There’s a separate processor on that router that is able to handle network processing and achieve 1GB speeds, but there is no real driver for it. So you’re stuck with sub 1GB speeds.
I realized that Netgear is not for me either and for now the winner of my 5 routers remains the old Linksys, but WiFi continues to be a problem. I am oriented to an embedded quad-core AMD with 3 GB of RAM and OpenWrt. Can it handle the gigabit?
Probably, see numbers for a quad-core AMD in https://forum.openwrt.org/t/comparative-throughput-testing-including-nat-sqm-wireguard-and-openvpn/44724. A 4-core AMD GX-412TC reached 1740 Mbps in a bidirectional RRUL test (no traffic shaper, no PPPoE, just NAT and firewalling), With traffic shaper bidirectional aggregate (up- plus down-load rate) throughput decreases to 700 Mbps (with full MTU packets). So this specific device (an APU2 I believe) will do 1Gbps if NAT and modest firewalling is all that is required.
Other AMD quad-cores will have different performance profiles, i.e. a ryzen3 will probably be better suited.
The product is an APU4C4. What do you think: Celeron or i5? I want only managing bidirectional 1 Gbit/s.
Maybe this one for you, though it seems lacking a SFP cage
[1] https://www.fanlesstech.com/2020/01/exclusive-tiger-lake-nuc.html
Support for SFP for home use with various ISPs is now pure utopia for me, so it is no longer on the list of my interests. The product you have indicated to me seems very good, but perhaps it is excessive. In the end I don't use VPN (luckily) and I just want speed and DNSSEC active (but it shouldn't be a problem for speed).
I use a J1900 based motherboard, and I shape my gigabit fiber down to about 700Mbps in order to avoid saturating it with interrupts (I somewhat overload the box with addl services). I have been running it for about 4 years and am likely to want an upgrade soonish. The devices that make the most sense are Celeron j4105 or maybe 3xxx series. I plan to stick with quad core.
1 Like
Is OpenWrt Linux fake or something like that?
What's wrong with the Ethernet? To be honest I've just replaced unmanaged Linksys switch with r7800 and can see great improvement and no issues whatsoever.
Understand although in real life application I am getting up to 700 Mbps actual data throughput:
CIFS server-Ethernet-R7800 router-Ethernet-R7800 access point-5G WiFi-client
To me that's wire speed or very close to it.
Sure. It's acceptable for most people.
It is. I would not call it a Linux distribution just like Android isn't one. It's based on Linux.
Ok, even Android has it's place in the Linux Timeline:
LinuxTimeline | Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg
And Openwrt has it's own single branch as well.
What I think is missing for a distribution is the distribution installer. I learned I can update some of the packages but never keep the OpenWRT installation updated like a rolling release. I need to re-install an updated OpenWRT image while loosing all my configuration. My Linux server I can keep updated over years or decades. Just my opinion, maybe it's a real Linux 
No packages can be updated for a matter of storage space. But you can install the update image without losing the configuration with syupgrade (without putting -n) or in LuCI, from 19.07.
1 Like
I use a Meraki MX60 and a MX60W and both have 1GB of NAND flash on them I should try and do a full upgrade on the next release to see if it actually does anything.
I would consider the Openwrt as an Embedded Distribution as it has everything I would expect to see from a standard linux distro with the exception of an installer (Mostly because the hardware it targets does not do traditional boots).
It's a real Linux kernel with authentic open source packages that just happen to be built for embedded hardware.
OpenWrt is adapted for devices with little space. Only some have a lot of space and have to think for most.
Entirely understood, I'm simply stating that I wanted to use a device with large flash to test an upgrade. I assume it works because there wouldn't be an upgrade button if it never worked anywhere 
1 Like
I've repeated the test using iperf3 that time and here are the results (R7800 to R7800):
Connecting to host 192.168.1.1, port 5201
[ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46060 connected to 192.168.1.1 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 101 MBytes 844 Mbits/sec 0 491 KBytes
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 109 MBytes 916 Mbits/sec 0 638 KBytes
[ 5] 2.00-3.02 sec 106 MBytes 876 Mbits/sec 0 638 KBytes
[ 5] 3.02-4.02 sec 91.2 MBytes 765 Mbits/sec 0 669 KBytes
[ 5] 4.02-5.01 sec 111 MBytes 934 Mbits/sec 0 929 KBytes
[ 5] 5.01-6.01 sec 90.0 MBytes 756 Mbits/sec 0 1024 KBytes
[ 5] 6.01-7.00 sec 106 MBytes 901 Mbits/sec 0 1024 KBytes
[ 5] 7.00-8.01 sec 109 MBytes 906 Mbits/sec 0 1024 KBytes
[ 5] 8.01-9.01 sec 101 MBytes 849 Mbits/sec 0 1024 KBytes
[ 5] 9.01-10.01 sec 80.0 MBytes 674 Mbits/sec 0 1024 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr
[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 1004 MBytes 842 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 1004 MBytes 840 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.
To me that looks very good and should be considered full wire speed.
At one point there were real problems with unstable latency [SOLVED] Router (Netgear R7800) introduced latency spikes >100ms
I'm not sure if fixes landed in OpenWrt or what
The issue (or something similar) is still there although to me looks like it is Windows and not R7800 related. Since some time I am seeing network performance degradation with more than the half of Win10 machines. The same are producing strange ping test results. But other machines even Win10 are working perfectly fine.
See here:
What's funny though Skype calling works perfect while ping suggests huge jitter that should affect voice.