world.
EDIT: To help clarify my point, I can point directly to the linked article Intel wrote themselves.
Page 22 of the Wi-Fi technology guide that was linked through the link from the article shows an Intel lab test of Wifi 6 in a real world setting. They achieved 1521mbps using a 2x2:2 client. Both devices should be capable of MCS11 160mhz short guard interval meaning 1201 link rate.
1201 x 2 = 2402 link rate. (I certainly hope they can make both devices work at max speeds in their lab since they designed it)
1521 / 2402 = 63.3% efficiency.
So in their own real world tests with real world hardware in their lab they achieved 63% of the link rate on Wifi 6. They do not have a Wifi 7 test in their article so I cannot find any information to actually back up their claim of how all of the sudden Wifi 7 is that much more efficient than every previous version.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en ... guide.html
Upvote
12
(15
/
-3)
Will intel still include last centurys 1gbps lan on their mobos? Wheres my cheap 10gbps lan port and switches?
Upvote
6
(15
/
-9)
I can routinely max out my 500mbps link on my wifi 5 gear as well, and I kind of agree with the analysts that people like me will skip wifi 6.
When I look at the prices for WiFi 6 APs, and my home ISP speed (tops out at 1gbps, I'm on a 500mbps plan) there is no compelling case for upgrading to WiFi 6. Hopefully 2/5gbe would be more affordable by the time I'm ready for WiFi 7.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Intel doesn't make MoBos. Blame Asrock, MSI, HP, Dell and other OEMs for that
Upvote
23
(25
/
-2)
You know what would be nice? If Intel didn't make it effectively impossible to upgrade your laptop's Wifi capability anymore by needlessly incorporating wifi components into their CPUs through their proprietary CNVio program, which has effectively made all Intel laptops since ~2019 impossible to upgrade and as such solder their wifi cards to the mainboard in a wonderful display of planned obsolescence. So great Intel, I'm glad Wifi 7 is coming out in 2025, good thing you've made it impossible to adopt it without buying a whole new laptop.
Upvote
5
(14
/
-9)
But they do make motherboards chipsets which include LAN for cheap people like myself.
Upvote
8
(13
/
-5)
I'd imagine the downvotes are for the "meh" moniker. B -> G was a pretty big deal because it made some huge changes in how everything worked underneath. N was actually a big deal as well because it brought multiple spatial streams which doubled bandwidth without requiring more spectrum. AC was more modest, but it bring HT80 so a 2x2:2 should still have been giving you a bit more than 500mbps. Chances are you're using the same MCS on Wifi6 as you could have had on 5, just that 6 is slightly more efficient in coding.
Upvote
31
(31
/
0)
Does the 6ghz band follow the normal rule of higher frequencies travel less distance or did they do some magic to let it go farther? At my rural location, I need distance more then I need high speed.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
It's possible that Valve is waiting to release its new "Deckard" wireless VR headset in part due to the massive amount of bandwidth it needs (There are other reasons, but I think this was one of the problems they were having). If that's the case, Wifi 7 can't come soon enough! I can't wait to ditch the massive wire on my current VR headset.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
It doesn't matter how Wi-Fi improves, it still won't have the stability and lower latency as wired network unless it's very close and without any obstruction. Even the good old 1G ethernet is better in such cases.
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
I've had a totally different experience with Wifi 5. I just a week ago replaced an intel AC card with a 210E in a desktop and it went from ~24Mbps to over 450. It's in the worst spot in my house for signal. I literally got a new mini PCI-e card and swapped it on the existing PCI-e adapter board, same antennas and everything. And yep, the old card was doing AC on the 5Ghz, no mistakes. I keep separate 2.4 and 5Ghz SSIDS.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
Upvote
1
(7
/
-6)
The 5Ghz band actually goes up to 5.85Ghz, I doubt it'll be that much different.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Get a mesh system, ideally with a wired backbone. Trying to cover large areas with a single AP doesn't scale well and is bound to result in a poor experience especially if it needs to handle many clients.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
0
(8
/
-8)
I didn't downvote you, but I suspect the downvotes are because the idea that all intermediate upgrades were "meh" is preposterous.
