WiFi 6 performance cap S23 ultra
WiFi 6 performance cap S23 ultra
Hello, your setup uses a 10G connection with Wi-Fi 6 access points. You're experiencing limited speeds on your phone, so you might need Wi-Fi 6E or even Wi-Fi 7 for better performance. I'm not sure if your device supports 7 yet.
The S23 only works with up to 6E, and it's unclear if the S24 will offer WiFi 7 at this time. Still, honestly, how much data are you using on your phone that justifies these high wireless speeds? Edit: For WiFi 6 (not 6E), those speeds are quite solid.
Honestly, 6E relies more on distance and walls compared to 6GHz, meaning you won’t notice much change unless you’re always within 10 feet of your access point. Wifi can still work backward with newer standards like 7, which uses the same 6E spectrum plus extra features. I own a S22 Ultra that supports 6E and typically gets around 1800Mbps to 1500Mbps depending on location and setup. Generally, I see about 1300 to 1500Mbps under normal conditions.
The 1.6-1.8Gbps range matches the typical performance of S23 models in VHT160 mode. Achieving such speeds usually requires WiFi 6E, as running a 160MHz channel on 5GHz networks is not advisable.
Not only the S23 offers the best performance you'll get from Wi‑Fi at the moment. They’ll need WiFi 7 for even higher speeds, but even then they won’t exceed around 10 Gbps, and I’d think phones will be more careful about using multiple bands to preserve battery life. It makes little sense to rely on speed tests, since real-world use rarely matches those numbers. They’re definitely close to good, but the devices are already reaching the boundaries of WiFi 6, and consistent gigabit speeds aren’t realistic outside controlled settings.
Wi-Fi 6 and 6E can deliver speeds above 1.8Gbps. Using dual access points in a point-to-point bridge with a strong radio or Ethernet downlink works well. On the client side, this is common now due to power limits and antenna design. Many systems have shifted to 2x2 spatial streams for efficiency. While I use enterprise APs at home with 2.5Gbps Ethernet, my maximum point-to-point link would be around 2.5Gbps (half duplex wireless, full duplex via Ethernet). Higher-end options like 5Gbps Ethernet are possible if budget allows.
What I can convey is that when I inquired directly with Zyxel about my AP, they indicated a maximum speed of 1.6Gbit under lab settings. The information you provided suggests it reaches up to 1.8Gbit at 4x4, which seems to align with the theoretical limits rather than exceeding them. These components are built for MU-MIMO functionality, not for maximizing throughput to a single device. While I haven’t observed the practical advantages of MU-MIMO in real settings, it likely supports many simultaneous low-bandwidth connections—such as business and public Wi-Fi—rather than just two high-speed users. Achieving higher speeds would require broader channel widths and multiple frequencies, which is what WiFi 7 aims to deliver. However, these enhancements come at the expense of battery efficiency, making them unlikely to be fully adopted in consumer devices like my MacBook Pro M1. The performance at 80Mhz is impressive, but reaching Gigabit speeds remains challenging due to interference issues.
It’s likely the server you’re testing on is already at capacity. In 2023, exceeding 1gbps offers little real benefit for internet performance, particularly on mobile devices. Phones can’t match the bandwidth of a typical laptop because they lack the same number of antennas and hardware capabilities—bandwidth sharing among multiple users is the main factor.
It doesn't make sense using a phone in general. The goal is to ensure a Steam download runs as quickly as possible while still leaving enough bandwidth for other devices on the network. This is typical in a family setting. Regarding phones not reaching full WiFi speed, the opposite is true. My S10 at 80Mhz channel width works well with most devices supporting 160Mhz. Phones have more advanced antennas than other gadgets, which helps them connect effectively. Laptop antennas, though larger, are spaced further apart and simpler, giving a better chance to receive a signal but possibly reducing MIMO effectiveness due to spatial streaming complexities.