ASUS GT-AXE11000 Wired LAN speed

What speed are you guys getting out of the ASUS GT-AXE11000 wired/LAN port? (in relation to the input speed)

With my current ASUS RT-AC5300 router, the comcast tech measured 1.3 gb/s before the Arris S33 cable modem. Coming out of the modem it's slightly 1+ gb/sec. (Paying for 800 mbits/s service.) After the RT-AC5300 router, the wired LAN becomes 600 mbits/s tops and this is after trying really hard many times. Usually it's 500 mbits/s. Lost about 400 to 500 mbits/s inside the router box. We have already done the factory reset several times and am using the most basic setup (wifi password) and that 600 is the max speed.

Is the new GT-AXE11000 wired/LAN port any better to get to 800+ mbits/s? What is the service speed and wired output speed that you guys are getting?

(Or some wired speedtest numbers for any other similar routers with 8 antennas will be good too.)

Thanks

 

Make sure that NAT hardware acceleration is on.
It's probably in "switch control" section where you can enable or disable jumbo frames and NAT acceleration.

 

RT-AC5300 was very CPU limited relative to what's out now, without NAT acceleration as @downloads mentioned you'd take a huge it limiting max WAN speeds to like 500-600 Mbps. Things like QoS, Traffic Monitoring would disable something call CTF (Cut Through Forwarding) which in a way bypasses packet inspection by the CPU allowing faster speeds, with it disabled things slow down a lot and you would notice it if you have a fast internet plan like 500 Mbps plan or faster. The newer router however should have full acceleration even with some of the bells and whistles enabled, and would likely get you close to gig speeds even without.

Also just note that 8 antennas doesn't mean its using it all for one band. Its using 4 for 1 5Ghz band and 4 for the 2nd 5Ghz band and 2.4 Ghz band. Additionally unless you have a numerous amount of active devices operating parallel you won't get much benefit from a tri-band router. When People say they have like 20-30 devices they fail to realize only a few of those devices are actively transmitting at any given time or even under heavy loads parallely. Now if you do a lot of LAN transfers on WIFI to a NAS or something and you have lots of devices also in use WAN side Tri-Bands makes more sense otherwise your internet will generally be the main bottleneck before the actual router itself.


I'd first look at seeing if your current router can get you gig speeds with acceleration enabled by disabling all extras like QoS/Traffic Monitoring etc. IF you do get a new router I'd look at a dual-band like the AX86U or the likes in a practical sense. Of course nothing wrong if you want the latest and greatest and are an enthusiast either if you feel you can afford to do so.

 

I've got an RT something or another AC router sitting in a box because it was so slow. I replaced it with a Netgear R7800 which wasn't the first choice as I had my eye on a Synology RT2600ac but, that failed to hit the speeds I was expecting.

Sometimes it's a lottery of what kind of performance you'll see from the craptastic selection of plastic devices. As for what you should get as a replacement depends on your devices you're using. At a minimum I would say anything that's 802.11ax based is a good starting place.

If you want the max performance upgrading the CM is a good place to start and quit paying the monthly fee ~$15/mo. I went with a MB8600 and have been running it now for ~5-6 years w/o issue ($720 saved - (($570 net)) There's a new model out though that has a 2.5gbps port on it CM2000 @ $199. I would take that and hook it up to a router with a 2.5gbps port for WAN. If you have a 2.5WAN you probably get a 2.5LAN port as well. https://dongknows.com/multi-gigabit-wi-fi-6-routers-to-bring-home-today/ - Mgig WAN is where the flexibility comes into play.

Zyxel Armor G5: 1x 2.5Gbps WAN + 1x 10Gbps LAN ports - this would allow a switch to be connected to the LAN side to aggregate the 10GE port at different speeds if needed. A 2.5gbps switch w/ a few ports is $120

As to the WIFI performance since we're piecing things together you have more options such as using an AP vs a router/AP prepackaged together like the POS you're having issues with currently. You have a few choices that break the mold and work independent of the consumer junk on the shelf these days.
https://www.mbreviews.com/best-wireless-access-points/

I went with a NWA210AX for cost / speed @ ~$200 and through the past year of having it they have worked out some of the issues with the FW providing a single client up to 1.3gbps though the dashboard says it's connected at 2.4gbps.

