Amped Wireless R20000G, SR20000G, and UA2000: Routers, Repeaters, and Adapters (Oh My!)
by Jarred Walton on June 23, 2012 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- wireless
- Networking
- 802.11n
- Amped Wireless
Amped UA2000 Directional Wireless Adapter
The router and repeater are products I’m familiar with, and I’ve used quite a few wireless routers over the years. I’ve also used plenty of wireless adapters (mostly on a variety of laptops), but this is the first time I’ve had a chance to use a directional wireless adapter. Obviously, a directional adapter needs to be oriented such that the antenna points towards the target router (or repeater or access point). As such, it’s not likely to be a good fit for a mobile device—unless you enjoy turning to face your router when using your laptop? But what about for a desktop setup that doesn’t get moved around much if at all, particularly if the desktop in question is located in a place where you can’t (or don’t want to) run an Ethernet cable? Can using a directional wireless adapter help out? That’s what I wanted to find out!
| Amped Wireless UA2000 Directional Wireless Adapter Specifications | |
| Wireless Standard | 802.11a/b/g/n |
| Frequency Band | 2.4GHz, 5.0GHz |
| Wireless Speed |
2.4GHz: 300Mbps (Rx), 300Mbps (Tx) 5.0GHz: 300Mbps (Rx), 300Mbps (Tx) |
| Amplifier |
Dual Low Noise Amplifier Dual 2.4GHz Power Amplifiers Dual 5.0GHz Power Amplifiers |
| Wireless Sensitivity | -95 dBm |
| Wireless Output Power | 26 dBm (max) |
| Wireless Security | WEP, WPA, WPA2, WPA Mixed, WPS |
| Antenna | High Gain Dual Band, Dual Polarity Directional Antenna |
| Interface | USB 2.0 |
| Warranty | 1 Year |
| Setup Requirements |
Wireless 802.11a/b/g/n, 2.4/5.0GHz Network PC with Windows 2000, XP (32/64 bit), Vista (32/64 bit) or 7 (32/64 bit) Mac OSX 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, or 10.7 CD/DVD drive 100 MB of free disk space One available USB 2.0 port (Two USB 2.0 ports for maximum performance) |
| Package Contents |
1 x High Power Wireless-N Directional Dual Band USB Adapter 1 x Dual USB 2.0 Cable 1 x Setup Guide 1 x CD: User's Guide and Software 1 x Laptop Monitor Mounting Clip |
| Price | Online starting at $76 |
This is Amped’s second directional wireless adapter; the first was the UA1000, which only supported 2x2:2 2.4GHz connections. Like the R/SR20000G router/repeater, the UA2000 is a dual-band product, again capable of up to 300Mbps connection speeds (2x2:2 MIMO). Amped uses a Ralink chipset this time, but again the amplifiers, antennas, firmware, and drivers are customized to offer improved performance. (The UA1000, incidentally, uses a Realtek chipset like the R/SR20000G.)
The front of the UA2000 has a glossy black curved surface; I don’t know if the curvature helps to focus the signal or if it’s purely for looks, but I’d assume it serves some purpose other than aesthetics. Anyway, that’s the side you “point” towards the router for best performance; the adapter will still pick up a signal even if it’s not aimed at your router, but throughput and signal strength definitely suffers. Other than the name and USB connector, the only other features on the UA2000 are a WPS button and a clip on the back.
Note that the USB cable that comes with the UA2000 has two connectors for the host PC/laptop; the primary connector is for regular functionality while the secondary connector allows the adapter to draw more power and operate in a high performance mode. I tested with and without the second plug connected but didn't experience any difference in performance. I asked Amped why this might be, and they suggested that perhaps the use of a higher performance USB 3.0 port allowed the UA2000 to run at maximum speed. My impression is that the second port is only necessary if your PC/laptop doesn't deliver sufficient power on the primary port.
Looking at the back, the clip is there so you can clip it to a laptop display, but you can also use it try to orient the adapter properly. For the latter, I’d find some other sort of mounting mechanism much more useful. Right now, the UA2000 is very light and has a tendency to move around if you bump the cable at all, which can create problems. Amped informed me that they’re looking into a better stand that will make the adapter less likely to accidentally shift positioning, but if you’re really considering buying the UA2000 I would recommend creating/buying some sort of mount where you can clip the adapter into place.
You can choose to use either Windows’ wireless networking control panel or go with the Amped interface. Even when using the Windows control panel to manage connections, you can still see signal strength and some other information in the Amped drivers. There’s really not much to say that isn’t apparent from the above gallery; the UA2000 works like any other wireless adapter. Ah, but you’re here to find out how good it is, right?
