Low Power Wireless Routers? (Are there any left?)

[nForce2]

I've been looking to upgrade from my Linksys WRT54Gv8 to something a little faster, but in researching potential replacements, I was rather surprised to see how much electrical power the average "modern" wifi router uses.

For example, a table from a review for the Linksys WRT1900AC:
http://www.legitreviews.com/linksys-wrt1900ac-dual-band-wifi-router-review_146957/5

For comparison, my WRT54Gv8 measures at one single watt on my Kill-A-Watt meter, and the little power supply is rated at just six watts. The WRT1900AC apparently hits 18 watts under load and comes with a 48 watt power supply!


Searching for "low power routers" has proven difficult... as almost every result is about antennas, range, or some other aspect of transmit/receive "power". :|
And aside from Legit Reviews (Thanks!), at-the-wall power consumption doesn't seem to be something that review sites care about, unless the power adapter is especially large or the router produces unusual amounts of heat. :|


So that being said, does anyone know of any modern (or even previous-generation) wireless routers that are down in the low single-digits for power consumption?

 

[Elixer]

What exactly does "looking to upgrade from my Linksys WRT54Gv8 to something a little faster" actually mean ?
Are you looking for a router that can handle 1gbps + wireless b/g/n/ac or, just wired, or what, and how fast ?

If this is really a issue, you can turn off the router when not in use, but, that is really a PITA. You could also downclock the CPU, if they are able to be flashed to a 3rd party firmware that offers that.

 

[nForce2]

Good questions.

I'm almost done migrating all of my devices to wireless, so very soon here (next few weeks) I should be fine without any wired ports aside from the WAN. My printer is wireless, and I have the NAS aspect covered with another machine, so I won't need USB, eSATA, etc.

The WRT54Gv8 had generally met my needs in the past, but I'm now doing more file transfers between devices, pushing HD streams and audio around, transferring off-site backups, etc, etc, and it is obvious that it can't keep up.

I have two devices stuck on 802.11g, and everything else is split between 'n' and 'ac' support. I'm sure 'n' would be fine, but if a faster 'ac' router was available which fit the criteria, I would rather buy the better product now and keep it longer, and take advantage of the extra speed with the devices that support it. I don't "need" gigabit speeds, but for things like the file transfers within the LAN side, obviously the faster the better.

Powering the router off when not in use isn't an option... too many things that update/sync/etc and need the link availability during the off-hours.

Thanks!

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Your WRT54G doesnt have to power both a 2.4ghz and a 5ghz radio. It doesnt offer 1gb connection speeds or many other modern capabilities, sure its going to be a bit more. But honestly if you are thinking a single 10w device is going to matter much on your electric bill you are going to be in for a surprise.

That 10w device is going to take 100hours to reach even a single kwh of usage and most places have the cost of power around 10 cents or so.

 

[nForce2]

Your WRT54G doesnt have to power both a 2.4ghz and a 5ghz radio. It doesnt offer 1gb connection speeds or many other modern capabilities, sure its going to be a bit more.

It also stands to benefit from 7-8 years of chip fab process improvements, so the potential is there that some of the components (processor and memory in particular) could use significantly less power on a new router, even for comparatively greater capabilities. :thumbsup:

But honestly if you are thinking a single 10w device is going to matter much on your electric bill you are going to be in for a surprise.

That 10w device is going to take 100hours to reach even a single kwh of usage and most places have the cost of power around 10 cents or so.

Nope, no surprise. I've spent the last year going through my devices, and I've already cut more than 200W of 24/7 always-on power usage. :thumbsup:
It all adds up. Electricity in my area is $0.15+/kWh, so I'm set to save hundreds each year. :thumbsup:

 

[RadiclDreamer]

It also stands to benefit from 7-8 years of chip fab process improvements, so the potential is there that some of the components (processor and memory in particular) could use significantly less power on a new router, even for comparatively greater capabilities. :thumbsup:



Nope, no surprise. I've spent the last year going through my devices, and I've already cut more than 200W of 24/7 always-on power usage. :thumbsup:
It all adds up. Electricity in my area is $0.15+/kWh, so I'm set to save hundreds each year. :thumbsup:

Absolutely certain that there will be improvements on the processing and memory sides of the router, but the bulk of the power I would guess comes from the wireless radio, which you are doubling the number of as well as adding additional spatial streams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_multiplexing) which cannot be lowered in power unless you want to sacrifice distance/performance.

