11

I just upgraded to home gigabit internet, but my router can't handle it. What reliable routers exist that can actually handle full gigabit throughput? I have most of my devices wired, so gigabit WiFi isn't a requirement, though that would be nice too.

JMY1000
  • 2,276
  • 10
  • 22
James
  • 1,637
  • 13
  • 30
  • 1
    Just checking, are you sure it's your router that can't handle it and not your modem? If you connect your computer directly to the (DSL, I'm assuming) modem, does the problem go away? –  Sep 11 '15 at 04:08
  • 1
    Yes, that's correct. I have measured the raw speed as full gigabit both ways. – James Sep 11 '15 at 04:10

2 Answers2

5

Most home/consumer gateway devices (commonly called routers) will not be able to handle this volume of traffic.

One alternative to consider is products from Ubiquiti Networks as they have several that should fit your need and the prices compare with consumer type products (there are others besides what I list, check their site if you want more detail).

  • EdgeRouter Lite - I have used these at several non-profit sites, they work well and at about $100 you can't go too far wrong.
  • EdgeRouter X - a bit lower performance (still up to 1Gbps with 1518 byte packets) at about half the cost as the above. I haven't used these personally, but I understand the underlying software is a bit different.
  • Unifi Security Gateway - similar performance specs to the EdgeRouter Lite, but managed through their Unifi controller software (provided free but meant to run on a computer/server). I haven't used this Unifi product, but have deployed access points from the line.

None of these products have wireless built in, for that you would need to look at alternatives such as turning your current router into an access point or buying access points.

All of them may have more features and be more complex than your typical home or consumer device, so the learning curve may be new if you aren't familiar with networking.

Speaking for the EdgeRouter Lite which I have used, it does have a GUI and some wizards for basic configuration, but to unlock all the possible features/configuration you many need to delve into the command line interface (CLI). This has become less true over the life of the product as they continue to develop it, but will always likely be true for some features.

In the plus column, Ubiquiti has a very active user community that is very helpful if you have questions or problems.

YLearn
  • 193
  • 1
  • 5
  • The EdgeRouter X isn't just "a bit lower" in performance. It's 130 kpps vs 1 mpps between the two. Stay away from the EdgeRouter X, it's basically a switch with a CPU. – bviktor Sep 30 '16 at 16:51
  • The X can perform just as well as the Lite if all packets are max size. Clearly they will not be, but depending on the environment, the performance can nearly rival the Lite. Calling it a switch means you are probably giving it more performance capability than it actually has. I agree that I personally wouldn't choose the X over the Lite, especially when the cost difference is sub $100, but for others the cost tradeoff may be worth it.. – YLearn Dec 15 '18 at 17:45
  • It can now. It couldn't on launch. My comment is more than 2 years old, dude, since then, they came to their senses and finally wrote the driver for this feature. In fact, I'm also rocking an X since then. Well it's more like around 930 Mbps, but it's good. Although IPsec offload is still broken ATM. – bviktor Dec 17 '18 at 11:00
  • @bviktor, it could at launch. However it could only do so if the packets are all max length (as I note in my 3 year old post), which generally doesn't happen in the real world except under limited circumstances. Since then they have improved the performance, as you note in your updated comment. – YLearn Dec 17 '18 at 16:40
  • No, it could not. https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-EdgeRouter-software-release-v1-8-5/ba-p/1591710 – bviktor Dec 17 '18 at 18:27
  • @bviktor, not sure what you are referring to, possibly the addition of support for NAT in hardware? The X could pass 1Gbps of max length packets at launch. It could not do so with less than max length packets. It also could not do so with a number of features enabled as those decreased the performance (like NAT). Doesn't mean it couldn't pass traffic at that rate. And before you ask if anyone could possibly use a router without using NAT, then the answer is yes. Or maybe you were referring to the X-SFP had issues on the SFP port? That isn't the X platform as a whole. Something else? – YLearn Dec 17 '18 at 23:31
  • De facto vs de juro. Around 99.99999% of households rely on NAT for Internet. Nothing else to add. – bviktor Dec 17 '18 at 23:53
  • @bviktor, since you threw down the Latin, I will go with argumentum ad populum. The percentage of households that don't use max length packets is even higher; you could have stopped there and had a "stronger" case. Just because something is not used in a particular way the vast majority of the time, doesn't mean it isn't capable of it. In this particular case, using the hwnat feature also prevents the use of at least another major feature (DPI). VPN/IPSec will also decrease the performance of the X platform. How a platform is used is choice, and many features often decreases performance. – YLearn Dec 18 '18 at 02:07
5

I recommend the ASUS RT-AC66U. It's been rated by SmallNetBuilder to handle 835Mbps download:

ASUS RT-AC66U

This is one of the higher through puts I've seen personally.

Additionally, it has:

  • Up to 450Mbps wireless speeds on 802.11n
  • Up to 1300Mbps wireless speeds on 802.11ac
  • Concurrent dual band transmissions so you can get up to 450+1300 for a total of 1.65Gbps wirelessly if you utilize both the 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz frequencies
  • Up to 6 guest networks (3 on the 2.4Ghz band and 3 on the 5Ghz band); Each guest network can be configured to have internet access during certain times, require different passwords from one another, allow/deny access to the internal network
  • 4 gigabit ethernet ports
  • 2 USB ports
  • Parental controls
  • Supported by dd-wrt in case you aren't happy with the stock firmware

Personally, I also am very fond of the administration interface. It is "pretty" to look at and doesn't scare a new user, but allows users that know what they are doing the ability to do so.

Disclaimer: I am a happy owner of this model router. I do not have gigabit internet, however I have installed two such routers in small businesses that do have gigabit internet. Both businesses have mentioned they are happy with their internet service

Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
  • 1,180
  • 1
  • 12
  • 26
Andy
  • 3,260
  • 4
  • 22
  • 38