In WiFi 8 is stable and feature rich WiFi 7. Think I’ve it as WiFi 7 V2.0. For me, upgrading from 6 to 8 isn’t much but will finally do a full refresh with it and will be my standard for a long time.
Given Wifi 8 doesn’t intend to bring any speed upgrades of note I suspect those wanting speed will skip it. Wifi 5 users will move to wifi 7 once the prices come down. The skip a generation that happened with wifi 6 will happen again with wifi 8.
Im still on my Orbi setup from 2016 and desperately would like to get off them, but the things I want cost an absurd amount of money… I thought Orbi was bad when I got them and now I want a cheaper company but everything is just so expensive I can’t. But yeah the one ive been looking at is wifi 7. To bad the only devices that may ever support it are our phones.
Wifi 8 will be a big deal…in the marketing for comcast. I’ve been rocking an old AC access point for years and haven’t even considered replacing it.
802.11 AC “wave 2” was a pretty important step up, using mu-mimo. Then nothing of interest happened with Wi-Fi 6. 6e just added 6ghz, which is good but you hit the problem of cost versus compatibility. There simply are not many 6ghz capable devices yet, so the argument is kind of a wash.
Wi-Fi 7 just dropped, again, with minimal changes.
Wi-Fi 8 I’m sure will be similar.
And all of the extra speed you could get from your fancy pants Wi-Fi 6/7/8/whatever router is pretty much negated by the early 802.11ac (or earlier) devices hanging out on your network, pulling the basic rate down as far as the router will allow so that the majority of the available airtime is spent sending broadcasts and beacons.
I work with technology for a living and honestly, the last two really exciting things I saw in wifi were mu-mimo and 6ghz being opened up. Everything else is iterative changes, and most of the speed advertisements are bullshit. It assumes perfect signal with the widest possible supported channel width with all radio chains engaged. Considering that most devices (mobile devices and laptops particularly) are either 1x1 or 2x2 for radio chains, you’ll never ever see the bandwidth advertised.
Really quickly, you need all the right things in place to get the advertised speed, 160 (or 320) MHz wide channels, good luck finding one that doesn’t have a nontrivial amount of interference on it… A sender and receiver with 3x3 or 4x4, and a clear channel with a low noise floor and no other networks or devices interfering with the signal.
Not only that, but the advertised speed is an aggregate of all of the radios at once, so rinse and repeat for each supported band.
You could go to a lot of effort to achieve all of this by basically turning your house into a Faraday cage, but even that’s not perfect and the stuff inside the house is still going to cause interference… Or you could settle for lower single link performance and just… Get a handful of access points so that the load is spread out and no single node is handling too much traffic.
I’ve been working in tech too long.
I guess it has value for renters who can’t run wires. We’re probably just in a category of people who will hardwire something if bandwidth/latency matters
wifi windows edition
WiFi 6/AX has yet to become the “lowest common denominator”, it will be a long time before the majority of the install base switches to WiFi 7, let alone 8.
WiFi 5 is good enough for almost everyone, so most people aren’t exactly going to be in a big rush to upgrade.
Especially with all this focus on high speed, low range signals. What people really want is reliability. But bigger number better I guess
How many ghz does wifi 5.6.7.8 run at? What’s the range?
It runs on 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz. WiFi 6E and later use 6 GHz as well. There is some equipment that runs on 60 GHz, but that’s mostly for point to point links. There is also WiFi HaLow that runs on 866 or 915 Mhz for low speed IoT stuff.
The higher the frequency is, the less penetration it has. 5 or 6 GHz signals will have trouble going through a single masonry wall. With clear line of sight and directional antennas, the range can be tens of kilometers.
But just think of how fast a device in my rack can wirelessly send data to another device on my rack
The hardware for Wi-Fi 7 is way too expensive for mass market.
Are networking companies starting to market “standards” that don’t have an RFC yet again?
Starting implies that they stopped at some point
Actually this is covered by IEEE 802.11bn, though it’s not actually finalized yet:
IEEE 802.11bn, dubbed Ultra High Reliability (UHR), is an upcoming IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standard. It is also designated Wi-Fi 8 by the Wi-Fi Alliance. As its designation suggests, 802.11bn aims to improve the reliability of wireless communications rather than primarily increasing data rates. The standard is projected to be finalized in September 2028.
Wasn’t it reliable before? Maybe they ought to stop going for maximum throughput if they wanted reliable connections…
Ethernet cables still reign.
In my area, a good homeplug setup reigns over wifi for streaming.
I see about 150 wireless networks from my home the last time I scanned, and I don’t live in a high density area. The sheer volume of traffic makes it hard to be reliable. Wifi 6 and 7 brought some improvements (on paper; I still use AC) but evidently there’s room for improvement.
IDGAF. No way I’m using a T-P Link router.
Why not? Do you might giving a quick note about why not tp-link? I am doing the research to build my own modem (on the way to self-hosted - which is a LOOONG way away) but was looking at tp link network card as part of the build.
Their routers have been known to have security issues and the manufacturer routinely drops support for 1-2 year old routers. Some mitigate this by flashing openwrt instead of the stock firmware.
None of this applies to a NIC so you are fine
Right on. Thank you!
