Buffalo WHR-G54S vs WHR-HP-G54S

Post new topic   Reply to topic    DD-WRT Forum Forum Index -> Broadcom SoC based Hardware
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:06    Post subject: Buffalo WHR-G54S vs WHR-HP-G54S Reply with quote
I was recently in the market for a new wireless router and decided to purchase a WHR-HP-G54S. After setting up DD-WRT on the router I decided to purchase a WHR-G54S based on the posts that I saw from others in this forum, but I could not find a objective comparison between the two routers.

So after purchasing both routers I decided to compare the distance with the stock antenna and output power set to 84mw in DD-WRT. The WHR-HP-G54S was also set with boardflags=0x2758 in nvram as the installation Wiki recommended.

Here is a picture of the wireless status page of the WHR-G54S with my laptop and desktop computer 50 feet away from the router with a brick fireplace separating my equipment from the router. During this test I generated traffic through 32 byte ping requests from both systems.


Here is the wireless status page of the WHR-HP-G54S with my laptop, desktop, and router and the same locations as the previous test.


As you can see the wireless status page shows a significantly better quality signal on the WHR-HP-G54S. Next I decided to take my laptop with an integrated Intel 2200bg adapter and go as far outside of my house as I could with the router located in the same location as before. With the WHR-G54S I was able to reach 500 feet away from the AP before the signal was unusable. Next I tested the WHR-HP-G54S and I was able to reach well over 1000 feet with a much faster overall connection at the same distances covered by the WHR-G54S. Here is a picture of the wireless status page of the WHR-HP-G54S at 1000 feet. As you can see I still have a very good signal. The laptop is the MAC that ends in 4F.


So it appears that the WHR-HP-G54S does indeed do a better job of providing a "high power" signal. I discovered a recient post that indicated that the WHR-HP-G54S includes an amplifier and after reading the specifications on the AMP discovered that the amplifier has a limit on the input signal strengh to 10mw so I was overpowering the AMP with a 82mw signal in my original tests. Here is the wireless status page in my original test with the broadcom output set to 10mw. As you can see the signal quality is slightly better with a 10mw signal.


If you would like to follow a similar thread on this issue go here:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1355
Sponsor
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 14:08    Post subject: Reply with quote
One additional note is that with the WHR-HP-G54S if I attempted to locate it right next to my Motorola 4200 cable modem I would encounter Internet communication issues. With both of them located within 4 inches of each other the cable modem would drop packets on the coaxial side of the interface. Separating the cable modem from the router resolved the issue. Just something to watch for.

Most likely this is a result of the high output power of the amplifier on the WHR-HP-G54S. It's more likely to cause interference issues with electronic equipment.
jac1d
DD-WRT User


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 19:49    Post subject: Reply with quote
While it appears there is a clear winner in terms of range, it is my understanding the HP unit lacks some of the cooling features of the vanilla G54S unit and as such BS recommends the more basic unit. Is this still the case?

If not, that range difference is considerable and I'll pick up an HP to test with as well.

-Jeff
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 21:48    Post subject: Reply with quote
Based on the design of the unit I'm not sure that the additional cooling is needed. By design the output from the Broadcom radio chip is < 10mw and the rest of the signal amplification over 10mw is performed by a separate signal amplifier. This makes stress on the Broadcom chips much less overall. I simply think that the HP unit was built on a different reference design from the non-HP unit and doesn't need any additional cooling by design. That's just my take on it anyway. You're always welcome to add a heatsink to your CPU chip if you would like and it makes you feel better, but I don't think one is required.

My previous comments in this thread about staying below 10mw on the DD-WRT signal settings really weren't necessary. DD-WRT operates on a much higher level so the power setting in DD-WRT is simply intrepreted by the Broadcom wireless driver and it behaves appropriately based on the underlying chipset and board config. You are safe going beyond 10mw but I haven't done extensive testing on what output setting is "optimal" on the HP. 28mw seems to work well enough for me. Others have reported operating well beyond this range.


Last edited by wpinegar on Mon Jul 31, 2006 0:40; edited 1 time in total
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 21:55    Post subject: Reply with quote
On a similar topic I decided to go back with the standard factory NVRAM boardflags setting. I get the same distance and speed with either boardflags setting and the only difference appears to be an increase in the receive sensitivity with boardflags=0x2758. Right now I'm running with boardflags=0x1758 and 28mw output. Wireless coverage is excellent.

