Throughput vs. Distance, continued
Moving on to 11a performance, let's once again compare the FWAG (Figure 12) to the WRT55AG (Figure 13).
Figure 12: Four Condition 11a Throughput test - FWAG114
(click on the image for a full-sized view)
Figure 13: Four Condition 11a Throughput test - WRT55AG
(click on the image for a full-sized view)
Although there are more similarities in 11a performance, the FWAG's radio uses a newer Atheros chipset, which appears to give it an edge over the WRT55AG in low-signal conditions.
The best news, however, is the FWAG's 11a Turbo performance shown in Figure 14.
Figure 13: Four Condition 11a Turbo Throughput test - FWAG114
(click on the image for a full-sized view)
There's no Linksys comparison plot because the WRT55AG didn't provide an 11a Turbo mode. This plot clearly shows that Atheros' 802.11a technology can deliver high throughput under indoor test conditions and maximum throughput superior to 802.11g - with or without "packet-bursting" throughput enhancements.
802.11g Wireless Performance Test Results
| Test Conditions
| Firmware/Driver Versions AP f/w: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Description | Signal Strength (%) | Transfer Rate (Mbps) | Response Time (msec) | UDP stream | |
| Throughput (kbps) | Lost data (%) | ||||
| Client to AP - Condition 1 | 92 | 19.4 [No WEP] 19.1 [w/ WEP] | 1 (avg) 3 (max) | 499 | 0 |
| Client to AP - Condition 2 | 78 | 19.7 | 1 (avg) 2 (max) | 499 | 0 |
| Client to AP - Condition 3 | 52 | 18.4 | 1 (avg) 2 (max) | 499 | 0 |
| Client to AP - Condition 4 | 55 | 18.8 | 1 (avg) 3 (max) | 499 | 0 |