Full results are on the next page, but the UA2000 definitely delivers on higher throughput when you’re not located right next to your wireless router—at least, it does when compared to a USB thumbstick adapter and built-in Intel Advanced-N 6235 wireless in a laptop. RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indication) is also generally better—sometimes very much so, depending on the router/adapter combination. At our moderate distance test location, performance was generally better than with a thumbstick adapter, with anywhere from ~10% to upwards of 50% better throughput and 5-10 dB better RSSI. At our stressful location (outdoors and around 60 feet from the router), the UA2000 really excels, delivering a more stable connection and at times more than doubling transfer rates.
Obviously, measuring wireless networking performance can be a bit tricky as there are numerous factors in play, but if you’re trying to connect to a router that’s farther away (e.g. sharing a wireless network with a neighbor), I could see the UA2000 being extremely useful. If you have multiple PCs that you need to connect, though, the cost of the UA2000 is quite high and it might be more economical to simply buy the SR20000G instead.
The big sticking point here is going to be the price; the UA2000 currently sells for $80 online at Amazon or $90 at Newegg. Compare that with other dual-band 2x2:2 wireless adapters and the UA2000 costs twice as much as the Belkin E9L6000 and three times as much as the Rosewill RNX-N600UBE; if you drop 5GHz support, you can get 300Mb USB adapters for as little as $15. But of course, those adapters are all omnidirectional, and reliability and driver support is questionable at best on some of the least expensive products. Given the performance and general stability of the connection you get with the UA2000, personally I think it’s the most interesting of the three Amped Wireless products I’m looking at today. Let’s hit the benchmarks next before wrapping things up with some recommendations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
28 Comments
View All Comments
blindbox - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
Just to add. For people like me, I won't even be looking at these. All I look at is the hardware specs, whether the device is Atheros or not, and whether it's flashable to OpenWrt or otherwise. Any of these conditions that are not met and it's just another device to me.That said, <shamelessplug>TP-Link WR1043ND FTW</shamelessplug>
dgingeri - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
These are out of date as soon as they are released. the new WD routers exceed these on features all the way across the board.JarredWalton - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
You do realize that comparing features that are on papers to determine which router is "better" is asking for problems, right? On paper, the R20000G and Belkin N600 are "identical", but in practice they're anything but. I wouldn't even venture to declare something as being "better" without some practical testing from a reputable source. You'll also note that if you're just after maximum performance within close proximity, even as a 2x2:2 router there are cases where Amped's previous R10000G tops the performance charts (http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/router-chart...Blark - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
Engadget put them through their test labs also and it worked great for them.... http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/amped-wireless-...I bought a R200000G after reading the review and compared it to my Linksys EA4500. The amped product goes roughly 50-70 feet past the furthest spot I used to be able to go on the Linksys router. The Linksys router how ever provided faster throughput from 0-30 feet. I would take the range over soup close speed any day as I had dead spots before.
Tried their SR10000 also and it works well for us.
996GT2 - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
How does this wireless adapter compare to the gold standard Alfa AWUS036H in terms of range?For those who don't know about the Alfa: http://www.amazon.com/Alfa-AWUS036H-Wireless-Long-...
DanNeely - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
"One simple solution for the modem/router users would be to simply disable the wireless functionality and connect via Ethernet to the modem/router—assuming there’s at least one Ethernet port. That requires a certain amount of technical savvy of course—something I could do, but not something I would recommend to, say, my siblings or parents."Having tried to do this sort of setup for my parents a year ago I completely agree. It worked well for about 6mo until the ISP pushed a firmware update to their box which trashed the customization settings I'd applied to make it work with the old neatgear router I was using for the wifi. I eventually ended up having to drive out to fix things in person. The only good thing to come out of the debacle was that their boxes new firmware replaced the hard coded wifi SSID value with a textbox; allowing me to retire the netgear without having to reconfigure the wifi settings on everyone's devices. Wifi speed is uniformly bad across the house; but 3MB DSL is slow enough it doesn't matter much.