It all depends on how much effort & cash you want to throw at the issue for reliable speeds though. As you can see here getting the max out of your cable connection could be ~ $550. However, if you look at some of the options you listed these can easily cost just as much w/o the functionality / savings long term. By not paying that $12-$15/mo to the cable company each month you recoup your funds fairly easily and get better performance. Since the setup is modular you can swap out portions as needed for more capacity / density / speeds. This works better financially since you're not replacing a $600 device just to get more ports or newer WIFI release like WIFI6E coming soon.

 

Hey guys, thank you for the info!

My NAT Acceleration is set to Auto (only have Auto or Disable choices). Jumbo Frames is enabled too (before that, it was mid 400+). QoS is disabled too. I did not enable any traffic monitoring etc. The settings/changes were as minimal as possible after the factory reset. Anyways, that's the 500 to 600 I'm getting now.

I might have to stick with the 8 antennas type because my RT-AC5300 does a fantastic job covering a bunch of cameras all around outside the large house. Before that i had a fancy Netgear Nighthawk and the signal wasn't as strong when i checked their info/pages. But anyways the issue I'm having is the wired LAN (not wireless). My kid wants to see 800 on his wired PC (10/11th gen K processor/box) and of course I'm game enough to want to see that too lol. The comcast tech on the chat/phone flashed in the latest firmware into the Motorola MB8611 modem and did the usual signal refresh thing. It didn’t help and so I got this Arris S33 modem. They did the firmware update and refresh too, similarly didn't help and so i asked them to come over.

The local comcast technician made some cable/wiring changes (didn't help). So he called another technician over with their network test equipment and they showed me the numbers for line-in (before modem, 1.3 gb/s), after modem (output, 1+ gb/s), and after router (router's LAN port, ~600 mbits/s)... right away the man proclaimed my old/fancy RT-AC5300 router as the weakest link lol.

Now is to try to get 800 at the kid's wired computer (non-peak hours). So I'm wondering is the new ASUS GT-AXE11000 (newer, more powerful) going to show 800 to 900 or will it have the same issue 500-600 issue? (My next laptop will have wifi 6 and that new router might come in handy too.)

edit: probably should mention those cameras are not sending data (somewhat inactive) unless there's some movement outside.

 

Just to clear up a misconception and reiterate its not using 8 antennas per band (you seem to be misled) it’s essentially not much different than 4 antenna router like most dual band models. It’s not going to give more coverage as only 4 are used per band like most 4 antenna dual band routers. The extra 5Ghz band and it’s associated 4 antenna is for capacity and will not improve coverage. Your AC5300 is just an Asus AC88U with an extra 5Ghz band same underlying hardware essentially with similar coverage. Another example is the RAX80 and RAX200 pretty much the same hardware with the RAX200 having an additional set of antennas for the tacked on 3rd band… hence no improvement in coverage only capacity.

The only true 8 antenna (5Ghz band) routers are the Netgear RAX120 and Asus AX89U both of which share the same underlying hardware but range in not much different than the AX11000 or RAX200 ….. I say this from experience as a beta tester for a networking company who has essentially tested all of the company’s top tier units.

 

Once again, you already know where the speed issue is for wired connections.

As to the cameras and wifi that's not going to chew up a huge amount of bandwidth. The signal penetration is a different issue if you haven't tuned the router to use the proper signal w/ least amount of interference.

