Are routers actually bad? (Today's Techquickie)
Are routers actually bad? (Today's Techquickie)
Today's tech tip: a 1GHz processor would struggle to send just one byte every ten CPU cycles, which could slow down data transfer on a 1Gb WAN line. This scenario is probably not a major concern. Even sluggish memory can handle that speed without any issues. If you're using a fast home network and mostly talk to each other rather than the internet, a larger router might help. With a 10Gb connection, the need becomes even clearer. Most regular users don’t face these problems and won’t see any benefit. They’d likely waste time setting up a big, power-hungry PC that doesn’t improve performance at all. On the other hand, cheap Wi-Fi routers are affordable, compact, use minimal power (around 5W), and work well in real-world settings. If you're unsure, test your own lab to check if routers actually slow things down internally.
Essentially, most routers are not great, but my WRT54G is really reliable.
I agree that many routers fall short. Generally, they aren't the best brands like Linksys Velops or Netgear Nighthawks. Most come from ISPs, which are often unreliable. I personally enjoy my Velop router and my older AirPort Extreme, though it's a bit slow.
NAT requires significant processing power. My AC66U reached around 500mbps after switching to a 1gbps fiber connection. I optimized the CPU and it worked fine. The device kept running as a Wi-Fi access point for several years until it failed, after which I upgraded to an AC68U. I appreciate that pfSense is upgradable. Want higher speeds? Just add a dual NIC with 1gbps capability. You can get a dual 2.5g NIC for CAD$55, with a simple upgrade option.
It’s a frustrating video. It relies on flawed assumptions and claims complex fixes to push a simple solution. They likely created it to provide a justification for mentioning pfSense. Saying routers are bad gets more attention than explaining what pfSense actually is. While software might be involved, even older hardware can handle gigabit NAT traffic. I suspect a software glitch or suboptimal settings caused the issue—like enabling too much logging. Performance problems usually stem from network bottlenecks, not CPU limits. I’ve seen people overload logging on home routers, which hurts speed. In my experience, it wasn’t because the CPU couldn’t handle 500Mbps; a quick check showed much higher speeds. Understanding this helps avoid unnecessary purchases—often buying a router and upgrading later is more expensive than using a standard device.
I haven't experienced any problems with AX86 systems at home. They perform much better than the older port extremes we used before. The coverage is excellent, speed is impressive, and stability is strong overall. At work, I run pfSense with routers in AP mode. In fact, I haven't noticed a significant drop in performance either.
PPPoE and VLAN tagging are needed for the WAN link. Also, specific firewall configurations for port forwarding are necessary. What you refer to as 'Non-optimal' would be considered 'Basic router tasks'. The BCM4706 can reach up to 850mbps, thanks to its acceleration features and optimized functions. It's essentially a 600mhz single-core MIPS processor. The ITX J4004 board costs around $93.60, while the Intel 82575EB dual 1gbps NIC is about $22.66. This setup is quite budget-friendly, and the possibility to upgrade the NIC adds significant value. It draws roughly 15 watts from the power supply.