Business Community > Wireless > EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.
< Wireless

EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.

EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.

EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.
EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.
a week ago - last edited a week ago
Tags: #Network Connectivity
Model: EAP610-Outdoor   EAP610  
Hardware Version: V1
Firmware Version: 1.4.4

Hi everyone,

I recently upgraded my home network to a full Omada SDN setup (ER707-M2 + EAP610-Indoor + EAP610-Outdoor). My goal was to provide Wi-Fi coverage for a second building located 10м meters away from the main house.

Previously, I used an old budget router, Archer C1200, placed at the window. I expected the professional EAP610-Outdoor/EAP610 to perform much better, or at least similarly. However, the results are shocking: the EAP610s perform worse.

 

Test Environment:

  • Distance: Varied (from 20m to 100m).

  • Scenarios: Tested in 3 conditions with AP being in one building and Client in another:

    1. Line of Sight: 100m (through the window).

    2. 1 wall (AAC block): 20m.

    3. 2 walls (AAC block): 30m.

(Note: I am focusing solely on 2.4GHz performance here, as 5GHz is physically not expected to perform well at such distances and through walls).

 

Comparison Results:
I conducted multiple tests for each scenario, comparing Signal Strength (RSSI) and connection stability.

In ALL test scenarios, the old Archer C1200 slightly outperformed the EAP610 and EAP610-Outdoor:

  1. Signal Strength (RSSI): According to WiFiman and phone status, the Archer C1200 consistently showed a stronger signal (better RSSI) than the EAP610s at the same distance.

  2. Connection Stability: The Archer maintained a connection in difficult scenarios (e.g., through concrete walls) where the EAP610 failed to connect at all or showed "Ghost Wi-Fi" (connected but no data).

 

Configuration & Troubleshooting steps already taken:
I have tried to optimize the EAP settings for maximum range/penetration, but nothing helped to beat the old Archer. Here is my current config:

  • Firmware: Updated to the latest version.

  • Tx Power: Set to Max (20 dBm).

  • 2.4GHz Settings:

    • Channel Width: Fixed to 20 MHz (to increase power density).

    • Channel: Fixed to 1, 6, or 11 (cleanest selected).

    • Mode: b/g/n/ax mixed.

    • OFDMA: Disabled (to ensure compatibility).

 

My Question:
Is it normal that a modern business AP with "high-power amplifiers" loses to a cheap 7-year-old indoor router?

Thanks in advance.

  0      
 
  0      
 
#1
Options
1 Accepted Solution
Re:EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.-Solution
a week ago - last edited a week ago

Hi  @jurasikpark 

 

Thanks for posting here.

Regarding the issue you reported about the comparison of long-distance coverage between the EAP610 and the home router Archer C1200, here are some technical explanation and recommendations:

Expected Test Results Explanation

Differences Between Commercial and Home AP Designs

The EAP610, as a commercial-grade AP, has core advantages in:

  • Centralized Management: Supports enterprise-level features such as Omada SDN unified configuration, load balancing, and seamless roaming.
  • High-Density Connectivity: Optimized for concurrent multi-device handling (e.g., MU-MIMO, Airtime Fairness).
  • Functional Extensibility: VLAN,  spectrum analysis, etc.

However, single-point coverage range is not an absolute advantage of commercial APs, especially in scenarios with penetration loss, where the difference in RF performance compared to home APs may be minimal.

20-30 Meter Test Results Are Within Expected Range

According to IEEE 802.11n standard theoretical values and typical building material attenuation (AAC walls attenuate 2.4GHz by approximately 10-15dB per wall):

  • With a 20MHz bandwidth and 20dBm power, an RSSI of around -70dBm to -80dBm after penetrating two walls at a 30-meter distance is normal.
  • The unstable connection you observed may be related to terminal reception sensitivity or interference rather than a device malfunction.

 

Key Troubleshooting Recommendations

(Ensure all test conditions are identical for comparison)

RF Parameter Alignment Verification

  • Confirm hidden settings on the Archer C1200:
    ✓ Actual transmit power (some home routers may exceed the 20dBm limit).
    ✓ Whether Tx Beamforming or proprietary RangeBoost optimization technologies are enabled.

Environmental Interference Analysis

  • Use Omada Controller’s spectrum analysis tool to scan 2.4GHz channel utilization.  Interference Detection (Controller 6.X)
  • Turn off all nearby Wi-Fi devices (including smart home devices) during comparative testing.

Terminal Compatibility Testing

  • Test with multiple terminals (different wireless clients).
  • Check the Wi-Fi specifications of the mobile device (e.g., some older devices only support single-stream 802.11n).

 

Targeted Optimization Solutions

Deployment Adjustment Recommendations

  • Install the EAP610-Outdoor on an exterior wall or under the eaves to avoid additional signal attenuation from window glass (5-8dB).

Supplemental Coverage Solutions

If signal enhancement is still needed, we recommend:

Wish you a happy life and smooth network usage!  >Omada US Enterprise Beta Program Launch< >Get the Latest Omada SDN Controller Releases Here< >Experience the Latest Omada EAP Firmware<
Recommended Solution
  0  
  0  
#2
Options
2 Reply
Re:EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.-Solution
a week ago - last edited a week ago

Hi  @jurasikpark 

 

Thanks for posting here.