 

[azazel1024]

TP-Link WDR3600. My kill-a-watt reads 3.6w with nothing else plugged in, 4.5w with WAN and one LAN port plugged in. Both with the wireless radios turned on. It supports OpenWRT and the stock firmware is decent, if you don't need the extra options of OpenWRT. Very good speed and range. Only N600 though.

 

[nForce2]

An update:

I've made the transition to a "Gl.iNet 6416B" router. It's usually classified as a "travel router" because of its size, but even in the basement of our two story house with just its single small internal antenna, it has been working well for us. :thumbsup:

802.11bgn (2.4ghz only). 16MB flash and 64MB RAM means it works great with OpenWRT (with room for extra packages), and it was only $28 shipped from Amazon.

The best part? It's 5V USB powered, and my portapow v2 measured its power usage at ~0.6 to ~0.85 watts when running with multiple devices connected. So low-power wifi routers *do* still exist. :thumbsup:


http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/gl-inet/gl-inet
http://www.gl-inet.com

 

[inachu]

An update:

I've made the transition to a "Gl.iNet 6416B" router. It's usually classified as a "travel router" because of its size, but even in the basement of our two story house with just its single small internal antenna, it has been working well for us. :thumbsup:

802.11bgn (2.4ghz only). 16MB flash and 64MB RAM means it works great with OpenWRT (with room for extra packages), and it was only $28 shipped from Amazon.

The best part? It's 5V USB powered, and my portapow v2 measured its power usage at ~0.6 to ~0.85 watts when running with multiple devices connected. So low-power wifi routers *do* still exist. :thumbsup:


http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/gl-inet/gl-inet
http://www.gl-inet.com

Do not expect to be able to handle heavy video streaming from that wifi device or heavy gaming.

 

[Mushkins]

Yeah, I wouldn't really consider that thing an upgrade...

Travel routers are also not designed for 24/7 use. A $28 travel router sounds like a recipe for connectivity problems, low throughput, and a brick after six months of continuous use.

The OP's "saving money" calculations are also not taking into consideration the upfront cost of the device. Odds are the extra $2-3 a year to run a proper modern router isn't going to level out into actualized savings until well past the device's lifespan. Even if we call it $10 a year in electricity savings, it would take eight years to break even on an $80 router.

 

[inachu]

In the long term low power wifi is better so you do not get cross talk between two WIFI devices that might be using the SSID name. IF you have your setup that way and if you do get many disconnects while walking using your device then usually means you need lower power settings.

 

[nForce2]

Do not expect to be able to handle heavy video streaming from that wifi device or heavy gaming.

Explain your reasoning?

This new router has already proven that it can hold up to the usual internet streaming (Netflix, etc.) as well as streaming content between MythTV boxes on the local wireless network. It's able to handle everything the WRT54Gv8 could, and more. (For example, with OpenWRT+Privoxy, it's currently doing whole-house ad blocking.)

Yeah, I wouldn't really consider that thing an upgrade...

Travel routers are also not designed for 24/7 use. A $28 travel router sounds like a recipe for connectivity problems, low throughput, and a brick after six months of continuous use.

The OP's "saving money" calculations are also not taking into consideration the upfront cost of the device. Odds are the extra $2-3 a year to run a proper modern router isn't going to level out into actualized savings until well past the device's lifespan. Even if we call it $10 a year in electricity savings, it would take eight years to break even on an $80 router.

This one is in fact directly marketed for "7x24" use, and by default includes background apps for NAS, direct internet downloading, surveillance, etc. It uses the AR9331 SoC, which is used in quite a number of "full-size"/traditional routers and wireless devices. What makes you think it's going to be so unreliable?


