Performance question: Archer C2600, Netgear EX6150v2 or Linksys EA8300?


I wonder which of these routers (TP-Link Archer C2600, 2x Netgear EX6150v2 and Linksys EA8300) have the most performance to be my main router. I bought these devices according to the ToH in the wiki:

C2600 ==> Qualcomm IPQ8064 (1.4 GHz, 2 cores), 512MB RAM
Linksys ==> Qualcomm IPQ4019 (717 MHz, 4 cores), 256MB RAM
Netgear ==> Qualcomm IPQ4018 (717 MHz, 4 cores), 256MB RAM

I chose all devices because I could get it for small money and according to my little knowledge the hardware base should be decent on all devices. My plan is to use C2600 as my main router just looking at the specs. The remaining devices I want to use as APs in my building to get good coverage of the wifi signal.
But now I see this table ( and wonder if I should switch to a different router for my main router. But I can't rate the benchmarks because I see very old devices (Netgear WNDR3800) with better numbers. :slight_smile: Last and not least I have some older routers (Netgear WNDR3800 and TP-Link WDR4300 V1.1) which are capable of running OpenWRT but I haven't even considered because of their age!

What's your suggestions?

it all comes down to budget VS requirements.... you have not yet told us all the things you require your main router to do..... knowing this..... we can better advice on realistic budget / devices..... then there is availability.....

Sorry, I should write I already got them. :wink:

I just have a VDSL2-connection (100/40) with ~90MBit/s downlink and 41MBit/s uplink. The router just have to handle little bandwidth to WAN site.
As a core switch I'm using a TP-Link T1600G-52TS managed switch where I have all network devices attached.
So I just need a decent firewall, router which handles the VDSL2 pppoe connection, decent wifi (good range is more important than high speeds) and a stable operation. VLAN tagging and IGMPv3 is a must. Low power consumption would be nice.

I'm coming from a stock TP-Link VR600V (all in one device). But in the last time I had strange behavior with my VoIP and internet connections. And because of bad WiFi and DECT coverage I should switch to more devices to get WiFi in every floor (3 floors in total). Next year I have to place an AP in the garden to get there also good WiFi.

Can you run the benchmark yourself to compare the devices you already have with a current openwrt release ?

The IPQ40xx devices have some "challenges" with multiple VLANs across the swiitch, so at least until one of us gets that straightened out, I'd use a different SoC for your main router.

Any of those should handle 100 Mbps without issue.

1 Like

I read that in a different topic. I will definitly try it when I flashed the Netgear and Linksys devices. Btw. you are the reason why I bought the EA8300 (got it used for 60€). :slight_smile: Thank you! I will try to install the latest snapshot on the device.

1 Like

Sure I could do it. I have to tweak my main router before I can put my hands on the other devices. :slight_smile: But I can't rate the results of the benchmarks but I can add it to the wiki.

1 Like

The archer c2600 will handle 100/40 MBit/s easily (and does support VLANs), with quite some performance left to use on other services. If you're looking for something to buy, I'd usually suggest to go with ipq8065 (r7800/ nbg6817) instead of ipq8064 in the archer c2600 (faster, newer wlan chipset, non-crippled serial console), but if the c2600 comes for the right price, there's little reason not to take it. Your two ipq40xx options would be able to cope with these speeds without any issues as well (VLAN is another question there).

1 Like

Those dual band n routers would be OK as APs. An AP doesn't need a lot of CPU. Unless you have very heavy wifi usage and many of the clients are ac capable it isn't going to be a big difference with new APs.

1 Like

Unfortunately I can't get the R7800 for a decent price. I was able to get the C2600 refurbished for 55€. So I will stick with the C2600 as my primary router.

So in case of NAT performance the IPQ80xx should be faster than the IPQ40xx?

Yes, although ipq40xx isn't bad either.

1 Like