 

Ok i can give up. Looks like it's probably going to be this way. I was looking up some amazon customer reviews/answers on various routers (different brands and models, all prosumer types). The ones that tested typically got 400 to 600 on wired LAN too with their gigabit service. It also appears the ones with slower 50 to 300 mbits/s service will most certainly get the full numbers/speed (was this way too before I upgraded to the faster service recently). It's the faster gigabit service that has this lower throughput issues. I look at the 4 LAN ports in a row on the router and think it looks like a switch and must work like a switch (negligible reduction), but now thinking it's not a switch at the upper speed. Maybe one of these days I might look up some business class wifi routers for fun if this is going to be any better.

Earlier I disabled NAT Acceleration (instead of Auto/On) and it quickly dropped to 360 (instead of 590+ the next run). Looks like the Auto setting must be working.

 

It should definitely hit around 930-950 Mbps for WAN to LAN throughput. Did you enable the trendnet security? That’s is another thing that can cause a hit. Those reviews you saw are probably people with CTF/NAT acceleration disabled.Spanning Tree is another that should be disabled off the top of my head. Post images of your settings if possible.

 

960mbps is the max w/ overhead on a 1gbps line.

I could get the R7800 there wired / wireless.

Seeing 1/2 that on a wired connection indicates to me at least find another vendor.

I built my own router/wifi/firewall/nas/media streamer/etc. to consolidate things a bit. I put in a QNAP 5GE 4-port card for the WAN/LAN because I didn't want any bottlenecks for the NAS portion and needed something to handle the 2.5gbps port from the Zyxel AP I went with. I picked up a USB-C 5GE dongle for the laptop to make quick transfers when imaging the laptop and can max it out at the disk speed in the Raid 10 configuration w/ 4 x 8tB drives. For a full speed test moving data from the NVME in the server would max out the potential speed overall.

To get speeds to where they should be you need a few things.
1. cabling needs to be decent Cat 5 or higher
2. cabling needs to be shorter than the max length
3. HW needs to be fast enough to handle the packet stream
4. QOS needs to be enabled to process high volumes of data (WIFI) w/o it you'll be relegated to G/N speeds
5. ASIC's in the device need to be configured to max speeds / though auto negotiation typically handles it well it's better to statically define it for certain devices

to hit the max speeds for my setup using an Ethernet cable @ ~20ft / Cat5E works just fine to hit those 5GE speeds. Cat 6 is recommended though for longer lengths.

The problem with WIFI Routers and some OEM's is that they try to make them into more than they should be by adding all this software and over complicating things. Disable all the stuff and test each feature independently until you find the right mix or buy a setup like I recommended earlier and split the functions up into different devices. That $120 switch will perform better between machines vs internet speeds. The choke point to the internet is the ASIC in the "router" you're using. LAN <> LAN traffic should be able to hit 960mbps between machines @ Layer 2 w/ overhead.

One thing that comes to mind is to DEFAULT the router completely by holding down the reset button for at least 30 seconds to purge all of the configuration changes you've made. Reboot it and plug into it w/o configuring anything and make sure the FW is updated. After that reboot and reconfigure just the basics like WIFI SSID / PW. Test the WIRED speeds w/o any of the OEM software "features" enabled Test with a new cable if need be as well. They do go bad if they're used a lot / moved around a lot / in warm conditions / plugged/unplugged often / etc.

Better yet you can verify the devices by putting a cable between them and testing transfers to see if it's a PC issue / driver issue / etc.

 

Everyone's NAT Acceleration really should be on by default unless it's broken.
No, my trendnet is not enabled. All the other items are not enabled too. (Simple settings after a factory reset.)

So i disabled the firewall to test. For a moment i was thinking if this work then what do i do... buy a sonicwall or fortinet box like work lol. Well that firewall disable setting didn't make a difference.

I saw a cheap cisco small business wifi router (looks like a real cisco). Someone fed 500 into the WAN and got 330 out of the LAN port.

 

I reset the router already (mentioned earlier in the first post). Before the reset last Thursday it was actually 400+. The network cable is about 5ft long, going into the the comcast test/network equipment (like a scope/analyzer box) which reported this speed number. We saw the same number at the wired PC too.

