Mediatek based routers have weak Wi-Fi?

[argintviu]

I've always preferred wired networks at home, but for the mobile stuff like phones and laptops I've used a budget Wi-Fi router (light usage). The first router (retired but still working) was a small Netis unit, based on Realtek RTL8196C + RTL8188RE and its successor was a QCA9533 based 300 MB TP-Link which has recently gone bad (Wi-Fi dropping randomly). Both of these have been stable and best of all, they had enough range to cover the whole house.

After the TP-Link died, I tried these:
- TP-Link TL-WR840N (MediaTek MT7628N)
- Xiaomi Mi 4C (MediaTek MT7628DAN)
- Xiaomi Mi 4A Gbit (MediaTek MT7621AT)

To my amazement, none of these are able to cover even half the area the others could. I have them set in the same place (upper floor, as high as possible), same settings, highest transmit power, etc.. No major obstacles, at most there's a a timber frame wall with plaster boards and a timber floor. The distance between the router and clients is at most 10-12 meters in any direction. With the old routers, I could get 3 bars signal and ~30 MB/s speeds even outside the house. With the new ones, half the time the devices don't even see the Wi-Fi network.

Did anyone else observe lower radio performance in Mediatek-based routers compared to other brands?

[Bryn]

Be fortunate that you didn't have the MT7921, as that's known for very poor performance in terms of WiFi stability and speed, but apparently some routers work well and some don't... and it's all down to inconsistent build quality across all their models. On the plus side though, MediaTek is currently undergoing work to improve its WiFi technology for future products.

[amyk]

I've replaced the filter caps in routers that developed erratic connectivity or speeds to fix them. Cheap consumer-grade routers seem to run the DC-DC-converters at their limits and I've found that increasing the capacitance at the output can improve stability.

[argintviu]

Be fortunate that you didn't have the MT7921, as that's known for very poor performance in terms of WiFi stability and speed, but apparently some routers work well and some don't...

03:00.0 Network controller: MEDIATEK Corp. MT7921 802.11ax PCI Express Wireless Network Adapter

Haha got it in one of the laptops (Lenovo Ideapad 15ACH6). It was a pain a few years back because of bad support in Linux, but now it got better...

I've replaced the filter caps in routers that developed erratic connectivity or speeds to fix them. Cheap consumer-grade routers seem to run the DC-DC-converters at their limits and I've found that increasing the capacitance at the output can improve stability.

Interesting. The routers I mentioned were new so to be able to return them, I couldn't open / mod them. But I'll try this on the old Qualcomm, maybe it'll help with the disconnects.

It's a shame that Mediatek stuff isn't all that reliable, because it's got good OpenWRT support. That's why I bought the Mi 4C and later the 4A, they had excellent price and being able to run an open source firmware on them was a big plus.

[coppice]

I can recommend the TP-Link AX73 for good coverage from personal experience. We've had several ISP provided wifi routers since we moved to our current house. They each gave different but patchy coverage at the extremities of the house. Even two of the same Sagemcom model gave significantly different patchy coverage when in the same spot. I bought an AX-73, to site it in a different part of the house from the ISP's router, to improve coverage. That wasn't necessary. It provides every last corner of the house with fast stable wifi coverage on its own. I finally put it right next to the ISP's router and turned the ISP's wifi off. Its just a VDSL modem now.

One thing to watch when changing wifi boxes is to look at the channels they are using. Some make weird choices when left to select on their own, and choose the area's most congested channels.

[Postal2]

... but for the mobile stuff like phones and laptops I've used a budget Wi-Fi router (light usage). ...

I agree. My wired router is TOTOLINK (screenshot), it is on Realtek, it works great for many years. By the way, it came with such a good power supply that I changed it to the one that came with the oscilloscope and was terribly noisy. For a purpose similar to yours, I have PIXLINK (screenshot2), it also works for many years without any problems very well. However, no router covers the required space in the 2.4 GHz range, all work within 3..5 meters. TOTOLINK works far and reliably in the 5 GHz range. PIXLINK is assembled just on Mediatek, and everything is fine with WiFi, but it is switched to a simple AP, because it is connected to an ADSL router. Your mistake is that you load Mediatek with the router's work, if you disable this functionality - everything works without problems.

[argintviu]

One thing to watch when changing wifi boxes is to look at the channels they are using. Some make weird choices when left to select on their own, and choose the area's most congested channels.

This is a valuable tip. Come to think of it, there is a huge list of networks around here and indeed, the channel settings have always been set to auto. I'll try to configure it manually, maybe this is why things didn't work.

Your mistake is that you load Mediatek with the router's work, if you disable this functionality - everything works without problems.

Interesting observation. Gotta try this, thanks for the suggestion. I can use an older router to handle the PPPOE and LAN connections then have a separate router just for the Wi-Fi stuff.

[madires]

Another hint for the 2.4 GHz band: channels are 5 MHz apart but occupy 20 MHz.

[Halcyon]

WiFi is one of those things where you get what you pay for. Consumer gear is built down to a price and performance varies significantly between products.