WeaselITB - Saturday, June 23, 2012 - link
Wow, Jarred, thanks for the awesome and lengthy review / comparison! I can't even fathom the amount of work this took!That directional antenna actually sounds like a good solution for the family room HTPC/HDTV that I was considering, but kept rejecting since I didn't have a way to get wire there ...
gstrickler - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
2.4GHz testing "in the real world" is challenging because of channel overlap and poor deployment of channel usage. 40MHz operation makes it even worse. First, you have to understand that 802.11B/G/N don't use a single 5MHz channel, they use a 22MHz wide band centered on one channel. That means they need 5 channel spacing between to be interference free, however, in reality, the signals are so week at the edges that 4 channel spacing works with essentially no impairment. In the USA it has been common to use channels 1, 6, and 11, because the USA only allows full power operation on channels 1-11. However, that allocation never allows for 40MHz operation without interference because the secondary channel must be +/- 4 channels, meaning the secondary must be at 5 (1 primary), 2 or 10 (6 primary), or 7 (11 primary). In each case, the secondary is 1 channel away from another commonly used channel, resulting is significant interference.It's better to share the same channel as another router than to be only 1 channel away, that is the worst possible configuration. If the routers are within about 50ft (16m) of each other, even being 2 channels away will almost certainly cause interference. With his 40MHz tests using 11+7, any nearby routers on channel 6 would be likely to cause interference.
Jarred didn't indicate what channels are in use by his neighbors, nor how strong those signals were (at the router and at the laptop), so there may have been interference affecting his tests. Throwing out the outliers as he did helps minimize those, but without such information, I can't make much use of the test results.
A short guide to channel allocation in 2.4GHz Wi-Fi:
It's been common practice to use those same channels in most countries despite the fact that most countries allow full power operation on 13 channels. In most countries, the ideal allocation is to use channels 1, 5, 9, and 13 only, never use other channels. This allows 4 20MHz channels, and allows 40MHz channels while minimizing interference. If you're operating a router in a country that allows 13 full power channels (most of the world outside North America), use this 1, 5, 9, 13 channel allocation. Even if your router doesn't allow setting channel 13 (some firmware restricts you to 11 channels even in other countries), stick with channels 1, 5, 9 so you don't cause problems for those using 1, 5, 9, 13.
Back to the USA and Canada, rather than 1, 6, 11, a better channel allocation (with the possible exception of some high density office environments, and even those might benefit from this configuration) is to use channels 1, 4, 8, and 11, exclusively, with 40MHz operation supported only on 4+8 (and 8+4). That's only 3 channels minimum separation, but when there is 30+ft and/or walls between the routers, 3 channel separation is shows sufficient attenuation at 3 channels that interference is minor, typically resulting in no more than 10% performance degradation even when both routers are simultaneously transmitting, and often shows no degradation.
The problem is that many routers default to (or auto-select) channel 6 or channels other than 1, 4, 8, & 11. Using channels 4 or 8 with a nearby router on channel 6 may cause interference for both. Which leaves 3 options for the USA, Canada, and any other country with fewer than 13 full power channels:
1. Coordinate with your neighbors and get everyone to exclusively use channels 1, 4, 8, and 11, with any 40MHz operation exclusively on 4&8. This is the best option for 99% of installations. Even if you can see some other routers on channel 6, but with weak signals, this may be the best option.
2. If that's not possible, and channel 6 is in use, use channels 1, 6, 11 exclusively and do not use 40MHz channels at all. This may be best in large, open offices/halls where there are 3 or more routers within ~100ft and no walls between them, but you should still try #1 first.
3. Finally, if you must use 40MHz in an area where Channel 6 is in use and can't be changed, use 5GHz if possible. If that's not possible use channels 4 & 8 for 40MHz, and locate your router as far as possible from any routers using channel 6. There are some other compromise channel options, but they're dependent upon which channels are in use and the relative signal strength, and they add to the problem for other users, so I can't recommend them, and they should only be configured by someone who thoroughly understands Wi-Fi channel allocation, interference, and the local Wi-Fi environment.
JarredWalton - Sunday, June 24, 2012 - link
Thanks for the post -- there's a lot of good information for people not familiar with WiFi. I'm actually aware of most of this stuff, but obviously there's only so much you can cover/rehash each time we do a wireless article. While I didn't provide it directly, you can get some idea of the channels in use in my neighborhood from this image:http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2111/Amped%2...
I used channels 11+7 for testing, as channel 1 is in use by my next door neighbor (and 3 is used by another neighbor two houses away -- bad choice, I know). Thankfully, there are no networks in the 6-11 range that are near my house. In terms of RSSI, I believe the signal strength from the other channel 11 networks in the area was something like -85dBm (or worse), and the same goes for the channel 6 network, so my choice is mostly free of interference.
I used channel 161 for 5GHz, but that's not nearly as important as there's very little traffic on that spectrum.
gstrickler - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link
Thanks Jarred, that gives some credence to your tests.Now, go change your neighbor's router off channel 3, get him drunk first if necessary. :)
Yes, 5GHz is comparatively open, more channels, less usage, and always at 4 channel spacing. The main issue to deal with in 5GHz is that there are 2 or 3 different power levels allowed depending upon the frequency, so some have better range than others. Unfortunately, I can't locate the details right now, although some routers will list them as hi/low power.