Cisco Cisco Aironet 1850e Access Points 백서
IEEE 802.11ac Wave 2 AP’s: Cisco, Aruba, Ruckus
3
DR151120D
Copyright © Miercom 2015
5 February 2016
1 - Executive Summary
Miercom was engaged to perform independent, hands-on, comparative testing of competitive IEEE
802.11ac Wave 2-based WiFi Access Points (APs) from Cisco Systems, Aruba Networks and Ruckus
Wireless.
802.11ac Wave 2-based WiFi Access Points (APs) from Cisco Systems, Aruba Networks and Ruckus
Wireless.
This report summarizes the results of the Wave 2 AP comparative testing in these areas:
Client density: Downlink throughput as the number of clients per AP scales from 10 to 100.
Single- vs Multi-User MIMO: Downlink throughput for MU-MIMO (Multi-User, Multiple-Input
Multiple-Output), a hallmark of 802.11ac Wave 2, vs Single-User (SU-MIMO) environments.
1 Gbps+ Link Aggregation: Tests found that Wave 2 APs can support more than 1 Gbps of
aggregate downlink throughput, tested over two 1-Gbps LAG (link aggregation) connections.
Key Findings:
Cisco APs, meet or
exceed Aruba and
Ruckus performance at a
lower cost
exceed Aruba and
Ruckus performance at a
lower cost
The Cisco 1852i Wave 2 AP turned in the best performances in almost all
tests, against the Aruba AP-325 and Ruckus R710
tests, against the Aruba AP-325 and Ruckus R710
Throughput drops for all
APs as client population
approaches 100
APs as client population
approaches 100
Tests found that throughput for all the APs drops off as number of clients
grows from 10 to 100. The best-performing AP in this test was the higher-
end Cisco 3700, the worst was the Aruba AP-325. The others, including the
low-cost Cisco 1852i, 1832i and Ruckus R710, performed comparably.
grows from 10 to 100. The best-performing AP in this test was the higher-
end Cisco 3700, the worst was the Aruba AP-325. The others, including the
low-cost Cisco 1852i, 1832i and Ruckus R710, performed comparably.
Cisco allows fewer
starved clients as client
population rises to 100
starved clients as client
population rises to 100
More WiFi clients don’t get bandwidth as client density per AP rises. In this
test Cisco’s low-cost APs kept more clients connected at 80 to 100 clients
per AP than either Aruba or Ruckus.
test Cisco’s low-cost APs kept more clients connected at 80 to 100 clients
per AP than either Aruba or Ruckus.
Cisco makes better use
of Multi-User MIMO
than Aruba or Ruckus
of Multi-User MIMO
than Aruba or Ruckus
In this test Single-User MIMO clients were replaced with Multi-User MIMO
clients and the difference in throughput measured. The winner: Cisco’s
1852i, which nearly doubled throughput between older Single-User clients
and newer Wave 2 Multi-User MIMO clients.
clients and the difference in throughput measured. The winner: Cisco’s
1852i, which nearly doubled throughput between older Single-User clients
and newer Wave 2 Multi-User MIMO clients.
Only the Cisco 1852i
could deliver aggregate
throughput over 1 Gbps
could deliver aggregate
throughput over 1 Gbps
The lower-cost Cisco 1852i AP delivered real-world, aggregate, downlink
throughput over 1 Gbps, while the Ruckus R710, given the exact same
environment, managed 570 Mbps and the Aruba AP-325 just 350 Mbps.
throughput over 1 Gbps, while the Ruckus R710, given the exact same
environment, managed 570 Mbps and the Aruba AP-325 just 350 Mbps.
Miercom independently verified key performance differences between Cisco’s low-cost Access
Points and comparable, higher-priced APs from Aruba Networks and Ruckus Wireless. With
performance meeting or exceeding Aruba and Ruckus, we
present the Miercom Performance Verified certification to
the Cisco 1852i WiFi Access Point.
Robert Smithers
CEO
Miercom