802.11b was 11mbps link rate. 802.11ac (Wifi 5) 3x3 clients could get more than 600Mbps on 160MHz channels already, although 160MHz on 5Ghz requires dealing with DFS, etc. So far WiFi 6 clients seem to all be 2x2, including laptop (at least the vast majority), and without Wifi6E the 160MHz channel width limitations are still there. So yeah, my 2x2 Wifi6 clients on 80MHz channels get ~700Mbps and it's great, but a solid 3x3 Wifi5 client on 80MHz channels still got something like 400Mbps vs more like 7-8Mbps back in the 802.11b days. I'll take that 50x improvement happily.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
You can absolutely upgrade WiFi - just search for AX210 or AX200 M.2/NGFF wifi cards on Amazon. There are tons of them. If a particular laptop maker wants to solder their WiFi card on instead that's on that vendor. My Framework uses the cards.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
I don't see how you contradicted me
. Your new wifi card is still connecting to your wifi 5 AP, right? I don't know what "210E" means.On my setup, the things on wifi are mobiles, laptops, televisions and gaming consoles, I don't particularly pay attention to the chipsets they're built with. I did a speedtest just moments ago from my pixel 6 and polled 526mbps. Wifi 5, mesh system with 2 APs and gigabit ethernet backhaul between them.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
I appreciate the reply. This is a tough crowd today. My "meh" was more referring to the fact wifi could never replace ethernet prior to Wifi 6. For example, we do tons of Steam in-home streaming and on Wifi 5 you get tons of stutters and random data loss spikes, on wifi 6 it's literally indistinguishable from ethernet. If wifi 7 is 2x or more faster, you're looking at real-world better than gigabit speed without messing with cables. That's a winner.
Wifi 6 has been insanely robust both at home and work. With the return to office everyone has laptops now and they don't have ethernet ports these days. We have super expensive Cisco Wifi 6 APs and you can easily crank out 800Mbps or more from a cheapo (newer) Dell laptop. And that's with hundreds of devices across I think 8 APs. The wifi 5 we had before the pandemic was a joke.
Upvote
10
(12
/
-2)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This could be awesome on my homelab. No more need for SFP+ cables. Just toss an AP in the back of my rack, load everyone up with singular NICs and I'm good to go for everything in my 10x10 office.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I don't see how you contradicted me
On my setup, the things on wifi are mobiles, laptops, televisions and gaming consoles, I don't particularly pay attention to the chipsets they're built with. I did a speedtest just moments ago from my pixel 6 and polled 526mbps. Wifi 5, mesh system with 2 APs and gigabit ethernet backhaul between them.
No, I have a Wifi 6 AP. 210E is intel's Wifi 6E chip. My previous router was a Google Wifi setup with 2 hardwired mesh nodes. Maybe google just makes a trash Wifi system.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
The question is, does it need to?
One of the most common scenarios which is sensitive to latency is VOIP calls. Somewhere in the sub 25ms is generally considered excellent call quality. If wifi can maintain 5ms latency with 5 ms of jitter, (10ms overhead total) there is likely enough room still to account for going over the internet. So if you have < 15ms to the voip provider, you won't notice any call quality issues. So sure having a wired port with <1ms latency and <1ms jitter would be better, but to the end user it really doesn't matter. What does matter is they don't need to physically sit in one location and plug something in. They can simply walk into an area and everything just works.
To address your other point, wifi is moving closer and closer to the device. In order to increase speeds and density, a lot of the time the AP is going to be within the same room or maybe one wall away. There's been a huge push to get APs closer to the clients with every new generation, so stability is going to improve.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
The "problem" with wifi is that it adds about 2ms of latency compared to ethernet/sfp. That's probably tolerable in most cases, but between that and the added reliability and more consistent bandwidth, wires still make sense.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
The problem with Wifi is writing a scheduler for the base station is next to impossible to get right. Because it's not like cellular networks where you can enforce all the clients follow the same standard. In real life WiFI routers see this eclectic mix of clients with an inconsistent set of capabilities across many generations, all vying for the same air/time. Just one old client can kill the performance of everyone else.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
It's one of those things where I'd imagine the hardware or knobs on the wifi 5 installations you experienced were less than ideal. I can definitely understand where the previous hardware should have "just worked" and maybe your Wifi 5 didn't but your Wifi 6 does. I can attest to using several Wifi 5 installations in the same scenarios you are referring to and them working just fine. So it's likely down to some bad hardware combinations or poor settings that contributed to your poor experience. The point being is people are likely defending that wifi 5 is working great for them, so it's less about the standard and more about the network design that is causing the issue.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)