Compare Intel ax200 and ax210 models. Determine when Wi-Fi 6E will be practical.
Compare Intel ax200 and ax210 models. Determine when Wi-Fi 6E will be practical.
The ax210 offers 5.2 Bluetooth and 6GHz Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi 6E) compared to previous models. Prices are around 200 pounds for the 200 series and 24 pounds for the 210. It’s unclear when it will become widely adopted, but upgrading for better performance might be worthwhile. If you’re okay spending more for a stronger card, it could be a good choice depending on your needs.
Looking at the limitations, the biggest advantage will appear when you're close to your router at home. The improvements will be most noticeable in a local setting, especially after installing a WiFi 6E device. In reality, WiFi 6 isn't outdated for long, but its usefulness hinges on your specific needs. For a home environment aiming for Ethernet-like performance over Wi-Fi, both 6 and 6E can work well, with 6E offering slight enhancements. I haven’t identified a major issue with older standards like 802.11n or 4 in most everyday scenarios outside the house—businesses typically restrict speeds above 100Mbps anyway.
wifi 7 offers the chance to wait if desired. 6e is attracting more devices and some capabilities that might resemble wifi 7 (uncertain about pricing). Upgraded Bluetooth and newer Wi-Fi protocols could provide improved reach or connection, though this depends on your card choice and installation location. Some cards deliver strong signals while others may be obstructed or suffer from defects. Bluetooth performance varies significantly across versions—some are quite problematic so you might need to investigate further. It seems 5.2 addressed certain Bluetooth issues and multi-device challenges, but if you’re not concerned, an older version could suffice. I’ve generally preferred wifi 6 and above for better reliability. Consider what your laptop can support. Edited July 22, 2022 by Quackers101
Bluetooth 5.2 might offer a substantial improvement over Bluetooth 5.1, especially when paired with future Bluetooth headphones. It serves as the foundation for Bluetooth LE Audio, enhancing sound quality and other features. Regarding Wi-Fi, 6E versus 6E is unlikely to impact home users much, as Wi-Fi 7 is expected to arrive before significant adoption. Home use won’t benefit greatly from these upgrades. Also, remember that the right module version matters—choose between AX210 or AX211 for Wi-Fi 6E, depending on your processor type. The card with a zero at the end uses PCIe protocol, while AX211 supports CNVio2, which should match your processor requirements.
It seems we're likely heading toward WiFi 7 devices that connect via WiFi 6e. Vendors are slow to update routers and access points. Even Apple isn't prioritizing WiFi 6e support. I disagree that 6GHz isn't ideal for home use. In apartment buildings, signal strength will be much stronger than in well-implemented business networks, since each unit would broadcast constantly. There could also be significant interference on the 5GHz band. On a good day I can reach about 1.44 Gbit, but it drops to half that without shared channels. The concept behind 6GHz is that few devices currently use it and its weaker penetration means fewer random disruptions. That guideline isn't always accurate, though—some gadgets support both, while others only work with one. A laptop with a 12th-gen CPU doesn't guarantee it will use the new chipset on its M.2 slot. Usually, if it includes Intel WiFi, it does; many come with Realtek, which uses PCIe.
I believe most suppliers will lack substantial Wi-Fi 6E backing and will shift focus toward Wi-Fi 7. It seems unlikely vendors will release only a handful of AP models with 6E support, whereas we expect around ten for Wi-Fi 7. Regarding routers and access points, I wouldn’t expect Apple to continue developing them—about nine years ago they stopped. If you mean Apple devices then, it’s possible they’ll skip Wi-Fi 6E entirely and move straight to Wi-Fi 7. The phrase “not meant for home use” feels a bit harsh; what I really mean is that it won’t be a big deal for typical users. With 24 non-overlapping channels using 20MHz bands, we’re covering most household needs. Even in dense settings like apartments, interference stays manageable if neighbors don’t misuse large channels. The advantage of 6GHz mainly lies in high-density areas—such as schools, stadiums, concert venues—where many APs must be packed closely to serve many clients. This setup could help improve performance for those environments. For regular consumers, the gains from 6GHz are probably minimal, since most people won’t require speeds beyond what 20MHz channels can offer on the 5GHz band. With Wi-Fi 6, we already see throughputs exceeding 1Gbps in ideal conditions; 6GHz will likely boost that a bit more, but only slightly. For everyday use, the difference is probably negligible, and many users won’t even notice.