Regarding the issue you reported about the comparison of long-distance coverage between the EAP610 and the home router Archer C1200, here are some technical explanation and recommendations:

Expected Test Results Explanation

Differences Between Commercial and Home AP Designs

The EAP610, as a commercial-grade AP, has core advantages in:

  • Centralized Management: Supports enterprise-level features such as Omada SDN unified configuration, load balancing, and seamless roaming.
  • High-Density Connectivity: Optimized for concurrent multi-device handling (e.g., MU-MIMO, Airtime Fairness).
  • Functional Extensibility: VLAN,  spectrum analysis, etc.

However, single-point coverage range is not an absolute advantage of commercial APs, especially in scenarios with penetration loss, where the difference in RF performance compared to home APs may be minimal.

20-30 Meter Test Results Are Within Expected Range

According to IEEE 802.11n standard theoretical values and typical building material attenuation (AAC walls attenuate 2.4GHz by approximately 10-15dB per wall):

  • With a 20MHz bandwidth and 20dBm power, an RSSI of around -70dBm to -80dBm after penetrating two walls at a 30-meter distance is normal.
  • The unstable connection you observed may be related to terminal reception sensitivity or interference rather than a device malfunction.

 

Key Troubleshooting Recommendations

(Ensure all test conditions are identical for comparison)

RF Parameter Alignment Verification

  • Confirm hidden settings on the Archer C1200:
    ✓ Actual transmit power (some home routers may exceed the 20dBm limit).
    ✓ Whether Tx Beamforming or proprietary RangeBoost optimization technologies are enabled.

Environmental Interference Analysis

  • Use Omada Controller’s spectrum analysis tool to scan 2.4GHz channel utilization.  Interference Detection (Controller 6.X)
  • Turn off all nearby Wi-Fi devices (including smart home devices) during comparative testing.

Terminal Compatibility Testing

  • Test with multiple terminals (different wireless clients).
  • Check the Wi-Fi specifications of the mobile device (e.g., some older devices only support single-stream 802.11n).

 

Targeted Optimization Solutions

Deployment Adjustment Recommendations

  • Install the EAP610-Outdoor on an exterior wall or under the eaves to avoid additional signal attenuation from window glass (5-8dB).

Supplemental Coverage Solutions

If signal enhancement is still needed, we recommend:

Wish you a happy life and smooth network usage!  >Omada US Enterprise Beta Program Launch< >Get the Latest Omada SDN Controller Releases Here< >Experience the Latest Omada EAP Firmware<
Recommended Solution
  0  
  0  
#2
Options
Re:EAP610(EU) poor range performance compared to old Archer C1200.
Tuesday

  @Vincent-TP 
 

Thank you for the detailed technical explanation and the recommendations regarding the Mesh deployment.

While I fully intend to expand my network using Mesh for stable coverage, the primary purpose of my post was to highlight a concerning discrepancy in hardware performance, not merely to solve a coverage gap.

1. Commercial vs. Consumer Expectations

I invested in commercial-grade equipment (having WiFi 6) expecting superior performance. The EAP610-Outdoor, specifically, is equipped with advanced technologies designed for improved range and penetration that the legacy Archer C1200 lacks. These include:

  • Dedicated High-Power FEMs (Front-End Modules)

  • High-Gain LNA (Low Noise Amplifier)

  • 4x Long OFDM Symbol

  • Narrower Subcarrier Spacing

  • BSS Coloring

Given these clear hardware and protocol advantages (Wi-Fi 6), observing strictly worse raw signal performance in every scenario compared to the budget Archer C1200 is scientifically counterintuitive and financially disappointing.

2. RF Parameters and Proprietary Features

My Archer is the C1200 (RU) Ver 2.0, operating under the legal 20 dBm (EIRP) limit. By the way the EAP610-Outdoor also supports an updated version of Beamforming technology.

However, if the Archer C1200 possesses proprietary features (such as RangeBoost, though this specific setting is not user-configurable in the firmware) that grant it significantly superior wall penetration capability, yet these features are absent in the much more expensive commercial-grade EAP610-Outdoor, then this raises a valid question: why does the premium hardware lack the RF tuning necessary to match the signal density and effective range of a budget device?

3. Environmental Interference

As testing was comparative and sequential in the exact same physical location, environmental interference affected both the Archer C1200 and the EAP610 equally. The Archer maintained stability in difficult scenarios, while the EAP did not.

4. Terminal Compatibility

My testing device is a Ulefone Power Armor 18T. It is a modern Wi-Fi 6 device, utilizing the MediaTek Dimensity 900 chipset and supporting 802.11ax/2x2 MIMO. The observed limitation is clearly not due to a legacy single-stream client, but I will try to perform more tests using other devices.

In conclusion, I remain primarily concerned with the physical RF efficiency of the EAP610 units in direct comparison, which currently indicates a downgrade in standalone capability.

  0  
  0  
#3
Options

Information

Helpful: 0

Views: 109

Replies: 2

Tags

Network Connectivity
About Us
Press
Copyright © TP-Link Systems Inc. All rights reserved.