 

Cheap + Cisco = less than line speed

You could build your own router from a Rasp Pi for $40 and implement your own router/FW setup with Linux and get better performance.

I work with all of the major vendors devices in an enterprise setting. The enterprise devices prices are tied more to the warranty / replacement contracts within X hours than the performance. Working on routers @ the $7-figure level and switches in the $5-digit arena I can tell you they're a different animal than what you're trying to achieve. Getting an overpriced device doesn't mean you get performance out of the box w/o some know how to properly configure it and cable it between devices.

Sonicwall / Fortinet devices for SMB use are fine for low bandwidth applications but, they're not worth considering for home use. It's gong to be underwhelming / over priced.

Take the cable you're using and plug in your PC and your kid's PC on each end and transfer a huge file or a folder full of them. You should see Explorer speeds hitting around 96MB/s if the cable is good. Once you prove that on your cabling then move onto the router issue. If you can't go PC <> PC @ the same speed then it's an issue inside the router. If you can then it's not the router's ASIC (switch) ports causing the issue. If the router supports a speed test from the device itself through the Web GUI then run on and that tests from the WAN port through the cable modem. IF the speed is close to where you're paying for then it rules that out. The NAT between the LAN/WAN or the QOS / software is probably to fault. You could bypass all of the junk by trying DD-WRT / Tomato images on it and see if it subsides. If it's still being a hog in molasses then it's time to consider a different device for routing / wifi such as the ones mentioned.

 

Good then ignore my request.

What number?

If you do a hard reset on the modem and directly connect a PC to it what speed do you get?

Paying for 800mbps should yield you more than that when speed testing as they over provision to prevent service calls for "low speeds".

I have a 1gbps plan and can get closer to 1250mbps w/ VPN enabled by bundling 2 1gigabit ports together into a single pipe. Where as w/o bundling I can hit 960+ w/ overhead. (less w/ VPN enabled)

 

The number from the comcast test/network analyzer was 600 mbits/s (same as the wired PC)

I just did a 7.4 GB zipfile copy from a wired HP laptop computer to the kid's PC. It was about 68 MB/s typically (range was 60 to 74 MB/s).

 

Now try it with an Ethernet cable between both PC's w/o the router in the middle.

Set both PC's to Static IP's say192.168.0.2 & .3 / subnet mask 255.255.255.0 / gateway blank

If the cable is good then you should see transfer rate in the 90's/MB/s

Or get a cheap 1gbit switch for $10 and plug the PC's into that and then the router into it for DHCP to work. Bypassing the router is the key to testing the cable for speed. If you get speeds in the 90's then you know the cable is good. If you don't get the higher speeds then replace the cable with a new one Cat 5E or Cat 6.

 

Hi everyone, just an update/conclusion... the GT-AXE11000 seems to be out of stock everywhere and some sellers are scalping it at extra high prices. So I bought a new ASUS RT-AX86U wifi router (the red Gundam/Zaku one lol). Now we're getting over 939 mbit/s which is as good as it'll get (thrilled, paying for only 800 mbits/s service). Saw 956 for a split second too. Looks like I just need a newer router with more horsepower to get 800 mbits/s and this RT-AX86U solved it.

The wifi signal strength at various outdoor cameras is the same even when this router has fewer antennas compared to the old one. Two wifi cameras (same/one model, quite old) did not connect while the other cameras (other models/age) connect/work fine. Gave up troubleshooting/resetting the 2 old cameras, might be a compatibility issue as others had similar problems - will just replace the 2 old cams.

The wifi speed to my laptop (passing thru 3 walls and a floor, difficult spot downstairs) is now twice faster at 460 mbits/s (plenty good enough, XPS with new 210 wifi AXE card). The wifi speed to my S21 cell phone is about twice faster too (faster than laptop, unfair) and the wifi-6 icon suddenly showed up on it.

Thank you everyone for your help recently.