Clients, was disappointed the Macbook Pro M1 doesn't support 6e or 160Mhz channels, so it can't max out my shiny new FTTP. So you do not approve that I have 40Mhz on my PtP network and 160Mhz on my home network then? To be fair, no nearby networks use DFS channels and this is actually part of the problem for home users, a lot of routers avoid DFS channels even when they would perform better because nobody is using them and nowhere near weather radar. Isn't that something insane like 8x8 MIMO though? Pretty much all clients are 2x2 so 20Mhz is kinda lacking. I do agree though that most people don't need the speed. Only PC gamers and high-end users really benefit. Consoles from what I hear are quite speed limited, but also will update in the background anyway so less of an issue.
Oh I see. Yeah that is a bit disappointing. I mean... You are using 50% of the available spectrum for yourself, and as a result is at the very least interfering with half of your neighbours Wi-Fi in a negative way, for (in my opinion) no apparent reason other than getting some high number in a speed test. I don't think the forum rules allows me to say what I actually think about people who use such wide channels. Yeah it's for 8x8. 2x2 is still enough for like 250Mbps though. Far more than what most people need. Again, I get that if you have some super niche scenario that requires a ton of speed over Wi-Fi then it might not be ideal, but we are talking about the 99,9% of user case scenarios here. If we are talking about people living in apartment buildings then I think most would be better served by the more stable environment that 20Mhz channels provides. Sure, in the 6GHz spectrum we might be able to afford running larger channels, but then the question becomes, does the average Joe even need that today or in the next couple of years? Probably not. I would argue that most PC gamers or "high-end users" don't needs it either. For gaming you don't need high bandwidth. You want low latency, and for that you most likely want a stable and predictable connection. For downloading games I guess you want a fast connection, but those are the rare occasions that you shouldn't design your network around. I think the general rule of thumb these days is that a typical online multiplayer game uses <300Kb/s of bandwidth. 20MHz channels, which will most likely provide a more stable and thus predictable latency will be better for gamers when they are actually playing games, which is what I would say is the important part.
I wouldn't label it "rare," and it makes sense to build your network with wired connections first, rather than relying on WiFi. We notice many discussions on the forum where people claim wired setups aren't feasible. I'm a power user, but I find it impressive how Steam can achieve 180MB/s speeds. My gaming habits involve switching between several titles, so ample storage isn't always necessary. A lot of gamers have limited time to play, making long download waits a real barrier. For me, the main challenge is fatigue—if I feel tired while gaming, I need to start playing immediately, or I won't be able to enjoy it afterward. So I think this isn't as niche as some believe.
So do I understand you correctly. You are willingly ruining the Wi-Fi for at least half of your neighbours, potentially making it near unusable at times, just because you want to download a game over Wi-Fi a bit faster, which is super important to you because you can't plan ahead and easily get bored? I feel sorry for the people who live near you and I am glad I am not your neighbour. If I were you I would buy an ethernet cable, and if necessary, an adapter so that I could wire up my computer. Also, I think it is a very small niche of people who check all these boxes: 1) Has really high speed Internet connections (above 200Mbps). 2) Has high end wireless devices. 3) Want to constantly download new and large games on said wireless devices, and then uninstalls them afterwards. 4) Would rather have fast download above a reliable and predicable connection. I have noticed that whenever I talk about networking in general, or what "most people" want, need or should prioritize, you tend to jump in with your use case which is often quite frankly overly complicated for no reason. Or rather, the reason seems to be "I am a power user so I want to flex". Good on you for getting over 1Gbps over Wi-Fi, sometimes. Very impressive. Too bad it is, according to your own posts, not very stable and it is most likely very detrimental to your neighbours. I would recommend you stop trying to chase big numbers and stop thinking that just because you think something is cool, that everybody should do it. Keep things simple, especially when talking about the average Joe.