Last edited by wpinegar on Sun Jul 30, 2006 23:11; edited 1 time in total
jac1d
DD-WRT User


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 22:15    Post subject: Reply with quote
Would you be able to tell me if the physical board size is the same for these two units? I realize your cases are on, and there may be differences "under the hood" but that would give me a rough idea.

In my application, range, both rx and tx is highly relevant, especially since they will be mounted aerially outside and should ideally penetrate buildings, so I'm most curious.

Thanks!

-Jeff
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 23:05    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would have to say that both units would measure the same since the cases are exactly the same size. You're looking at 5" x 5" as the board side with ~1" width. Here are pictures of the inside of the units that I managed to get from the old DD-WRT message board. Click on the URL's for a close-up look at the board. For maximum distance the HP really does a good job.

WHR-HP-G54

http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whrhpg544hf.jpg

WHR-G54S

http://img122.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whrg54s8oy.jpg
jac1d
DD-WRT User


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 0:19    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, sir.

I'll grab one of the HP units for testing as well.

-Jeff
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 0:41    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let me know what you discover. It would be nice to read another opinion on a head-to-head comparison between the two units.
jac1d
DD-WRT User


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 117

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 0:59    Post subject: Reply with quote
I should mention the units will be tested in quite a different enviornment.

Ultimately, assuming I can overcome any radio interference issues (the unit will be in a weater tight enclosure with a cable modem, both cases removed), and hanging about 20' in the air from a utility pole. It will also have a high gain omni antenna.

I'll let you know if we can get it working alongside a sister unit with the regular G54S.

-Jeff
wpinegar
DD-WRT User


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:08    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice, sounds like a good test. By the way, my previous post about the HP unit causing interference with my cable modem was not a valid comment. This issue ended up being user error. I setup QoS incorrectly during a brief period of testing and didn't realize that this was the reason for my poor performance when I switched back to my HP unit. When I cleared my NVRAM and separated my router from my cable modem all was well. Keeping the two units close together should not be an issue for you.
Nemo
DD-WRT Novice


Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 15
Location: Madison, Wi.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:35    Post subject: Reply with quote
wpinegar wrote:
Nice, sounds like a good test. By the way, my previous post about the HP unit causing interference with my cable modem was not a valid comment. This issue ended up being user error. I setup QoS incorrectly during a brief period of testing and didn't realize that this was the reason for my poor performance when I switched back to my HP unit. When I cleared my NVRAM and separated my router from my cable modem all was well. Keeping the two units close together should not be an issue for you.


I have my Buffalo HP router right next to my Motorola cable modem and have never
had any problems I could trace to the proximity.

http://webpages.charter.net/nemo288/Network1-2006A.jpg


---
Nemo
argonaught
DD-WRT Novice


Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Reading, U.K.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 18:02    Post subject: WHR-HP-G54-1 Reply with quote
Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a newbie question, but will the hardware revision with -1 (WHR-HP-G54-1) work with DD-WRT?
I'm looking to purchase it from http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/MFR/ShopDetail.asp?ProductID=2324
Any help would be much appreciated!

Argonaught
Nemo
DD-WRT Novice


Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 15
Location: Madison, Wi.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 20:40    Post subject: Re: WHR-HP-G54-1 Reply with quote
[quote="argonaught"]Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a newbie question, but will the hardware revision with -1 (WHR-HP-G54-1) work with DD-WRT?
I'm looking to purchase it from http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Shop/MFR/ShopDetail.asp?ProductID=2324
Any help would be much appreciated!

Argonaught[/quote]

I don't see why not. I don't see any reference to that designation at their (Buffalo's)
website. It may be a European version that has the radio preset to your
frequencies (which are a little different than ours here in the US).

The more I look at the websites the more I think it is the European version.
The product numbers are slightly different as are the available firmwares.

Go ahead and get it. Its a nice router.


---
Nemo
argonaught
DD-WRT Novice


Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Reading, U.K.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 22:40    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Nemo - I've ordered one and look forward to getting DD-WRT straight on it!
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next Display posts from previous:    Page 1 of 7
Post new topic   Reply to topic    DD-WRT Forum Forum Index -> Broadcom SoC based Hardware All times are GMT

Navigation

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum