Most reliable, best supported router for OpenWrt?

For me anything not in stable release version won't be counted as "official support".
Anything can happen before they finally coming into release, if I remember correctly the IPQ807x target was introduced quite long time ago however it was dropped, later probably issue fixed then it came back and now getting support again.

Do you have git reffrence of this happening?
As for officiall support as long as it's in git it's officially supported

But device ASUS TUF-AX4200 has been in the stable branch for a long time:

Both devices TUF-AX4200 and TUF-AX6000 are as maximum identical.

And both devices have errors in the repository that no one pays attention to:

1 Like

Looks like this bug limits the maximum image size to 16 MiB. Kinda bad but not something that breaks the default image. Did you post the patch or do you want me to do it?

First of all thank you all for your fast replies.

As remittor mentioned already it's indeed part of snapshot. Despite that, the TUF AX4200 is already in the stable branch, uses a completely similar platform and therefore the firmware for router TUF AX6000 can be considered stable as well. I think it will be part of the official OpenWrt 24.x release.
Read this thread.

MT7986A is WLAN, this thread mainly focuses on performance on LAN/WAN ports. Apart from the errors that remittor mentioned above, I think we can say this device runs stable. Not sure about the performance difference between NanoPC-T6 vs TUF AX6000. In my case my router is before a busy server, so it's not only about speed but also about being able to handle the large amount of parallel TCP/UDP connections.

EDIT: for people who are interested in MT7988A chip (which is the ARM core chip not the WLAN chip) see: Banana Pi BPI-R4. Granted Banana Pi BPI-R4 looks also very promising (too bad I just noticed that it only has 1GbE on WAN port).

I would like to see benchmarks tests between the Asus TUF AX6000 vs NanoPC-T6 vs Banana Pi BPI-R4 with various loads all using OpenWrt.

EDIT: EDIT: Says "Not supported"!? That is not good..

That might soon (fingers crossed) change

While that is technically correct, it doesn't really apply either.

Yes, blogic originally did introduce a development target for ipq807x - but this target was never built, nor did it support any actual device at all (maybe just enough to boot the Qualcomm evaluation board HK01, maybe…). This was indeed dropped again, as it didn't support any device and wasn't moving anywhere - while it was causing quite some pointless rebasing work for the actual development then taken up elsewhere.

Ansuel and robimarko then did the heavy lifting of getting ipq807x actually functional, including half a dozen of supported devices (and meanwhile this list has grown), and merged (both mainline and for OpenWrt).

A no point was device support dropped, not even temporarily, for the simple reason because the initial ipq807x target didn't support any.

1 Like

If your primary interest is ethernet performance but not WiFi, then the best should be x86 based one. Also NanoPC-T6 RK3588 is a lot faster than the TUF AX6000.

BPi R4 has the following ports, I do not see anywhere saying it has only 1G WAN:

  • 2x 10Gbe SFP slot (option 1x 10Gbe SFP and 1x SOC embedded 2.5Gbe PHY. NOTE: Need to modify hardware)
  • 4x Gbe network port

This platform is too'll have to wait, but Mediatek seems to work with the community actively so I think it should be coming.

Also NanoPC-T6 RK3588 is a lot faster than the TUF AX6000.

Are there any benchmarks I can watch and see?

I do not see anywhere saying it has only 1G WAN
4x Gbe network port

So that is one of those GbE ports can be used for WAN. Hence 1G wan.

Don't know why you insist to see the numbers when there is a big difference in CPU family.

But you can check out this post to find the MT7986 RSA speed, and go into the table to find the RK3399, you'll see RK3399 is already a lot faster than MT7986 (single core), and RK3588 is a more advanced one with even more core when compared with RK3399.

You can define which port to be used with WAN, there are 2 x 10G SFP+ ports, so you can have 10G WAN no problem.

1 Like