A lot of factors influence WiFi speed and coverage, some are in your control, while others (like interfering networks) are not. If spending a bit more money on better gear is not an option, the best you can do is do a site survey and plan your channels/channel width carefully. For example, if you're in a highly congested area, you may want to drop down to 40 MHz or even 20 MHz wide channels (on 5 GHz), rather than letting the access point automatically choose the "best" settings.

Avoid adjacent-channel interference, you're better off sharing a channel with another radio/network than sitting somewhere in between.

Use the Ubiquiti WiFi Man application on your phone to help you select better channels: https://blog.ui.com/2018/12/11/introducing-wifiman/

[Postal2]

I can recommend the TP-Link AX73 for good coverage from personal experience. ...

In my experience, in urban interference conditions, all 2.4 MHz devices work about the same, especially considering that on the opposite side the same cheap decrepit device responds to the expensive router, this also applies to Bluetooth. However, there are outstanding examples that work very poorly. I had one, called Huawei. It was on Realtek, with 2 antennas, but I have never seen anything worse. If you have such crap, then replacing it with anything will give a noticeable result.

... I can use an older router to handle the PPPOE and LAN connections then have a separate router just for the Wi-Fi stuff.

MediaTek has a 100 Mbit network, so any old junk will do. I don't even remember its IP address, recently I wanted to enable the 5 GHz mode, which is disabled. Both sockets work in parallel, dhcp is disabled, everything unnecessary is disabled. Only AP mode, and this mode works flawlessly.

... If spending a bit more money on better gear is not an option, the best you can do is do a site survey and plan your channels/channel width carefully. ...

Try to make your high jump 10 times higher for money.

Use the Ubiquiti WiFi Man application on your phone to help you select better channels.....

On 5 GHz I don't see any problems with interference at all, but this range physically works not far. I can go to my neighbor with a dect phone, but the 5 GHz connection breaks off in front of her door. And on the 2.4 GHz range there is a choice between 3 zones. To make a choice from 3 possible - of course, you need a huge computing power, you can't do without a program. I recommend always setting channel 6 manually - I always do this and have never made a mistake (2.4 GHz).

[Halcyon]

On 5 GHz I don't see any problems with interference at all, but this range physically works not far. I can go to my neighbor with a dect phone, but the 5 GHz connection breaks off in front of her door. And on the 2.4 GHz range there is a choice between 3 zones. To make a choice from 3 possible - of course, you need a huge computing power, you can't do without a program. I recommend always setting channel 6 manually - I always do this and have never made a mistake (2.4 GHz).

I'm not entirely surprised that 5 GHz doesn't work outside your home. It's easily blocked by walls and other obstacles, compared to 2.4 GHz. I have enterprise access points in my home and even still, I need an outdoor access point to provide 5 GHz coverage to much of my backyard.

There is also no one "best" channel for all applications. It depends what other networks are around you. 2.4 GHz is a very congested band. In some areas there might not be any "good" channels and you just have to deal with what you've got. Personally, I consider 2.4 GHz "legacy" these days. I disable it entirely on my main network and it's only on a different network to support older/unimportant devices.

[Postal2]

... It's easily blocked by walls and other obstacles, compared to 2.4 GHz. ...

I needed to transmit video from my computer through 2 walls. First I bought a 2.4 DLNA dongle, it didn't work, and it was so bad that I could hardly find a firmware that worked even close. Then I bought a 5 GHz DLNA dongle. The signal gets through fine, but the FHD video stops and stripes. Then I bought a 5 GHz HDMI extender - and the problem was solved.

... Personally, I consider 2.4 GHz "legacy" these days. I disable it entirely on my main network and it's only on a different network to support older/unimportant devices.

I use a 2.4 GHz tablet before going to bed (photo from the Internet). I have already partially crushed it. If you suggest that I crush a more expensive tablet - I do not agree.

Also I bought RPI4, loaded the latest OS and it doesn't work with 5Ghz but works very well with 2.4Ghz. Although RPI400 works well with 5Ghz.

[Halcyon]

... It's easily blocked by walls and other obstacles, compared to 2.4 GHz. ...

I needed to transmit video from my computer through 2 walls. First I bought a 2.4 DLNA dongle, it didn't work, and it was so bad that I could hardly find a firmware that worked even close. Then I bought a 5 GHz DLNA dongle. The signal gets through fine, but the FHD video stops and stripes. Then I bought a 5 GHz HDMI extender - and the problem was solved.

Sure, but that's probably down to antenna/product design. The higher the frequency, the easier the signal is attenuated and the more directional they are. Also 5 GHz WiFi is capable of much higher data rates compared to the old 2.4 GHz standards.

This is why whenever we do RF planning in commercial buildings, we map out radio placement carefully, across all bands we intending on using. Once 6 GHz WiFi becomes more popular, you're going to have the same issue, at the expense of much greater throughput and a less congested band.

[Postal2]

... Once 6 GHz WiFi becomes more popular, you're going to have the same issue, ...

