AX11000 AiMseh shows unusual activity when paired with AC5300
AX11000 AiMseh shows unusual activity when paired with AC5300
Today I managed to switch from Shaw to Telus Gigabyte fiber optics for about $55 in the Greater Vancouver area. I updated the firmware on both devices and set them up as an AiMseh network. The Ai Node is located upstairs, connected via a LAN port with a backhaul through the LAN. When using AC mode with the integrated AX200 wireless adapter, I achieved roughly 500 Mbps, and switching to AX mode gave around 650 Mbps. Occasionally it drops to 2.4GHz, which provides about 250 Mbps. My thought is that the AX mode uses a weaker but higher frequency signal, or perhaps pairing with an AC5300 causes stability issues in AX mode. I’m trying to figure out how to use Wi-Fi to boost speeds up to 940 Mbps. I don’t have a LAN port near my computer, so will an AX16000 work? Or does the 6G Wi-Fi suffer from poor signal quality due to its strength? I can’t move my router because the storage under the stairs houses the internet panels. It’s a fully enclosed space, just a few walls separating them. If the AX16000 works, what adapter should I use? The ASUS PCE-AX3000 seems fastest but only half the capacity of the AX16000 and may not reach 940 Mbps for upload. Here are the specifications: 802.11a up to 54 Mbps, 802.11b up to 11 Mbps, 802.11g up to 54 Mbps, WiFi 4 (802.11n) up to 300 Mbps, WiFi 5 (802.11ac) up to 1733 Mbps, WiFi 6 (802.11ax) up to 574 Mbps on 2.4GHz, and 2402 Mbps on 5GHz. Are there other options? Also, why does upload speed seem so high in Wi-Fi connections? The adapters appear to be built for that purpose. I tested with a LAN port on another machine and both reached about 950 Mbps. Thank you for your help.
I achieve 1.4Gbit on an AX210 at 160Mhz, though it's the same environment. In another space, results are uncertain. On 80Mhz during a good day, speeds can reach up to 900Mbit. I’m not sure why, but it seems to perform better than the AX200, possibly due to my machine’s faster CPU or improved antennas. Upload speeds tend to be unreliable, and I don’t think much can be done about that.
Signal quality appears to be the main concern. The upload setup seems intentionally limited. It might be built that way, meaning parallel speeds only work when connected via LAN port. Likely, providers outside NA or EU don’t offer this feature due to design and cost factors. Instead of purchasing a router, consider optimizing your home cable layout and upgrading the existing cables as the previous owners did 10 years ago.
Speed consistency should remain uniform in both directions, yet factors like routers and access points use focused antennas to direct signals toward clients. This helps maintain stronger reception compared to sending data back to the router. Regarding network performance, I've experienced long-standing issues with Windows upload speeds, especially when accessing my NAS over the internet. It appears unrelated to actual internet connectivity. The behavior seems unpredictable—sometimes it improves after updates, other times it persists. It feels unusual that a particular computer might work one moment and fail the next.
The correct term is symmetrical speeds, not parallel. Reliable speed guarantees are mainly provided through Ethernet; WiFi is too inconsistent for an ISP to promise consistent speeds. Even with Ethernet, most ISPs don’t reliably offer speed assurances. Symmetrical speeds are less common because it depends on the technology used by the ISP. Fiber usually supports symmetrical speeds, whereas coax-based services often face low upload limits due to DOCSIS standards and network constraints. My current provider Comcast offers around 45 Mbps upload, but with the upcoming DOCSIS 4.0 they should be able to increase it to 100 Mbps or more. Comcast is reportedly planning an upgrade that could enable higher upload speeds. ADSL and VDSL also tend to have lower upload capabilities. I’m not sure about the reasons for these caps, but ADSL—especially aDSL—is largely obsolete in the US, though some users may still rely on it while ISPs phase it out.
Thanks for the extra details: you should also think about how routers/Access Points use beamforming with precisely aimed antennas to clients, which explains why signals perform better when coming in from the client rather than back to the router—especially if the antennas are optimized for your setup. That logic really clicks. It feels like wireless N tech was more common before, where adapters just passively picked up the signal. The next step would be experimenting with third-party antennas on both ends. With speeds around 500mbps download and 250mbps upload—especially when multiple users are sharing it—it’s a solid performance. I still manage a ping of 15 for my favorite games, but figuring out how everything works helps me find ways to get more value from the equipment I already own.
I mainly rely on WiFi for a few gadgets when they're all running together in the same space. When many devices are on at once—even spread out over varying distances—the speed usually drops because the network constantly adjusts its settings to connect each one. This behavior seems to have changed with WiFi 6, but I'm not sure how it affects newer standards.