Not sure where you're going with the saving money / 8 years / $80 router bit? (I'm not disagreeing with you, just not following your point? )

My original goal was to upgrade my router (which wasn't able to handle the loads) without also taking a 10-25x power usage increase penalty in the process. I knew I would have to spend some $$ up front, and I wasn't ever intending for the new router to save me money over my current router or pay back its cost, because I was starting with an extremely low power device to begin with. :thumbsup:



Thanks for the replies. :thumbsup:

 

[PliotronX]

That seems pretty funny that some would argue against your real world experience. Definitely thumbs up for running OpenWRT, that right there cures most problems. I was about to suggest a Tp-Link as their older N router I had was a champ and never really got the housing warm and with Gargoyle was pretty damn efficient.

edit- not quite travel router power range but better than most:

 

[JackMDS]

An update:

I've made the transition to a "Gl.iNet 6416B" router. It's usually classified as a "travel router" because of its size, but even in the basement of our two story house with just its single small internal antenna, it has been working well for us. :thumbsup:

802.11bgn (2.4ghz only). 16MB flash and 64MB RAM means it works great with OpenWRT (with room for extra packages), and it was only $28 shipped from Amazon.

OP can you link to where in Amzon you got this Gizmo?

 

[RossMAN]

Not sure if this is the same router?

http://www.cnx-software.com/2014/08...penwrt-router-with-easy-uart-and-gpio-access/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JKFE0FW/

 

[inachu]

My reasoning is because small devices historically had issue with properly dissipating heat properly and over heat and reduces product life by half or more.

If it is just you using it then quite possibly it will do fine but if multiple streams then expect to see streaming issues within 6 months or so.

 

[azazel1024]

My TP-Link WDR3600 N600 router pulls a hair over 4w with both WAN and one LAN port connected to gigabit sources. About 3.5w as only an access point with no WAN port connected.

My TP-Link Archer C8 pulls 7.5w as a router with WAN port and one LAN port connected to gigabit sources.

TP-Link in general tends to produce relatively low power designs.

 

[nForce2]

OP can you link to where in Amzon you got this Gizmo?

Not sure if this is the same router?

http://www.cnx-software.com/2014/08...penwrt-router-with-easy-uart-and-gpio-access/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JKFE0FW/

Yep, that's the one I bought and that's the amazon link. :thumbsup:

There are apparently several model numbers, the 6408[a] with 8MiB flash and the 6416[a,b] with 16MiB flash (the one to get). I believe the 'b' designates the models which are individually calibrated, but that's just a hunch.

There is also a variant that has a factory-installed external antenna. They were out of stock when I ordered mine, but they appear to be back in stock now.
http://www.gl-inet.com/w/?p=553
http://www.amazon.com/Gl-inet-Smart-Router-External-Antenna/dp/B00RP24DW2/

 

[nForce2]

My reasoning is because small devices historically had issue with properly dissipating heat properly and over heat and reduces product life by half or more.

If it is just you using it then quite possibly it will do fine but if multiple streams then expect to see streaming issues within 6 months or so.

That makes sense. I think the good news is that this box is so incredibly low power, that it doesn't make that much heat that needs to be dissipated. And if you were still concerned, it would be a piece of cake to pop open the case (http://www.gl-inet.com/docs/smartrouter/?diy_hardware.html) and drill some holes in the enclosure for ventilation and/or to add an adhesive heatsink to the SoC. :thumbsup:


If I wanted to measure the temperature under a prolonged extreme load like you're describing, do you by chance know how I might "stress test" this little router? (Is there any software out there that is designed to do that?) I have a feeling that my typical network traffic isn't as high of a load as your example situation. :hmm:

 

[azazel1024]

That makes sense. I think the good news is that this box is so incredibly low power, that it doesn't make that much heat that needs to be dissipated. And if you were still concerned, it would be a piece of cake to pop open the case (http://www.gl-inet.com/docs/smartrouter/?diy_hardware.html) and drill some holes in the enclosure for ventilation and/or to add an adhesive heatsink to the SoC. :thumbsup:


If I wanted to measure the temperature under a prolonged extreme load like you're describing, do you by chance know how I might "stress test" this little router? (Is there any software out there that is designed to do that?) I have a feeling that my typical network traffic isn't as high of a load as your example situation. :hmm:

If you want to put it under the highest possible stress, do three things.

1) Read/Write a large block of data to attached storage on the router
2) Run a continuous IP transfer rate test from two computers, on of them wirelessly
3) Run a maximum rate (for your internet connection) download and simultanous upload to another computer(s) on your network.

That'll pretty much max out all the relevant bits of the router. It'll max the radios (bonus points if you are doing the test on both bands at once) and it'll max the CPU.

I'd imagine it would reach steady state heat soak within 3-10 minutes depending on if the SoC has a heat sink or not (faster if the answer is no).