No-no-no! This will all be very buggy. Example: a new Raspberry Pi 4 Model B sees a 5 GHz network and cannot connect. (2024-07-04-raspios-bookworm-arm64-full.img)

[coppice]

I can recommend the TP-Link AX73 for good coverage from personal experience. ...

In my experience, in urban interference conditions, all 2.4 MHz devices work about the same, especially considering that on the opposite side the same cheap decrepit device responds to the expensive router, this also applies to Bluetooth. However, there are outstanding examples that work very poorly. I had one, called Huawei. It was on Realtek, with 2 antennas, but I have never seen anything worse. If you have such crap, then replacing it with anything will give a noticeable result.

There is a huge difference between the coverage you get with the typical router using chip antennae on the PCB, and one with the larger antennae sticking up in the air. Typically the chip antennae can't really be oriented to spread their energy in a horizontal doughnut, and the designers don't even seem to try.

[Postal2]

... with the typical router using chip antennae on the PCB, ...

That's exactly what I said. I've never even seen the routers you're talking about. They must be some terrible piece of crap. The MediaTek router has crooked metal strips inside the case as antennas. I'm sure your new router will gain a couple of centimeters in range when connecting to my kid's tablet.

I have and have experience using a powerful TL-WN7200ND adapter with a large antenna. If I use it, your router will show a significantly greater range than MediaTek with an internal antenna. Unfortunately, the range is determined by the weak side, and if I want to move away with my tablet, your router will not give a noticeable advantage.

[coppice]

... with the typical router using chip antennae on the PCB, ...

That's exactly what I said. I've never even seen the routers you're talking about. They must be some terrible piece of crap. The MediaTek router has crooked metal strips inside the case as antennas. I'm sure your new router will gain a couple of centimeters in range when connecting to my kid's tablet.

I have and have experience using a powerful TL-WN7200ND adapter with a large antenna. If I use it, your router will show a significantly greater range than MediaTek with an internal antenna. Unfortunately, the range is determined by the weak side, and if I want to move away with my tablet, your router will not give a noticeable advantage.

There are reasons for that mass of antennae on the higher end modern routers. Look up MIMO and beam forming in the latest wifi specs. It works wonders for coverage when the signal is massively multi-pathing around a building. A modern cell phone does wonders with a tiny antenna inside the phone, and large antennae at the base station. With modern techniques the nature of the two ends of the link is highly unbalanced.

[Postal2]

... It works wonders for coverage ...

All you need is for the signal from a weak source to exceed the interference level where your router is installed. My second router is no worse than yours in the 2.4 GHz band, and there is no difference with MediaTek in the range of communication with the tablet.

[coppice]

... It works wonders for coverage ...

All you need is for the signal from a weak source to exceed the interference level where your router is installed. My second router is no worse than yours in the 2.4 GHz band, and there is no difference with MediaTek in the range of communication with the tablet.

You are thinking in pure point to point terms. The cheapest modern routers, the sort with a single antenna, are still like that. The more expensive ones are not.

[Postal2]

For the 2.4GHz band, all the routers mentioned, including yours, have 2 antennas.

[Halcyon]

... Once 6 GHz WiFi becomes more popular, you're going to have the same issue, ...

No-no-no! This will all be very buggy. Example: a new Raspberry Pi 4 Model B sees a 5 GHz network and cannot connect. (2024-07-04-raspios-bookworm-arm64-full.img)

What are you on about? 6 GHz Wifi is great and devices already support it.

Not all products are designed equally. Just because a device sees a network, doesn't mean it's compatible with it. For example, a lot of older devices don't support WPA3 at all, other's don't support 160 MHz wide channels, there might also be other features enabled on a given network that isn't supported by a device. It's not the fault of the network/access point.

[Postal2]

... What are you on about? 6 GHz Wifi is great and devices already support it. ...

I'm talking about global degradation. Too many newly developed things have started to appear that are terrifying in their stupidity of design.

[Halcyon]

... What are you on about? 6 GHz Wifi is great and devices already support it. ...

I'm talking about global degradation. Too many newly developed things have started to appear that are terrifying in their stupidity of design.

Sure, but what has that got to do with improvements in WiFi?

[Postal2]

... what has that got to do with improvements in WiFi?

Will Wi-Fi coverage increase after switching to the 802.11ax standard?

No, the network coverage (range) will not increase.

Should I buy a router with Wi-Fi 6 support in 2024?

Definitely yes.

I have a new wifi6 router installed….
AC devices cannot connect to 5GHz, only to 2.4GHz using the n standard.

[Halcyon]

I'm honestly confused with what you mean.

Firstly, the 802.11ax standard itself is not the reason for the increased coverage. Perhaps better antenna design is.

Secondly, 802.11ac devices can definitely connect to 802.11ax (i.e.: WiFi 6) radios, but that depends on their configuration. I have 802.11b devices still connecting to my 802.11ax networks, however if you have certain features enabled, then you might run into problems (like I previously explained). Requiring protected management frames (802.11w-2009) is one example. This is why I have seperate networks for modern and legacy devices. If you are only running one network, then you need to configure it according to the lowest common denominator.